The Rajasthan High Court has commuted the death sentence awarded to two accused persons in a brutal axe murder case to imprisonment for life, holding that the case did not fall within the 'rarest of rare' category warranting capital punishment. The Division Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinita Kumar Mathur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma affirmed the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but modified the sentence after balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Background & Facts
The Genesis of the Dispute
The dispute arose from a long-standing land dispute within the family and a proposed Aata-Saata marriage of Rinku Kanwar, daughter of the deceased Indira Kanwar, with one of the accused-appellants, Pahad Singh. The accused-appellants, Pahad Singh and Dungar Singh, are residents of Modran, Police Station Ramsin, District Jalore, Rajasthan. Both are unmarried and belong to a rural agricultural family with limited formal education.
The Events of 03.03.2023
On 03.03.2023 at about 8:00 p.m., the complainant Narendra Singh and his brother Hari Singh were proceeding from their house to the residence of Pep Singh. Upon reaching near the house of Ratan Singh, they noticed the accused-appellants assaulting Smt. Indira Kanwar, wife of Ratan Singh, with axes inside the premises. When Hari Singh intervened, both accused rushed out and assaulted him with axes, causing fatal injuries. The complainant and others intervened, whereupon the accused chased them and also assaulted Jaswant Singh, son of deceased Smt. Indira Kanwar, with an axe. The police intervened and rescued the victims.
Procedural History
- 04.03.2023: FIR No. 36/2023 registered at Police Station Ramseen, Jalore for offences under Sections 341, 323, 307, 302/34 IPC.
- 09.12.2025: Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, District Jalore convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants to death for Section 302/34 IPC, life imprisonment for Section 307/34 IPC, and varying terms for other offences. A Death Reference (No. 03/2025) was submitted under Section 366 CrPC for confirmation of the death sentence.
- D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 40/2026 was filed by the accused-appellants challenging the conviction and sentence.
- 16.07.2026: Arguments concluded.
- 21.07.2026: Judgment pronounced.
The Parties' Positions
For the Accused-Appellants
Learned counsel argued that the trial court erred in:
- Relying on interested and related witnesses whose testimony was inconsistent and embellished.
- Ignoring material contradictions between the FIR and trial depositions.
- Failing to consider the defence of false implication due to a land dispute and the absence of any motive.
- Holding that the offence was premeditated, when it was the result of a sudden quarrel.
- Relying on allegedly fabricated recovery of weapons and flawed investigation.
- Erroneously applying the 'rarest of rare' doctrine to impose the death penalty.
For the State
Learned Additional Advocate General supported the conviction and sentence, submitting that:
- The ocular, medical, and forensic evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- The accused acted with common intention, brutally murdering two persons and attempting to murder others.
- The offence exhibited exceptional brutality and depravity, warranting the death penalty.
- The case fell within the 'rarest of rare' category as per Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the present case satisfied the stringent parameters of the 'rarest of rare' doctrine to warrant the imposition of the death penalty, or whether the sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment after balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Arguments Presented
For the Accused-Appellants
Learned counsel reiterated that the prosecution case was built on the testimony of interested witnesses, whose evidence was inconsistent and embellished. The defence argued that the accused were falsely implicated due to a land dispute and that the investigation was flawed, particularly the recovery of weapons. It was further submitted that the offence was not premeditated but arose from a sudden quarrel, and that the accused had no criminal antecedents.
For the Respondent/State
Learned Additional Advocate General contended that the ocular, medical, and forensic evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The State argued that the brutality of the offence, the murder of two persons, and the attack on multiple victims, including a child and a police officer, demonstrated exceptional depravity. The State relied on Bachan Singh, Machhi Singh, and Lehna v. State of Haryana to submit that the case fell within the 'rarest of rare' category.
The Court's Analysis
The Court meticulously re-appreciated the entire evidence, including the testimony of eyewitnesses, medical evidence, investigation records, and forensic reports. The Court held:
"The testimony of the principal eyewitnesses, namely Narendra Singh (PW-1), Rinku Kanwar (PW-10), Jaswant Singh (PW-11), Hansu Kanwar (PW-14), Surendra Singh (PW-16), Surendra Singh (PW-17) and Chandra mohan (PW-29), is natural, cogent and wholly reliable. Their presence at the place of occurrence is fully established and their evidence has remained consistent on all material particulars despite lengthy cross-examination."
The Court found that the accused-appellants acted with common intention, brutally assaulting Smt. Indira Kanwar and Hari Singh with axes, causing fatal injuries. The medical evidence corroborated the ocular account, establishing that the deceased suffered multiple chop injuries to the head and neck, sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The recovery of blood-stained axes at the instance of the accused-appellants, coupled with the FSL report confirming the presence of human blood on the recovered weapons, provided valuable scientific corroboration.
The Court rejected the defence of false implication, noting that no defence evidence was led and that the prosecution case was firmly established. The Court also rejected the defence of grave and sudden provocation, holding that the deceased's response to the marriage proposal was neither provocative nor capable of depriving a reasonable person of self-control.
On the question of sentence, the Court examined the principles laid down in Bachan Singh, Machhi Singh, and Lehna v. State of Haryana. The Court held:
"The sentence of death is an exception and imprisonment for life is the rule. Capital punishment can be awarded only where, after balancing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the Court reaches the conclusion that the alternative sentence of life imprisonment is unquestionably inadequate."
The Court acknowledged the brutality of the offence but held that the genesis of the incident, arising from a personal and domestic dispute, did not exhibit such exceptional features as to justify the irreversible punishment of death. The Court considered mitigating factors, including the absence of prior criminal antecedents, the accused's rural and economically modest background, limited education, and continuous judicial custody since 04.03.2023.
The Verdict
The Court partly allowed the appeal and rejected the death reference. The conviction of the accused-appellants under Sections 341, 323/34, 324/34, 325/34, 307/34, and 302/34 IPC was affirmed. The sentence of death for Section 302/34 IPC was commuted to imprisonment for life for the remainder of their natural lives. The sentences for the remaining offences remained unaltered. The Court directed the trial court to send the record back forthwith along with a copy of the judgment.
What This Means For Similar Cases
The 'Rarest of Rare' Doctrine Remains Narrow
- The judgment reaffirms that the death penalty is an exception, not the rule, and can only be imposed where the alternative of life imprisonment is unquestionably inadequate.
- Courts must balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances meticulously, considering both the brutality of the offence and the personal circumstances of the accused.
Ocular Evidence Must Be Corroborated
- The Court emphasized the importance of corroborating ocular evidence with medical, forensic, and documentary evidence.
- Minor discrepancies in witness testimony do not vitiate the prosecution case if the substratum remains intact.
Mitigating Factors Matter in Sentencing
- The judgment highlights the relevance of mitigating factors such as absence of prior criminal antecedents, socio-economic background, and continuous judicial custody.
- Courts are required to consider mitigation reports and other relevant factors while determining the appropriate sentence.
Common Intention Must Be Proven Beyond Reasonable Doubt
- The Court reiterated that common intention under Section 34 IPC must be established beyond reasonable doubt, and cannot be inferred from mere presence or association.
- The prosecution must prove that the accused shared a common intention to commit the offence.
Recovery and Forensic Evidence Are Critical
- The judgment underscores the importance of recovery of weapons and forensic evidence in corroborating the prosecution case.
- The chain of custody and integrity of seized articles must be meticulously maintained to avoid challenges to the evidence.
False Implication Defence Requires Strong Evidence
- The Court rejected the defence of false implication, holding that mere suggestions in cross-examination cannot displace the otherwise consistent and trustworthy prosecution evidence.
- The defence must lead cogent evidence to substantiate allegations of false implication.
Grave and Sudden Provocation Is Narrowly Construed
- The Court held that the defence of grave and sudden provocation is narrowly construed and requires proof of a grave and sudden act that deprives a reasonable person of self-control.
- The response must be proportionate to the provocation.
Pro Bono Legal Aid Is Appreciated
- The Court appreciated the pro bono services rendered by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants, highlighting the role of legal aid in ensuring access to justice.
