Allahabad High Court Commutes Death Penalty Of Woman Convicted For Killing NRI Husband, Confirms Life Term To Accomplice

While a bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Madan Pal Singh agreed with the trial court that the accused had committed a heinous offence, it noted that it was not a rarest of rare case that may commend award of capital punishment.

The division bench also cautioned against some aspects of the trial-court reasoning that had been relied upon to justify the death sentence.

The bench noted that the other factors considered by the trial court to award capital punishment were 'imagined' and such as may "never commend to legal reasoning".

It added that references to material outside measured judicial reasoning, including what the Court characterized as mythological or imaginative observations, had the potential to suggest bias and were inappropriate when weighing the rarest-of-the-rare standard required for imposing death.

"Though, learned court below may not have intended to cause such effect, by adopting that reasoning, it may have inadvertently made observations that appear to be indicative of bias. Delivery of justice has to be cold and reasoned. No element of emotion or imagination or prejudice may ever be permitted to permeate through the thought process of judicial decision making", the bench remarked.

In that light the High Court declined to confirm the death sentence and commuted the same.

The case in brief

Sukhjeet (deceased) was working as a driver in England and he got married to Ramandeep (accused no. 1), a resident of Derby, in 2005. Gurpreet (accused no. 2), a native of Punjab and also an NRI, was an old friend of the deceased, and he was also doing a job in England.

According to the prosecution's case, in August 2016, Sukhjeet (deceased), his wife (Ramandeep Kaur/accused no. 1) and two sons visited his native place in Shahjahanpur. Gurpreet (accused no. 2) also came along.

Now, on the morning of September 2, 2016, the dead body of Sukhjeet was found lying in a pool of blood on the first floor of his house where he had slept with his family. A complaint was lodged by Vansh Kaur (mother of the deceased) against unidentified persons on the murder charge.

During the trial, the testimony of 9-year-old son of the deceased proved to be crucial who categorically stated that he had seen his mother Ramandeep Kaur was sitting over his father, pressing a pillow on his face.

He also stated that the accused no. 2 (Gurupreet Singh) hit his father with a hammer twice and further, he heard his mother tell Gurupreet Singh that the victim was alive and that he be finished and after that, Gurupreet Singh pulled out a knife and slashed the throat of the deceased.

Heavily relying on the testimony of the son of the deceased as well as other testimonies and taking into account the facts, circumstances and evidence adduced in the case, the trial found both the appellants guilty and awarded capital punishment to the accused no. 1 (wife) and life sentence to the accused no. 2.

High Court's order

In the appeal by the convicts, the High Court too, extensively referred to the testimony of the child witness (son of the appellant no. 1 and the deceased) and found his statements to be consistent with the medical evidence of two head injuries and one neck injury.

The bench also rejected the suggestion that he had been tutored by his aunt, as the bench observed thus:

"The Court may not lose sight of the fact that the child 'A' (P.W.-5) who had wholly natural relationship with his mother Ramandeep Kaur, would have a natural emotional connect with her. In the context of a normal relationship enjoyed between him and his mother Ramandeep Kaur, it would be presumptuous to accept that he would have made a false statement to the Court to indict his mother because he was tutored by his paternal aunt".

The Court recorded in clear terms that the presence of the appellant Ramandeep Kaur at the time and place of occurrence was not doubtful. The judgment also noted that since the two sons were minor, she alone could have granted access to an intruder that led to the occurrence.

Turning to the evidence against accused no. 2 (Gurupreet Singh), the Court relied on a chain of corroboration that included hotel records and telephone records.

The Court further accepted the testimony of neighbor Gurumej Singh (P.W.-7), who placed the two accused on the terrace of deceased house around midnight on the intervening night of occurrence.

The bench also referred to the testimony of Iqrar (P.W.-3), a taxi driver, who proved that Gurupreet Singh had made phone calls and spoke to a lady, while travelling with him and that he left him near the house of the deceased.

Later, his testimony was corroborated by electronic/technical evidence led by the prosecution as those phone calls were traced to the mobile phone paired to the mobile hand set recovered later, from the belongings of Ramandeep Kaur.

Against this backdrop, weighing the totality of evidence, the High Court rejected the defence hypothesis of false implication over property disputes.

It held that corroboration existed in the electronic and oral evidence led by the prosecution, and held that the murder of Sukhjeet Singh by his wife and a family friend had been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

"To conclude, we have no doubt that the accused Ramandeep Kaur and Gurupreet Singh alias Mitthu had committed the heinous offence of murder of Sukhjeet Singh", the Court recorded.

However, while describing the brutality of the occurrence and the breach of trust inherent in the facts, the bench found that the present is not a rarest of rare case that may commend award of capital punishment.