Case Note & Summary
The case arises from an incident on 14th April 2017, when the accused, Deepak Birbahadur Jath, poured petrol on Amravati (deceased) and set her on fire, also causing burns to Kanta Eikka (PW7) and her two-year-old daughter Angel (deceased). Amravati and Angel died from burn injuries on 27th April 2017 and 22nd April 2017 respectively. The accused was convicted by the Sessions Court for offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and sentenced to death for the two murders, with a life sentence for the attempt to murder, all sentences to run consecutively. The High Court heard the confirmation case and the accused's appeal together. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses, including eyewitnesses PW1 (Roshni, daughter of Amravati) and PW7 (Kanta Eikka, injured), and relied on dying declarations and medical evidence. The accused in his Section 313 CrPC statement claimed he was provoked by being called 'Chhakka' and 'Hijda' and that he was mentally unstable. The High Court upheld the conviction, finding the evidence credible and the dying declaration reliable. However, considering the accused's mental instability (he was declared unfit for trial on 23rd October 2021) and the provocation, the court held that the case did not fall within the 'rarest of rare' category. The death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, and the life sentence under Section 307 IPC was upheld, with all sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Death Sentence Confirmation - Section 366 CrPC - Confirmation of Death Sentence - The High Court, in a reference under Section 366(1) CrPC, must independently assess the evidence and determine whether the case falls within the 'rarest of rare' category. Held that the death sentence was not warranted as the accused's mental instability and provocation reduced his culpability, commuting it to life imprisonment (Paras 1-3, 5). B) Criminal Law - Murder by Burning - Sections 302, 307 IPC - Conviction for Murder and Attempt to Murder - The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused poured petrol on the deceased and set them on fire, resulting in two deaths and injuries to another. The dying declaration and eyewitness testimony were credible and corroborated. Held that the conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC was correct (Paras 4, 6-10). C) Criminal Law - Mental Instability - Section 313 CrPC - Accused's Mental Condition - The accused was declared unfit for trial on 23rd October 2021 and later found fit. Medical records indicated mental instability. Held that this factor, along with provocation (being called 'Chhakka' and 'Hijda'), mitigated the offence, making it not the 'rarest of rare' (Paras 5, 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the death sentence awarded to the accused for the murder of two persons by burning is liable to be confirmed under Section 366 CrPC, and whether the conviction and sentence are sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court upheld the conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The life sentence under Section 307 IPC was also upheld. All sentences were directed to run concurrently instead of consecutively.
Law Points
- Death sentence commutation
- mental instability
- provocation
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 307 IPC
- Section 366 CrPC
- Section 368 CrPC
- dying declaration
- eyewitness testimony
- circumstantial evidence
