SC commutes death penalty of man convicted for murdering sister, her lover

The Supreme Court on Friday held the conviction but commuted the death sentence of a convict who was found guilty of murdering his married sister in 2017.
Although, his slain married sister was having an extra marital affair, and the convict also killed her sister’s lover. A bench of Justice BR Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol claimed that the convict was not a person with past criminal records or criminal mindset.
“Appellant-Digambar has been found to be well-behaved, helping and a person with leadership qualities. He is not a person with criminal mindset and criminal records,” the Court observed.
As a result, the Court upheld the conviction but commuted it to life in prison instead of death.

The Bombay High Court’s ruling from 2021, which upheld the appellant’s death sentence and the life sentence and life imprisonment imposed upon one Mohan, respectively, for conviction under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), was being challenged in court.
Pooja, the deceased got married in June, 2017. However, she had an affair for past five years. She left her husband’s house in 2017. Her brother who is the present appellant, suspected her of going with her lover. The appellant when found Pooja and her lover together, tried to convince them against the relationship. When the duo refused his advice, he attacked them both with sickle which resulted in their death.
The trial court found Digambar and Mohan guilty. Mohan received a life sentence in prison, while Digambar received the death penalty. The same was also confirmed by the High Court.
Digambar filed the current appeal with the Supreme Court out of resentment. The prosecution had proven, according to the top court, that the accused individuals and the deceased couple left together, and that the two of them passed away shortly after.
Regarding the constitutionality of the death sentence imposed by the trial court and upheld by the High Court, the top court held that the current case would not qualify as one of the “rarest of rare cases.”

In this regard, the Court observed that the appellant had no prior criminal history and was only 25 years old when the crime was committed.
It was also mentioned that Digambar was well-behaved, helpful, and a person with leadership qualities, and that his report from the probation officer demonstrated that he did not have a criminal mindset or a history of criminal activity.

The Court changed the death penalty to life in prison as a result. Regarding Mohan, the court upheld the sentence of life in prison.