HC commutes death penalty in double murder case, cites ‘mitigating circumstances’

[related-post]

“Information of the background or antecedents of the criminal were neither called for nor placed by the prosecution,” noted the court.

Kushwaha had been arrested in 2007 for murdering the aunt and son of his employer. The prosecution had claimed that Kushwaha hid the bodies of the woman and the child in a wooden box and a suitcase respectively. Kushwaha had committed the murders as he had been caught stealing money and jewellery from his employer, according to the prosecution.

The high court, in its order commuting the death penalty, has noted that Kushwaha had been working as a domestic help since the age of 13 and had been taken “thousands of kilometers away” from his family. These were “mitigating circumstances”, stated the court.

Keeping in mind the brutality of the murders, the bench has said that Kushwaha would not be considered for remission unless he spent at least 25 years in jail. However, it also found several lapses in the procedure followed during sentencing.

The court also noted that “pre-sentencing report by a professionally trained probation officer is an extremely valuable tool for the court…the report of the probationary officer in the present case would show that valuable inputs including the personal history of the offender, his behavior and habits, family relations, physical and mental history, school and employment history are missing”.