“To kill is to be cruel and therefore, all murders are cruel and such cruelty may vary in its degree of culpability. The stabbing and murder of his school teacher by convict in the school, is surely abominable and despicable. It strikes at the very foundation of the sacred and time-honoured relationship between teacher and student, a bond accorded profound respect and sanctity under India’s longstanding cultural traditions and ethos,” the court said.
“However, it cannot be lost sight that the convict was in his adolescent years when he committed the abhorrent crime of murder of his school teacher. So, it would not be proper to attribute to him the mental faculties of a full grown adult brain,” it added.
The case concerned the killing of a teacher on duty inside a school. The prosecution sought the death penalty, arguing that the murder was committed in a pre-planned and calculated manner. It relied on allegations about the teenager’s conduct in custody and involvement in another murder case while on interim bail.
‘Showed no remorse’
Additional Public Prosecutor Kamal Akhter argued that the killing was an attack on the teacher-student relationship and warranted the maximum punishment. He submitted that the convict had shown no remorse and that, while on interim bail, he got involved in another murder case. He further referred to alleged prison-rule violations and assaults on inmates.
Opposing the death penalty, the defence submitted that the convict was 18 years and seven months old and was in his adolescent years. It said he had undergone around nine years of trial and remained in judicial custody for almost the entire period, except when he received interim bail during the Covid-19 pandemic. It also argued that reform and rehabilitation remained possible.
Story continues below this ad
Court weighs crime, criminal
The judge said punishment must be proportionate and serve justice, while considering the rights of the victim, society and offender. The court said the crime, its execution, motive, conduct, previous criminal antecedents, age, character, weapon and other circumstances were relevant. It stressed that both aggravating and mitigating factors had to be considered.
“The Court must pay due regard both to the crime and criminal,” the judge said. The court described the killing as “abominable and despicable” and said it struck at the “sacred and time-honoured relationship” between teacher and student.
The judge said the convict, being in his adolescent years when he committed the murder, “it would not be proper to attribute to him the mental faculties of a full grown adult brain”.
The court also considered the second murder case cited by the prosecution. It noted that the convict had not stabbed the deceased in that case. His alleged role was limited to exhorting other accused persons and holding the deceased when another accused stabbed him. The court also noted that he had been granted bail in that case.
Story continues below this ad
After considering the circumstances, the court held that imposing the death penalty would not be just. The convict was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and fined Rs 50,000, with the fine directed to be paid as compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased. In default of payment, he will undergo six months of rigorous imprisonment.
He was also sentenced to three months’ rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs 500 for obstructing a public servant, and to two years’ rigorous imprisonment with a Rs 10,000 fine for using criminal force against a public servant. All sentences will run concurrently.
