Invoking Mahabharata, Patna High court upholds death sentence of two men in triple murder over land dispute

The Patna High court said that the Kauravas (in the Mahabharata) were the aggressors, who attempted to kill relatives for property or to seize the reign of the empire. (Image enhanced using AI)

Findings

• I am reminded of the great epic “Mahabharata” which is a tale of a devastating feud over land and power between cousins.
• The Kauravas were the aggressors, who attempted to kill relatives for property or to seize the reign of the empire.
• Mahabharata culminates with a message that aggressors meet a tragic end as divine punishment for their “adharm”, i.e. to try to kill their brother (cousins) to seize power.
• I agree that it is one of the rarest of the rare cases in which the option to impose a sentence of imprisonment of life or a special sentencing cannot be consciously exercised.
• I confirm the sentence imposed by the learned trial court.
• The aggravating factors in this case are not leaving any room for the mitigating factors to take a view that life imprisonment or a special sentence to the appellants would be justified.
• The matter could have been resolved through civil litigation but the temperament of the convicts did not suit the same.
• The happiness, pleasure and celebrations of the surviving family members have been done away for their whole lives.
• The children of the family have lost the moment of happiness for their whole lives.
• Consequent upon the demise of all three male members of the family, a huge dark hole has been created, wherein these female members have to lead rest of their agony and suffocating lives.
• We should not lose sight of the permanent scar which has been left in the mind and soul of the three women, whose husbands have been beaten to death by their own blood.
• The postmortem report speaks of the story of brutality/savagery adopted by the convicts.

Decision

• The high court dismissed the criminal appeal and confirmed the death sentence, reiterating that private vengeance over land disputes cannot be tolerated.

Background

• The death reference originated from the judgment of conviction of two men- Aman Singh and Sonal Singh dated May 2, 2024, and the order of sentence dated May 9, 2024, passed by a trial court in Rohtas district for murder of three men from one family.
• According to the prosecution, the crime was rooted in a long-standing intra-family land dispute in village Khudrao, district Rohtas.
• On July 13, 2021, at around 6:00 pm, the accused persons allegedly began ploughing the disputed land.
• When Vijay Singh and his sons Deepak Singh and Rakesh Singh objected, they were initially assaulted with fists and sticks.
• The victims attempted to flee and sought shelter near neighbouring houses, but the accused chased them relentlessly.
• The prosecution alleged that the accused launched a ferocious attack, inflicting multiple blows on Vijay Singh and his sons Deepak Singh and Rakesh Singh with swords on July 13, 2021.
• All three victims died before medical assistance could save them.
• The prosecution case rested primarily on the testimony of Shakuntala Devi, wife of Vijay Singh, who was examined as the informant and an eyewitness.
• The trial court found that the assault was premeditated and merciless and the brutality of the crime demonstrated a complete lack of remorse.
• While awarding the death penalty, the trial court relied upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh v State of Punjab and Machhi Singh v State of Punjab, holding that life imprisonment would be inadequate given the enormity of the crime.

Arguments by convicts

• Advocates Pratik Mishra, Vatsal Vishal and Raushan Kumar, appearing for the appellants raised submitted that delay in lodging the FIR suggests fabrication and afterthought.
• They alleged suppression of the earliest version of the incident.
• The counsel argued non-examination of material witnesses, including the first police officer who reached the spot.
• They claimed contradictions in witness testimony regarding the time and place of occurrence.
• Assertion that the ownership and possession of the disputed land were not properly investigated, the counsel said.
• The counsel submitted that these deficiencies undermined the prosecution case and that the death penalty was disproportionate.

State’s stand

• Additional Public Prosecutor Manish Kumar, opposing the appeal, submitted that the investigation lapses could not overshadow the overwhelming ocular and medical evidence on record.
• The counsel argued that the defence had failed to suggest false implication during cross-examination and that the core prosecution story had remained intact throughout the trial.
• It was further submitted that the conduct of the accused, including the fact that a co-accused remained absconding, reflected their culpability.