17 death sentences in 7 cases, 100 days: Why a Muzaffarnagar trial court stands out

The two states that ranked after UP in the award of death sentences by trial courts in 2025, Karnataka (15) and West Bengal (14), in fact, saw fewer capital terms in comparison to Justice Diwakar’s court alone.

All death sentences by a Sessions Court have to be confirmed by a High Court. The Square Circle Clinic’s decade-long data shows High Courts have confirmed barely 1 in 10 of the death sentences they have examined since 2016 (106 of 1,085). The Supreme Court has not confirmed a single death sentence since 2023.

One essential requirement for confirming the death sentence is adherence to norms as laid out by the Supreme Court in Manoj & Ors v State of Madhya Pradesh case of 2022, which include examining the mitigating circumstances and reports on the accused’s conduct.

Judge Diwakar’s orders awarding the death sentence do not have a record of the same.

Apart from deaths to 17, of the five other accused in these seven cases, two did not stand trial, another died during trial, another passed away during investigation, and one was tried not for murder but for making evidence disappear.

The requirement, and the gap

In Manoj & Ors v State of Madhya Pradesh, a three-judge Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices U U Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi held that before a trial court hands down a death sentence, it must have on record several reports, to be prepared by the state in a time-bound manner. These include reports on the accused’s psychiatric and psychological condition, jail conduct, behaviour and work done in custody.

The purpose, the Bench said, was to test whether reform of the convict was truly foreclosed, since death is to be given only in “the rarest of rare” cases.

In the 17 death sentences given by the Fast Track Court No. 3, there is no record of the state producing such material, or the court calling for it. The Indian Express reached out to several prosecutors concerned and, off the record, they said they did not submit any such reports as the court did not seek the same.

In at least two cases, the judge noted the accused’s “bhav-bhangima (facial expressions and demeanour in the courtroom)” as a key factor. “The court observed the facial expressions and demeanour of the convicted person, and at no point did the court feel that he felt any remorse for the crime he had committed,” the sentencing orders in the May 30 and July 2 orders state.

The 2022 Manoj ruling also placed the burden of assembling material on mitigating circumstances on the State: the trial court has to “elicit” it, and the State has to produce a structured account of the accused’s socio-economic background and early life.

Across all the seven cases, the defence counsel argued that the convicts concerned were poor, labourers, or fathers of young children.

But the court found other factors as weighing over this in its sentencing orders.

Advocate Rajeev Sharma, District Government Counsel, Muzaffarnagar, did not respond to attempts by The Indian Express to reach him via phone calls and text messages.

Under Sections 407 to 412 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, no death sentence passed by a Sessions Court can be carried out until the High Court confirms it. So, all 17 death sentences awarded by the Muzaffarnagar trial court will go to the Allahabad High Court for confirmation, alongside any appeals the convicts file independently.

In a landmark ruling in 2025, in the Vasanta Sampat Dupare v Union of India case, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta held that even a death sentence the Supreme Court has itself affirmed as final could be reopened under Article 32 of the Constitution if the Manoj safeguards were not followed.

The seven cases, the 17 death sentences

April 6:  Three given the death sentence by the Muzaffarnagar Fast-Track Court No. 3 for kidnapping and murdering a young advocate and a close friend of one of the convicts. The court saw it as an attack on the Bar and the rule of law itself.

April 28:  A father and three sons convicted for beating a man to death with bricks over a Rs 70,000 debt. The court likened it to mob lynching, and held that “the facial expressions and behaviour” of the four showed no repentance through the trial.

May 30: One given capital punishment for the “diabolical” double murder of a woman he was in a relationship with and her six-year-old son. His crime was seen as aggravated, as he was already in jail for his wife’s dowry death.

June 20: Two held guilty of killing a man and burning the body. The court held it to be a calculated, “no body, no case” attempt, influenced by films, to destroy evidence. It also spoke about “total lack of remorse” shown by the accused in the courtroom.

July 2: One sentenced for fatally stabbing a Home Guard and trying to kill another after they stepped in to stop him from assaulting his own mother. The crime was seen by the court as “a challenge not only to the police force but also directly to the authority of the state government”. The court also added that the crime demonstrates criminals are capable of “directly challenging the sovereignty of the State”.

July 6: Two convicted of killing a rival panchayat election candidate, and using their influence to make the murder weapon disappear from police custody. The judge said that “democracy is based on the ballot, not the bullet”.

July 17: Four were sentenced for organising a “gang-style” robbery-murder on a highway. The court cited their criminal antecedents and Muzaffarnagar’s reputation as a ‘Crime Capital’, and talked about “the message” the sentence sends.