Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court commuted the death sentence awarded in a brutal fratricide case, holding that the murder, though grave and horrifying, did not cross the constitutional threshold of the “rarest of rare” category. The matter reached the High Court through a death reference along with a connected criminal appeal arising from the conviction of a man accused of murdering and beheading his younger brother. While affirming the finding of guilt under Section 302 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court concluded that the act was driven by personal vengeance rooted in a property dispute rather than “social revenge,” observing that capital punishment could not be justified in the absence of material showing irredeemable criminality.
Brief facts:
The case arose from a death reference seeking confirmation of a capital sentence imposed by the Sessions Court, along with a statutory appeal filed by the convict. The prosecution alleged that the accused murdered and decapitated his physically disabled younger brother inside his residence, with the severed head never being recovered. The motive was traced to a long-standing family property dispute arising after their mother bequeathed her house exclusively to the deceased.
The investigation rested on circumstantial evidence, including prior threats, recoveries pursuant to disclosure statements, extra-judicial confessions made to relatives and a doctor through phone calls, call recordings recovered from the accused’s mobile phone, and forensic material from the scene. Accepting the prosecution’s case as complete, the Sessions Court imposed the death sentence, leading to the reference and appeal before the High Court.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant argued that the case did not satisfy the constitutional test required for imposition of capital punishment. The counsel submitted that the prosecution's evidence suffered from serious investigative lapses, particularly the failure to conduct DNA analysis on crucial blood-stained articles, thereby weakening the forensic foundation of the case. The rejection of the “last seen” theory due to the death of a key witness was highlighted, along with the absence of any prior criminal antecedents. It was further contended that the motive arose from a private family dispute, not conduct demonstrating a continuing threat to society, and that the convict’s age, deteriorating physical health, and psychological condition warranted a punishment less than death.
Contentions of the Respondent:
On the other hand, the Respondent submitted that the brutality of the offence, beheading the victim and disposing of the severed head, reflected extreme depravity warranting the severest punishment. The prosecution relied on extra-judicial confessions corroborated by call recordings and forensic voice analysis, recoveries made pursuant to disclosure statements, and medical evidence conclusively establishing homicidal death by decapitation. The State contended that the gruesome nature of the crime, coupled with the calculated destruction of evidence, justified the death sentence imposed by the trial court.
Observation of the Court:
The Division Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice H.S. Grewal rejected the prosecution’s reliance on the last-seen theory, holding that the absence of a recorded statement under Section 164 of the CrPC / Section 183 of the BNSS rendered such evidence inadmissible. The Court observed that “The Investigators and their supervisory officers relied more on mortal humans than on indestructible science.”
The Bench noted that DNA analysis of the blood-stained vest could have provided decisive corroboration but was inexplicably omitted, weakening the prosecution’s forensic narrative.
However, the Court upheld reliance on extra-judicial confessions made to relatives and the accused’s doctor, holding them voluntary, corroborated by call recordings, and legally admissible. On sentencing, the Bench drew a clear distinction between the heinousness of the act and eligibility for the death penalty, observing that “the mitigating factors that would not justify the imposition of a capital sentence are that the motive for killing his brother was a property dispute, and it was the convict’s personal revenge, not social revenge. Further, there is no allegation of convict’s violent behavior in the prison(s). These factors, coupled with the applicant’s age being over 60 years, would not justify the imposition of capital punishment.”
It further recorded that there was “no evidence on record to suggest that the appellant would be a menace and threat to the harmonious and peaceful co-existence of the society”, and noted the absence of violent conduct in prison, along with the convict’s advanced age and medical condition.
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court commuted the sentence of death awarded to the convict to life imprisonment, stipulating that he shall undergo a minimum of 20 years of actual incarceration without remission, and enhanced the fine payable as compensation to the victim’s family.
Case Title: State of Haryana v. Ashok Kumar
Case Number: MRC-1-2025 with CRA-D-293-2025
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Anoop Chitkara and Hon'ble Justice H.S. Grewal
Advocate for the Appellant: Advs. Harvinder Singh Maan, Gurdeep Kaur, Harnoor Singh Sidhu, Kirandeep Kaur
Advocate for the Respondent: A. A.Gs Rahul Mohan, Yuvraj Shandilya, D.A.Gs. Karan Sharma, Shiva Khurmi
Read Judgment@ Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
