Patna High Court Confirms Death Sentence in Brutal Triple Murder Case, Draws Parallel to Mahabharata
In a landmark verdict, the Patna High Court has upheld the death sentence awarded to two men for the brutal murder of three members of a family in a land dispute, invoking the moral lessons of the ancient Indian epic, the Mahabharata. The court emphasized that the crime falls squarely within the "rarest of rare" category, warranting the ultimate punishment.
Court's Verdict and Mahabharata Analogy
Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sourendra Pandey dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the convicts, Aman Singh and Sonal Singh, and confirmed the capital punishment imposed by the trial court. In their January 22 verdict, the judges drew a poignant parallel to the Mahabharata, stating that the epic culminates with a message that aggressors meet a tragic end as divine punishment for their "adharm" (unrighteousness).
The court observed: "The story of Mahabharata leads us to one and only one conclusion that the appellants, who were the aggressors, should be punished for their sin/crime. This has not only taken three human lives but has also left three women lifeless after losing their husbands, with children left to cry all their lives." The judges noted that the Kauravas in the Mahabharata were aggressors who attempted to kill relatives for property or power, mirroring the actions of the convicts in this case.
Details of the Crime and Trial
The case originated from a judgment dated May 2, 2024, and a sentencing order dated May 9, 2024, by a trial court in Rohtas district. The prosecution alleged that on July 13, 2021, around 6:00 PM, the accused began ploughing disputed land in village Khudrao, Rohtas district. When Vijay Singh and his sons Deepak Singh and Rakesh Singh objected, they were assaulted with fists and sticks. The victims attempted to flee but were chased relentlessly and attacked with swords, leading to their deaths before medical help could arrive.
The trial court found the assault to be premeditated and merciless, relying on Supreme Court principles from cases like Bachan Singh v State of Punjab and Machhi Singh v State of Punjab to justify the death penalty. The prosecution's case was primarily supported by the testimony of Shakuntala Devi, wife of Vijay Singh, who was an eyewitness and informant.
Arguments and Court's Findings
The convicts' advocates raised several arguments, including:
- Delay in lodging the FIR, suggesting fabrication.
- Non-examination of material witnesses, such as the first police officer at the spot.
- Contradictions in witness testimony regarding time and place.
- Inadequate investigation into land ownership and possession.
However, the state, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Manish Kumar, countered that investigation lapses did not undermine the overwhelming ocular and medical evidence. The court agreed, noting that the defence failed to suggest false implication during cross-examination and that the core prosecution story remained intact.
The court highlighted: "The aggravating factors in this case leave no room for mitigating factors to justify life imprisonment. The matter could have been resolved through civil litigation, but the convicts' temperament did not allow it." The judges emphasized the lasting trauma inflicted on the surviving family members, particularly the women and children, and the brutality evidenced by the postmortem report.
Conclusion and Broader Implications
By dismissing the appeal and confirming the death sentence, the Patna High Court sent a strong message that private vengeance over land disputes cannot be tolerated. The verdict underscores the judiciary's commitment to addressing heinous crimes within the framework of "rarest of rare" cases, while drawing on cultural and ethical teachings from Indian epics like the Mahabharata to reinforce the principles of justice and righteousness.
