Rajasthan High Court commutes death penalty of four men to life imprisonment

The Rajasthan High Court recently commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment of four men of a family, convicted for killing four persons including a minor over a land dispute. [State of Rajasthan vs Atmaram Lakhara]..The High Court reasoned that the case doesn't warrant death sentence and accordingly commuted it to life imprisonment till the remainder of their lives.A bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Vinod Kumar Bharwani was hearing appeals filed by Atmaram Lakhara, Omprakash and Leeladhar - all brothers, along with Sharvan Kumar, son of Leeladhar. The four men challenged the judgment of a sessions court at Bhadra, Hanumangarh district which by an order dated June 1, 2019 had handed down death sentence to them. As per the prosecution case, the four men along with other unknown persons attacked Kailash, his father Bhanwarlal and brother Pankaj while they were harvesting crop in their field. While Bhanwarlal and Pankaj died on the spot, the accused poured some chemical in the eyes of Kailash due to which he lost his vision and died after after a few days. After assaulting and killing the trio on June 13, 2013, the accused then reached the home of the victim to assault Bhanwarlal's father Moman Ram and his daughter Chandrakala. In this assault, Moman Ram died on the spot while Chandrakala sustained severe injuries.The trial court in its verdict noted that three members of the family were brutally assaulted in the field and some corrossive substance was poured in the eyes of Kailash after assaulting him. All four male members of the family who were aged between 16 and 75 years, were eliminated and that a consorted effort was made by the heavily armed members of the unlawful assembly to completely obliterate the family by assaulting Chandrakala her mother Sushila as well, but they somehow survived. The attack the trial court had said was fuelled by motive/enmity arising from a land dispute. The trial court further noted that the evidence of Chandrakala established the fact that the accused persons came to the village after assaulting the victims in the agricultural field and were hurling exhortations that those in the field had been eliminated and Moman Ram and the female members would also be killed.While the trial court heavily relied upon the dying declaration of Kailash, the High Court bench led by Justice Mehta held the same to have several discrepancies and doubted it's "creditworthiness.".The High Court, however, relied on the statements of Chandrakala, who was an injured witness in the case. Considering the material on record, the bench said upheld the conviction. "We are of the firm opinion that the prosecution has proved by unimpeachable reliable testimony, the factum of the assault made by the four accused appellants and two absconding accused Rakesh and Pawan in the field, where Bhanwar Lal and Pankaj were murdered and Kailash was seriouslyinjured and later on died and in the residential premises, where Moman Ram was murdered and Chandrakala was caused numerous injuries," the Court said.However, as far as the death penalty was concerned, the bench noted that the four convicts suffered incarceration in prison since the year 2013. "True it is that the conduct of the accused while launching the pre-planned assault on the three victims in the field and on Moman Ram and Chandrakala at their residence was heinous as well as brutal. However, it is a universally acceptable proposition that reformative theory has to be given precedence over capital punishment, which should be considered a last resort," the bench observed. Though the trial court has undertaken the exercise of trying to assess the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, but the High Court took the view that the case does not satisfy the requirements for awarding the extreme death penalty. The bench, therefore, commuted the death sentence. However, the Court made it clear the life imprisonment would be for the remainder of their natural life. "If the accused are permitted to roam at large without suffering the 'imprisonment for life' in its literal meaning, they would in all likelihood eliminate the remaining family members as well if set at liberty," the Court said..[Read Judgment]