In a significant judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court has commuted the death penalty of Umend Kewat, convicted for the brutal murder of his wife and three minor children, to life imprisonment for the entirety of his natural life. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad ruled that the case, while heinous, did not meet the stringent criteria of the ‘rarest of the rare’ doctrine necessary for imposing capital punishment.
The judgment was delivered in CRREF No. 1 of 2024 and CRA No. 1714 of 2024, which involved the death reference by the trial court and the convict’s appeal against the sentence.
Background of the Case
The convict, Umend Kewat, a resident of Village Hirri, Masturi Police Station, District Bilaspur, was found guilty of strangling his wife, Sukrita Kewat, and their three children—Khushi (5), Lisa (3), and Pawan (18 months)—on January 2, 2024. The murders were reportedly motivated by Kewat’s suspicion of his wife’s fidelity, which led to frequent domestic disputes.
The Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, convicted Kewat under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and imposed the death penalty, terming the crime as falling within the ‘rarest of rare’ category. The trial court observed that the cold-blooded nature of the killings and the young ages of the victims warranted the ultimate punishment.
The case was referred to the High Court for confirmation of the death sentence, as required under law.
Legal Issues Before the High Court
The High Court considered the following key legal issues during its deliberation:
1. Was the crime one of the ‘rarest of rare’ cases justifying the death penalty?
The ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine requires that capital punishment be reserved for cases where the collective conscience of society is so shocked that no penalty less than death is warranted.
2. Could the convict be reformed or rehabilitated?
The court analyzed whether Kewat, aged 34 at the time of the crime, demonstrated potential for reformation, an important factor in deciding whether life imprisonment is a viable alternative to the death penalty.
3. Was the sentence proportionate to the nature of the crime?
The court weighed the aggravating circumstances (the gruesome nature of the murders) against mitigating factors such as the convict’s lack of prior criminal record.
High Court’s Observations
The High Court upheld the conviction of Kewat for the quadruple murders but found that the imposition of the death penalty was unwarranted. The court emphasized that while the crime was heinous, it fell short of the ‘rarest of rare’ standard.
Quoting Supreme Court precedents, the Bench stated: “The death penalty must remain an exception, not the rule. It can only be imposed when there is no other alternative but to eliminate the convict from society.”
The judges further noted that Kewat had no criminal history and displayed the potential for rehabilitation. They opined that the life sentence for the entirety of his natural life would serve justice while allowing for the possibility of redemption.
Trial Court’s Approach
The court highlighted several gaps in the trial court’s reasoning, particularly in failing to adequately consider mitigating factors. The judgment noted that the trial court had focused excessively on the brutality of the act without properly analyzing whether the convict posed a continuing threat to society or whether life imprisonment could suffice as a punishment.
Final Judgment
The High Court commuted Kewat’s death sentence to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, ensuring that he spends the rest of his life in prison. The court clarified: “This sentence strikes a balance between the gravity of the crime and the need to adhere to constitutional principles regarding the imposition of capital punishment.”
