In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India commuted the death sentence of Deen Dayal Tiwari, convicted of brutally murdering his wife and four minor daughters, to life imprisonment till his last breath. The Court emphasized that even in cases of multiple murders, capital punishment should be avoided if there is a possibility of the convict’s reformation.
Background of the Case
The case stems from a gruesome crime committed on the intervening night of November 11-12, 2011, in Faizabad (now Ayodhya), Uttar Pradesh. The accused, Deen Dayal Tiwari, was found inside his house, allegedly holding a blood-stained axe, while the dead bodies of his wife, Siyallali, and four minor daughters were discovered in pools of blood.
Tiwari’s brother, Dinanath Tiwari (PW-1), and his wife (PW-2) testified that they heard cries of “Bachao, bachao” from the accused’s house but found the door locked from inside. Upon forcing their way in, they saw the accused inside with the murder weapon. The police arrested Tiwari on the spot, recovering an axe and two knives from the crime scene.
The trial court convicted Tiwari under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to death, terming the case as falling under the “rarest of rare” category. The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) confirmed the death penalty in May 2022. Tiwari then approached the Supreme Court challenging the conviction and sentence.
Legal Issues Considered by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta analyzed the case on multiple legal grounds, including:
1. Reliability of Circumstantial Evidence – The prosecution relied solely on circumstantial evidence, as there were no direct eyewitnesses. The defense argued that the chain of evidence was incomplete and did not conclusively point to Tiwari’s guilt.
2. Credibility of Witnesses – The Court considered discrepancies in the testimonies of key witnesses and whether they affected the prosecution’s case.
3. FIR Timing & Allegations of Fabrication – The defense claimed the FIR was ante-timed and manipulated, but the Court found no significant delay to cast doubt.
4. Recovery of Weapons & Medical Corroboration – The postmortem reports confirmed that the victims suffered incised and lacerated wounds consistent with the recovered axe and knives.
5. Alibi and Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act – Tiwari claimed he was sleeping in a barn at the time of the murders. The Court noted that the burden of explaining the deaths inside his locked house rested on him, which he failed to do satisfactorily.
6. Application of the ‘Rarest of Rare’ Doctrine – While confirming the conviction, the Court had to determine whether the death penalty was justified or if life imprisonment was a more appropriate sentence.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Verdict
The Supreme Court upheld Tiwari’s conviction under Section 302 IPC but commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life, citing the possibility of reformation.
Quoting from its judgment, the Court stated:
“Even in cases of multiple murders, capital punishment should be an exception rather than the norm. If there is a reasonable scope for reformation, life imprisonment should be preferred.”
The Court weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, considering:
– Aggravating Factors: The brutal nature of the crime, the helplessness of the victims, and the shock to society’s conscience.
– Mitigating Factors: Tiwari had no prior criminal record, showed good conduct in prison, and reports suggested a possibility of reformation.
Citing previous judgments, including Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) and Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), the Court reiterated that the death penalty should only be imposed when the alternative of life imprisonment is “unquestionably foreclosed.”
“The imposition of capital punishment is an exception, not the rule. Even where multiple murders have been committed, if there is evidence or at least a reasonable possibility of reformation, a lesser sentence must be preferred,” the Court held.
