The Chhattisgarh High Court recently reduced the death sentence of a 42-year-old man convicted of murdering his parents due to “ideological” conflicts. The court, presided over by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, determined that although the murder was a grave offense, the motive behind it did not warrant the death penalty. Consequently, the sentence was amended to life imprisonment.
The ruling acknowledged the brutality of the crime, wherein Sandeep Jain, the appellant, brutally murdered both his mother and father, shocking both the court and society. However, the court deemed that the motive, which stemmed from the deceased father’s disapproval of his son’s various attitudes and behaviors, was not grave enough to justify a double murder. Consequently, the court ruled that this case did not fall under the category of “rarest of rare” cases.
The court considered the circumstances surrounding the murders, where the appellant first shot his father in the hallway adjacent to the restroom and then his innocent mother upon hearing her conversation with her grandson over the phone. He did so out of fear that his crime would be exposed. Therefore, the court concluded that a life sentence, lasting the remainder of the appellant’s natural life, would suffice to serve the interests of justice. This decision stemmed from an appeal filed by the convicted man against a sessions court’s earlier ruling, which had sentenced him to death for the double murder.
The prosecution’s account of events revealed that on January 1, 2018, the defendant shot and killed his father. His mother, upon hearing the gunshots, called her grandson for assistance, after which the appellant fatally shot her as well. The grandson discovered his deceased grandparents upon arriving at the residence and found the appellant in his bedroom, seemingly unaware of the gunshots. During police interrogation, the appellant admitted to disagreeing with his father’s ideologies. He described himself as liberal and tolerant, while his father held traditionalist views. The appellant disclosed that his father frequently reprimanded him and disapproved of his actions, such as talking to girls or going out with them. He claimed that his father had threatened to take away his belongings.
The court noted that the prosecution failed to provide concrete evidence to support their account of events. However, it considered circumstantial evidence, such as the appellant’s request the day before the murders for the driver and watchman not to report for duty. Although the appellant was present in the house when the murders occurred, he could not provide a comprehensive explanation for the entire incident, which the court also took into account.
In its ruling, the court emphasized that the appellant was the son of both the deceased victims and had committed the murder primarily due to a lack of ideological harmony between them. While deploring the heinous nature of the crime, especially against one’s own parents, the court acknowledged that no amount of criticism could fully capture the gruesomeness of the act.
Furthermore, the High Court criticized the trial court for not affording the appellant a fair opportunity to present his case during sentencing and for failing to consider the possibility of his reform and rehabilitation. The court found that no evidence had been presented to establish that the appellant would pose a threat to society or had a criminal history that precluded his reform and rehabilitation.
In light of these findings, the court commuted the appellant’s sentence.
