Death Penalty for Spousal Murder in Rajasthan: A Critical Legal Perspective by Advocate Nedunuri Raghu

 The recent Additional District and Sessions Court ruling from Mavli, Udaipur, which sentenced a person to death for brutally setting his wife on fire, sharply underscores the judiciary’s stringent stance against heinous domestic violence crimes.

For advocates, this case holds important lessons:

  1. Rarest of Rare Doctrine: The court applied the “rarest of rare” principle to justify the death penalty, emphasizing that premeditated, cruel acts that betray marital trust and shock societal conscience warrant maximum punishment. This sets a compelling precedent for capital sentencing arguments in similar grievous cases.

  2. Dying Declaration as Reliable Evidence: The victim’s dying declaration was deemed “reliable and consistent,” reaffirming the evidentiary value of such statements even in complex domestic violence cases. This is a critical tool for advocates relying on victim testimonies to prove intent and culpability.

  3. Societal Interest in Justice: The judgment highlights that crimes against individual dignity are also offenses against humanity, reinforcing that courts consider the broader social impact when deciding sentences. Advocates can leverage this reasoning to argue for community protection alongside client interests.

  4. Procedural Insights: With death sentences requiring High Court confirmation under Sections 366-369 of the CrPC, advocates must be prepared for the appellate pathway and advise clients accordingly.

This case serves as a reminder to legal professionals about the gravity with which domestic violence murders are treated and the importance of leveraging legal tools—from evidentiary strategies to sentencing doctrines—to seek justice for victims and uphold public faith in the system.


The provision used here is Section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) of India. It mandates that when the Court of Session passes a sentence of death:

  1. The proceedings must be immediately submitted to the High Court.

  2. The death sentence shall not be executed unless it is confirmed by the High Court.

  3. The Court passing the sentence must commit the convicted person to jail custody under a warrant.


    CrPC

    Sec.

    CrPC

    BNSS Sec.

    366.

    Sentence of death to be submitted by court of session for confirmation

    407

    367.

    Power to direct further inquiry to be made or additional evidence to be taken 

    408

    368.

    Power of High Court to confirm sentence or annual conviction

    409

    369.

    Confirmation or new sentence to be signed by two judges 

    410


Sec 407. 

This provision which is earlier Section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). It mandates that when the Court of Session passes a sentence of death:

  1. The proceedings must be immediately submitted to the High Court.

  2. The death sentence shall not be executed unless it is confirmed by the High Court.

  3. The Court passing the sentence must commit the convicted person to jail custody under a warrant.

This provision ensures that the death penalty can only be carried out after review and confirmation by a higher judicial authority, serving as an important safeguard against wrongful execution. The convicted person is kept in jail custody after the sentence and before confirmation, not as a punishment but as safe custody.

This process is part of the broader framework where in the CrPC (Sections 366 to 371) that aims to ensure thorough judicial scrutiny, minimizing errors and upholding justice in capital punishment cases.

Section 408 : 

under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) grants the High Court the power to direct further inquiry or additional evidence to be taken if, upon submission of death sentence proceedings, the court thinks it necessary for determining the guilt or innocence of the convicted person.

Key points of Section 408:

  1. The High Court may either:

    • Conduct the further inquiry or take additional evidence itself, or

    • Direct the Court of Session to carry out such inquiry or take evidence.

  2. Unless otherwise directed by the High Court, the convicted person’s presence may be dispensed with during such further inquiry or evidence gathering.

  3. If the inquiry or evidence is not made or taken by the High Court itself, the results must be certified to the Court of Session.

This provision ensures that if the High Court requires more information or clarification on any point affecting the convicted person's guilt or innocence before confirming the death sentence, it has full authority to order thorough investigation or evidence gathering.


Section 409 

under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) describes the powers of the High Court regarding a case submitted under Section 407 (submission of death sentence for confirmation).

Key powers of the High Court under Section 409:

(a) The High Court may confirm the sentence passed by the Court of Session or pass any other sentence warranted by law.

(b) The High Court may annul the conviction and convict the accused of any other offence for which the Court of Session could have convicted him, or order a new trial on the same or an amended charge.

(c) The High Court may acquit the accused person.

Important proviso:

  • No order of confirmation can be made until the period allowed for filing an appeal has expired, or if an appeal is filed within that period, until such appeal is disposed of.

This section empowers the High Court with broad discretion to review, confirm, modify, or set aside convictions and sentences after a case is submitted to it for death sentence confirmation, ensuring fairness and thorough judicial scrutiny.


Section 410: 

Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) or the analogous provision in the CrPC requires that:

  • In every case submitted to the High Court for confirmation or passing of a new sentence,

  • If the High Court consists of two or more judges,

  • The confirmation of the sentence or any new sentence or order must be made, passed, and signed by at least two judges.

This provision ensures collective judicial decision-making and accountability in serious cases, particularly ones involving capital punishment or other severe sentences. The signature of at least two judges legitimizes and validates the confirmation or modification of the sentence.

For example, if a death sentence is reviewed by a High Court bench of three judges, at least two must sign the confirmation order for it to be valid. Similarly, if the sentence is modified, this new order must also be signed by at least two judges.

This rule promotes fairness, transparency, and thorough deliberation in the justice system on critical sentencing decisions.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What Happens When an Accused Absconds? Step-by-Step Guide under CrPC : Explained by Advocate Nedunuri Raghu

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TnDMDwse-Vm4jbNR8ZN2Zj5sjenHUDM5dp8bKLM3FEU/edit?usp=sharing Credit : Proclamation notice  ( The Indian Express Dt: 05-09-2025) Only for educational purpose    Proclamation notice issued under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) . It is a formal order by the Court, declaring that the accused in   FIR No. …, under Sections 356/379/34 IPC, Police Station …, Delhi , has   absconded or is concealing himself to avoid arrest . The proclamation records that: ·         A   warrant of arrest   was earlier issued against the accused. ·         The warrant could not be executed because the accused could not be found. ·         The Court, being satisfied that the accused is deliberately avoiding arrest, has ordered publication of this proclamation. Through this notice, the Court publicly directs the accu...
Read more

Delay In Filing Review Application Cannot Be Condoned Without Looking Into Its Maintainability: Bombay High Court

Judgment Copy ( LiveLaw   Official Link):  https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/jsw-steel-coated-products-ltd-anr-v-amarlal-parashramji-sharma-617297.pdf   Sections & Legal Principles Involved 1. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (IDA) Section 7  – Establishes Labour Courts. Section 11  – Procedure & powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals & National Tribunals. It gives powers of a Civil Court (like summoning witnesses, receiving evidence, etc.),  but it does not give review power . Review is a  substantive jurisdiction  — unless expressly given, it cannot be assumed. Section 17 & 17A  – Publication & enforceability of awards. Once an award is published and comes into force, the Labour Court becomes functus officio (it cannot reopen the matter).   Advocate’s point : “Nowhere in the IDA is there a provision granting review jurisdiction to Labour Courts. Hence, review is not maintainable.”   2. Code of Civil Procedur...
Read more