Not ‘Rarest of Rare’: Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence of Man Convicted for Murdering Wife and 4 Daughters to Life Imprisonment

Post By 24law
January 30, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Supreme Court recently commuted the death sentence awarded to a man convicted of murdering his wife and four minor daughters to life imprisonment until the end of his natural life. The three-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that, although the crime was brutal and heinous, it did not meet the "rarest of rare" standard necessary to justify the death penalty.

Case Background

The case involves Deen Dayal Tiwari, a resident of Faizabad (now Ayodhya), Uttar Pradesh, who was convicted of murdering his wife, Siyallali, and his four minor daughters, namely Mani, Riya, Guddan, and Mahima, on the night of November 11-12, 2011. According to the prosecution, Tiwari’s brother (PW-1) and sister-in-law (PW-2), who lived nearby, were awakened by frantic cries of "bachao-bachao" (save me) coming from his house. Alarmed, they rushed to his home, where they found the door locked from the inside. Despite repeated knocking and warnings to break the door, the appellant initially refused to open it. PW-1 and PW-2 stated that Tiwari eventually emerged holding a blood-stained axe, threatening them to leave. He then retreated into the house and locked the door again. A complaint was lodged by PW-1, leading to the arrival of the Station Officer (PW-5) and other police personnel. Upon forcibly opening the door with the help of villagers, the police discovered the bodies of the appellant’s wife and four daughters lying in pools of blood. The appellant was apprehended on the spot, still holding a blood-stained axe.

Trial Court and High Court Findings

The Trial Court convicted Tiwari under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to death, labeling the case as one of "extreme depravity" and falling within the "rarest of rare" category. The Allahabad High Court subsequently upheld the conviction and death sentence, concurring with the Trial Court’s findings. Aggrieved by the verdict, Tiwari appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging both the conviction and the death penalty.

Supreme Court Observations

Aggravating Circumstances

Nature of the Crime: The Court acknowledged the gravity of the offense, noting the brutal and calculated manner in which the murders were committed.
Position of Trust: The appellant’s victims were his immediate family members, including four minor daughters, who relied on him for protection.
Societal Impact: The Court observed that such heinous crimes committed within the sanctity of one’s home naturally shock the collective conscience of society.

Mitigating Circumstances

However, the Court also emphasized that sentencing decisions must consider mitigating factors alongside the nature of the crime.

No Criminal History: The appellant had no prior criminal record, which indicated the absence of a pattern of violent behavior.
Behavior in Custody: Reports from the Superintendent of District Jail described the appellant’s conduct as “satisfactory” and showed no signs of violent tendencies, suggesting the possibility of reformation.
Socioeconomic Factors: The Court took note of the appellant’s modest background and lack of evidence suggesting he posed a perpetual threat to society.
Possibility of Reformation: The Probation Officer’s report and the Jail Superintendent’s input supported the argument that the appellant had potential for rehabilitation.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court referred to several landmark precedents, including Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983), to reiterate that the death penalty should only be imposed when life imprisonment is “unquestionably foreclosed.” The Court emphasized: “This Court has consistently recognized that the imposition of capital punishment is an exception and not the rule. Even where multiple murders have been committed, if there is evidence or at least a reasonable possibility of reform, a lesser sentence must be preferred.”

It further observed: “Guided by the above facts, we must scrutinize not only the nature of the offence but also the totality of the offender’s circumstances. In the instant case, while the offence is undoubtedly brutal, certain mitigating factors, especially the Appellant’s lack of criminal antecedents and his reported conduct in prison, tilt the scales in favour of commutation.”

Final Decision

The Court ultimately concluded that the case did not meet the threshold of "rarest of rare" to warrant the death penalty. It stated: “Weighing the totality of circumstances and having regard to the legal principles discussed above, we are of the view that while the crime is heinous and deserves the highest degree of condemnation, it does not meet the threshold of ‘the rarest of rare’ so as to irrevocably foreclose the option of life imprisonment.” Accordingly, the Supreme Court confirmed Tiwari’s conviction under Section 302 IPC but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life.