Chhattisgarh High Court commutes death sentence of man who killed parents over 'ideological differences'

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently commuted the death sentence of a 42-year-old man convicted for killing his parents over 'ideological' differences [State of Chhattisgarh v. Sandeep Jain]..A Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi said that though the offence was grave, the motive behind the murder was not grave enough to warrant a death sentence and hence reduced it to life imprisonment"Although in the instant case, appellant Sandeep Jain has caused brutal murder of his father and mother, hence his act shocks the conscience of the Court as well as the society at large, but, yet, motive of crime is not found so grievous in nature i.e. only because deceased father did not like his accused son’s various conduct / attitude and, therefore, he used to scold him. Thus, due to such trivial issues instant crime of double murder, has been committed," the judgment stated..The Court opined that this case did not fall under the category of ‘rarest of rare' cases."However, considering the fact that firstly, appellant shot his father in the corridor near washroom, hearing noise when his mother was calling her grandson (daughter's son) on mobile phone, then appellant fearing disclosure of his crime, shot his innocent mother also. Therefore, in our considered view, imprisonment for life to the extend of remainder of natural life would be complete and adequate to meet the ends of justice," the Court held..It was hearing an appeal filed by the convict against a sessions court order which had sentenced him to death for committing the double murder.As per the prosecution, the convict shot his father dead early in the morning of January 1, 2018. When his mother heard the shots, she phoned her grandson for help. The convict then turned the gun on her and killed her as well.When the grandson reached the house, he found his grandparents lying dead. He found the convict in his bedroom, pretending that he did not hear the gun shots.When the convict was interrogated by the police, he revealed that he had ideological differences with his father. While his father was a conservative person, he was free and open-minded. He told the police that his father often scolded him and disliked several of his activities including speaking or meeting his female friends. He claimed that the father threatened that he would deprive him of his property..The Bench noted that though there was no direct evidence to substantiate the prosecution's version of the case. However, it considered circumstantial evidence like the convict asking the watchman and the driver not to come on duty a day before the murder. The Court also considered the fact that the convict could not explain the entire incident even though he was present in the house at the time of the murders. "The appellant is a son of both the deceased and he committed murder of his father and mother mainly because there was lack of ideological harmony between them, murder was committed by him by three gun shot injuries to each of them, hence no doubt, such heinous crime should be deprecated and no amount of criticism can be given to such gruesome act, that too, of his own father and mother," the Court said..The High Court noted that the trial court had not taken into consideration the probability of the convict being reformed and rehabilitated, and that he was not given effective opportunity of hearing on the question of sentence."Similarly, no evidence was brought on record on behalf of prosecution to prove before the Court that the appellant would be menace to the society or he has criminal antecedent or he cannot be reformed or rehabilitated by producing material about his negative conduct in jail and no opportunity was given to the accused to adduce evidence in this regard," the Bench underscored.With these observations, the Court commuted the sentence..Senior Advocate Dr NK Shukla along with Advocate Sumit Singh appeared for the convict.Additional Advocate General Chandresh Shrivastava represented the State.