Uthra Murder: Why was accused husband Sooraj not given death penalty?

A Kerala Court on Wednesday sentenced one Sooraj to life imprisonment and also imposed fine of ₹5 lakh for the "diabolic and ghastly" murder of his 25-year-old disabled wife, Uthra (State of Kerala v. Sooraj S Kumar)..The case had garnered a lot of attention due to the manner in which the murder was committed - by throwing a starving cobra on to the sleeping wife to induce death by snakebite.The media and public attention naturally led to cries for death penalty, a prayer which was also raised by the prosecution, but categorically rejected by Additional Sessions Court, Kollam, presided by Justice M Manoj.The prosecution led by Advocate G Mohanraj said that case had shocked the collective conscience of the society and can certainly be viewed as the 'rarest of the rare'.However, the Court, after considering deliberations from both sides of the Bar, declined to impose the death penalty and explained the reasons for its decision..Going by various decisions of the Supreme Court which lay down the guidelines for awarding the death penalty, the Court felt that, despite the heinousness of the crime, the mitigating circumstances of the accused must be taken into account."No doubt, the murder is diabolic, ghastly, brutal and heinous. However, death sentence can be awarded only in rarest of the rare category, and in deciding that, the mitigating circumstances in favour of the accused also has to be considered," the order stated.The Court noted that the accused is only 28 years old and had no criminal antecedents and held that in this case, death penalty need not be imposed"Without a person having criminal antecedents, it cannot be held that, if death sentence is not awarded, he would be a threat to the society. In the said circumstances the chances of reformation of the accused cannot be said to be foreclosed and the case does not fall in the category of rarest of the rare so as to award death sentence. In the said circumstances, it is held that death sentence need not be imposed and a sentence of imprisonment for life would serve the interest of justice," the court held..The Court agreed that in the case at hand, the commission of murder was definitely diabolic, cruel, heinous, and dastardly.It also noted that the punishment for murder prescribed under Section 302 IPC is death or imprisonment for life with fine. However, it said that the case will not fall within the rarest of rare category as has been laid down in various judgments including Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab.In Machhi Singh, the top court had laid down the following guidelines for awarding death sentence: The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability;Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the 'offender' also require to be taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the 'crime';Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised..The Court opined that the doctrine of "rarest of rare case" confines two aspects and when both the aspects are satisfied only then the death penalty can be imposed.Firstly, the case must clearly fall within the ambit of "rarest of rare" and secondly, when the alternative option of awarding imprisonment for life is foreclosed. For this, it cited the the decision of the Supreme Court in Md Mannan @ Abdul Mannan. v. State of Bihar in which it was held as follows regarding the criteria to decide the rarest of the rare category-"In deciding whether a case falls within the category of the rarest of rare, the brutality, and / or the gruesome and / or heinous nature of the crime is not the sole criterion. It is not just the crime which the Court is to take into consideration, but also the criminal, the state of his mind, his socio - economic background, etc.".The selection of death punishment as the penalty is the last resort when, alternative punishment of life imprisonment will be futile and serves no purpose, the Court said.In this regard, the Court again adverted to the judgment in Md Mannan @ Abdul Mannan. v. State of Bihar in which the following was held:"Awarding death sentence is an exception, and life imprisonment is the rule. 75. Therefore, before imposing the extreme penalty of death sentence, the Court would have to satisfy itself that death sentence is imperative.".Having regard to all these factors, the Court declined to impose the death penalty and sentenced Sooraj to double life imprisonment for murder and attempted murder, 10 years imprisonment for causing hurt by poison and 7 years for causing disappearance of evidence.[Read Judgment]