Looking for reform, SC spares man who killed pregnant wife and son

NEW DELHI: In a major boost to the campaign against death penalty, the Supreme Court refused to confirm the capital punishment for a man who burned his pregnant wife and son for dowry, saying extreme punishment militated against the reformative theory of jurisprudence.

Though the crime could qualify for the rarest-of-the rare criteria for awarding the death penalty, the court took a different view after considering the case.

"Today, when capital punishment has become a distinctive feature of the death penalty apparatus in India, which somehow breaches the reformative theory of punishment under criminal law, we are not inclined to award the same in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case," said a bench of Justices Pinaki C Ghose and R F Nariman on Friday.

"Therefore, confinement till natural life of the accused respondent shall fulfil the requisite criteria of punishment," the bench said, ordering Nisar Ramzan Sayyed to jail for the rest of his life for the murder of his wife and three-year-old son in 2010. The SC took note of the Law Commission's recent report.

"We have noticed that the Law Commission has recommended the abolition of death penalty for all the crimes other than terrorism-related offences and waging war," the bench said.

'Guilt of man proved by wife's dying declaration'
Coming to the case in hand, the bench said the guilt of the accused husband was proved by the dying declaration given by the critically injured wife.

"Under these circumstances, where there is no other eyewitness to the incident, the failure on the part of the accused respondent to explain how his pregnant wife and their minor child met with an unnatural death due to burn injuries sustained at their house leads to an inference which goes against the accused husband," it said.

"We have found the dying declarations of the deceased with consistent allegations about demand of dowry and modus operandi of the offence which resulted in the death of the declarant and her minor child.

Before coming to the conclusion in the present case, we would like to emphasise on the principle enumerated in the famous legal maxim of the law of evidence, i.e Nemo Moriturus Raesumitur Mentire, which means a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. Our Indian law also recognises this fact that 'a dying man seldom lies' or, in other words, 'truth sits upon the lips of a dying man'," it said.

On the question whether death sentence should be awarded to the convict, the bench said even after applying the rarest-of-rare-case principle, it was not able to convince itself to award the death penalty as it violated the reform theory in criminal law. Thus, it decided to award life sentence to the husband.