Rajasthan HC Commutes Death Sentence to Life in Aata-Saata Dual Murder Case

The Rajasthan High Court has commuted the death penalty of two men to life imprisonment for the remainder of their natural lives, ruling that a brutal double murder triggered by familial frustration over marriage customs does not meet the 'rarest of rare' threshold for execution.

A Division Bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma heard the state's reference for death penalty confirmation and the convicts' appeals. The court scrutinized the conviction of Pahad Singh and Dungar Singh for the 2023 murders of Smt. Indira Kanwar and Hari Singh, arising from a dispute over the traditional Aata-Saata arrangement.

The Brutal Assault and Police Intervention

The prosecution established that the accused, armed with axes, attacked Smt. Indira Kanwar after she refused to immediately agree to an Aata-Saata marriage for her daughter. When Hari Singh intervened, he was also killed. The bench noted the persistence of the assault, which extended to minor children and even a responding police officer. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The uninterrupted sequence of events unmistakably establishes that the accused-appellants acted pursuant to a common intention and continued their assault until they were ultimately restrained by the police personnel."

Rejection of 'Grave and Sudden Provocation' Defense

The appellants contended they acted under provocation following a land dispute. However, the High Court rejected the applicability of Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court observed: "The evidence brought on record does not disclose any circumstance which could reasonably be construed as either 'grave' or 'sudden' so as to deprive the accused-appellants of the power of self-control. On the contrary, the consistent testimony of the prosecution witnesses establishes that deceased Smt. Indra Kanwar neither abused, threatened nor humiliated the accused-appellants. She merely expressed that the proposal regarding the marriage of her daughter Rinku Kanwar would be discussed with her husband... Such a response was natural, reasonable and incapable of provoking an ordinary prudent person to resort to homicidal violence."

Balancing Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

While affirming the conviction, the Court engaged in a balancing exercise to determine if the case warranted the death penalty. It considered a mitigation report prepared in line with the guidelines in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh ( "(2023) 2 SCC 353": 2022 CaseBase(SC) 592). The Court noted that the convicts were first-time offenders from a modest rural background whose frustrations stemmed from socio-economic hardships and traditional marriage pressures. The Court has the following directions:

"The sentence of death awarded to accused-appellants Pahad Singh and Dungar Singh for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is, accordingly, commuted to imprisonment for life for the remainder of their natural lives, subject to the payment of fine as imposed by the learned trial Court. In default of payment of fine, the accused-appellants shall undergo the sentence as directed by the learned trial Court. The sentences awarded for the remaining offences shall remain unaltered and shall operate in the manner directed by the learned trial Court."

Key Takeaways

Redefining 'Rarest of Rare'

Even in cases of multiple, brutal murders, the lack of premeditated terror or professional criminality may preclude the death penalty.

Mandatory Mitigation Reporting

Adherence to the Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh ( "(2023) 2 SCC 353": 2022 CaseBase(SC) 592) guidelines is essential, requiring lower courts to consider the convict's background, education, and social stressors before capital sentencing.

Marriage Customs and Culpability

While social practices like Aata-Saata do not justify violence, the resulting emotional strain can be a mitigating factor in the sentencing phase.

Ratio

Capital punishment is an exception, and life imprisonment is the rule. To confirm a death sentence, the court must be satisfied that the alternative of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed after balancing the gravity of the crime against the mitigating circumstances of the offender's socio-economic and psychological background.

Background:

The dispute began on March 3, 2023, when the accused visited the victims' house in District Jalore. Frustrated by the refusal of a marriage proposal, they used axes to inflict fatal chop injuries on two people and injured several others, including a child. The trial court at Bhinmal convicted them under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded the death penalty. On appeal, the High Court analyzed the ocular evidence of injured witnesses and Indian Evidence Act reports to uphold the conviction but found that the personal nature of the vendetta removed it from the 'rarest of rare' category defined in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab ( "(1982) 3 SCC 24": 1980 CaseBase(SC) 231) and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab ( "1983 AIR 957": 1983 CaseBase(SC) 271).

Case Details:
Case No.: D.B. Murder Reference No. 3/2025 and D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 40/2026
NeutralCitation: 2026:RJ-JP:31981-DB
Case Title: State Of Rajasthan v. Pahad Singh and Dungar Singh
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA cum AAG; Mr. Kuldeep Singh; Mr. Tej Singh Badgujar; Mr. Hukam Snigh, for Complainant.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Prakash Choudhary, Pro Bono

Source: 2026 CaseBase(RAJ) 112