Murder due to blows with hammer on head not a heinous crime: HC

Observing that killing a person by giving four to five blows of a hammer on the head cannot be branded as a diabolic or brutal offence, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court on Tuesday commuted the death sentence of two men to life. The HC while quashing the death verdict concluded that both the convicts used hammer alone and not any ‘dangerous weapon’ to kill the deceased.

A bench of Justices Pradeep Deshmukh and Pushpa Ganediwala commuted the death awarded to Amir Shaikh and Sachin Raut (both 22), who were convicted by a trial court for murder and robbery.

The duo were air-conditioner mechanics and had trespassed the house of the deceased with an aim to rob off the valuables. Before committing theft, the duo killed the woman, who resided in the house by giving several blows of a hammer on her head and face. They also gave a few blows to the head of the woman’s minor son, who later on survived.

The trial court concluded that both the accused committed a cold-blooded murder which can be safely categorised as a ‘rarest of rare’ incident and handed over death to them. The bench led by Justice Deshmukh, however, opined that eliminating the duo from this world would not be the remedy.

In his 79-page judgment, Justice Deshmukh said, “In our view, the circumstances of the crime, in this case, are not of such a kind for which there is no alternative but to impose the death sentence. The offence committed is not of an exceptionally depraved and heinous character.

The manner of its execution and its design would not put it at the level of extreme atrocity and cruelty.”

The bench considered the age of the convicts at the time of the incident. “They were working as air conditioner mechanics which itself reflect their socio-economic status in their life. They carried with them tools for air conditioner repairing and no other deadly weapon,” Justice Deshmukh noted.

“In our considered view 4-5 blows with a hammer on the head cannot be branded as a brutal, diabolic and heinous crime. The chances of a reformation in them are at the higher side,” concluded Justice Deshmukh in his order. The bench further said that the present case cannot be categorised as the rarest of rare as the duo are not some hardened criminals.

“With a temptation to earn easy money, they adopted this way, however, they failed before they could enjoy the fruits of their actions. Certainly, to commit murder was not their prime motive. They entered the house to commit robbery,” Justice Deshmukh said.

“In order to deactivate the housewife, they inflicted 4-5 blows on her head with a hammer. We do not see any uncommon thing in it. In the cases of robbery/dacoity and murder, obviously, the intention of the accused is not to commit murder. Murder is only the by-product to facilitate crime,” Justice Deshmukh said while justifying why death should not be given.

The bench further said that robbery without an arm is less serious than armed dacoity. “It would not come under heinous crime like rape, armed dacoity kidnapping etc,” stated the order authored by Justice Deshmukh.