Court Rejects Death Penalty, Holds Case Does Not Fall Within ‘Rarest Of Rare’ Category; Each Convict Fined ₹50,000
Jammu, November 06: The Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, on Friday sentenced five convicts to imprisonment for life in the 2013 murder case of Nishan Matoo, holding that the offence, although grave and resulting in the loss of a precious human life, did not fall within the category of the “rarest of rare” cases warranting the death penalty.
The sentence was awarded by Principal Sessions Judge Tahir Khurshid Raina in FIR No. 68/2013 registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 and 109 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), along with Sections 4/25 and 5/27 of the Arms Act.
The prosecution was represented by Public Prosecutor Hemanshu Parkash, while the defence was represented by advocates Vinod Kumar Sharma, Rohit Sharma, Prince Khanna and Ashwani Kumar.
The five convicts sentenced to life imprisonment have been identified as Mst. Surinder Kour, Talvinder Singh alias Sunny, Balvinder Singh alias Babloo, Sonu Singh alias Githa and Sadam Hussain alias Sonu.
The court ordered that all five convicts shall undergo imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of their natural lives, subject to any remission, commutation or other statutory benefit available under law.
The court further directed each convict to pay a fine of ₹50,000, to be paid to the legal heirs or dependents of the deceased.
Court Rejects Death Penalty, Cites Possibility Of Reformation
While determining the quantum of punishment, the court examined the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, including the nature of the crime, personal background of the convicts, their family circumstances, previous criminal antecedents, conduct in jail and prospects of reformation and rehabilitation.
The prosecution had sought consideration of the extreme seriousness of the offence,
submitting that a young and innocent person had lost his life in a deliberate and brutal assault allegedly carried out by five persons using dangerous weapons in the presence of his mother.
However, the defence counsel sought a lenient view, arguing that the case did not satisfy the requirements of the rarest-of-rare category and highlighting alleged discrepancies in the evidence and the family relationship of the eyewitnesses with the deceased.
Referring to the landmark Supreme Court judgments in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, among other judgments, the court reiterated that life imprisonment remains the rule while the death penalty is an exception.
The court observed that the prosecution had failed to place material establishing that the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the convicts stood completely foreclosed or that life imprisonment would unquestionably inadequate.
Consequently, the court held that the case did not meet the stringent legal test for imposing capital punishment.
Court Takes Note Of 13-Year Trial And Jail Conduct
The court also took note of the fact that the case had remained pending for approximately 13 years.
According to the sentencing order, the FIR was registered in 2013 and the chargesheet was filed during the same year. Charges were framed in September 2013, while the trial continued for nearly 13 years.
The court observed that there was no material indicating that the accused had deliberately prolonged the proceedings. Rather, the prosecution had consumed considerable time in producing witnesses, resulting in delay in the conclusion of the trial.
The court also examined reports submitted by the concerned jail superintendents regarding the conduct and background of the convicts.
It noted that Surinder Kour was a widow with an unmarried daughter, while Balvinder Singh and Talvinder Singh were brothers with elderly parents and their own family responsibilities.
The court also took note of the jail conduct reports and other personal circumstances of the convicts while deciding the sentence.
Additional Sentences Under RPC And Arms Act
Apart from life imprisonment under Section 302 RPC, the court awarded additional punishments to the remaining four convicts, excluding Surinder Kour, for other offences.
Section 147 RPC: Talvinder Singh, Balvinder Singh, Sonu Singh and Sadam Hussain were sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000 each.
Section 148 RPC: The same four convicts were awarded two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000 each.
Section 4/25(1B)(b) Arms Act: Talvinder Singh, Balvinder Singh and Sonu Singh were sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000 each.
Section 5(a)/27(1) Arms Act: The same three convicts were awarded three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000 each.
In case of default in payment of the respective fines, additional imprisonment has also been prescribed by the court.
The court directed that all sentences shall run concurrently and that the period already spent by the convicts behind bars during investigation and trial shall be set off against their total period of imprisonment.
₹7 Lakh Compensation Recommended For Victim’s Family
In an important direction concerning the welfare of the victim’s family, the court recommended compensation of ₹7 lakh for the legal heirs and dependents of Nishan Matoo under the Jammu and Kashmir Victim Compensation Scheme, 2019.
The court observed that considering the prolonged incarceration of most of the convicts and their financial circumstances, recovery of the fine amount from them could remain difficult.
Accordingly, it recommended that the Legal Services Authority, Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, award ₹7 lakh compensation to the dependents of the deceased.
The court directed that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Secretary, Legal Services Authority, J&K, Jammu, requesting that the matter be taken up on priority so that the victim’s family receives the compensation without unnecessary delay.
Sentence To Be Sent For High Court Confirmation
Since the punishment awarded is life imprisonment, the court directed that the case file along with the judgment and sentence be submitted to the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu for confirmation under Section 374 of the old CrPC.
The court also informed the convicts of their right to challenge the judgment and sentence before the High Court within 14 days from the date of the sentence.
Copies of the judgment and sentence were directed to be provided to the respective jail superintendents where the convicts are lodged.
The order was pronounced on November 6, 2026, by Principal Sessions Judge Tahir Khurshid Raina.
(KNC)
