‘Poverty is not a shield': Life term to man for killing wife

Time of India

26-05-2025

New Delhi: A Delhi court, refusing to accept "poverty" as a major mitigating circumstance, sentenced a man to life imprisonment for murdering his wife in 2014 by setting her ablaze.
The court observed that the aggravating circumstances in the case outweighed the mitigating circumstances.
The court of additional sessions judge Virender Kumar Kharta, in an order dated May 17, stated that in the present case, the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances. However, the case did not fall within the purview of the rarest of rare doctrine, which would warrant the death penalty.
The court was hearing arguments on the quantum of sentence against Giriraj Kishor Bhardwaj, alias Shyam Naga, who was earlier convicted under Section 302 (murder) of the IPC.
"While sentencing, the purpose of sentencing has to be borne in mind. The sentence imposed must establish a right balance between the rights of the convict and the rights of the victim and the purpose of law. Poverty is not a major mitigating circumstance," the judge said.
Additional public prosecutor Pankaj Kumar Ranga sought the death penalty for the convict, stating he committed the heinous offence of murdering his wife, Kusum, by pouring a flammable liquid and setting her ablaze with a matchstick on Sept 24, 2014.
The prosecutor mentioned that after the murder, one of the sons of the accused discontinued his studies and became a drug addict, while the other, a minor, started working as a helper for a vegetable vendor.
The court then sentenced Bhardwaj to life imprisonment. "The convict is a first-time offender. The offence committed by the convict is heinous in nature. The deceased was the wife of the convict. The trauma of the family members of the deceased, Kusum, and her sons can be understood," the judge observed.
The court also referred the case to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLA) to determine adequate compensation for the deceased's legal representatives, acknowledging that they suffered mental trauma, inconvenience, hardship, disappointment, and frustration.
The counsel for the convict submitted before the court that the case does not fall under the rarest of rare doctrine and hence, he cannot be awarded the death penalty. She further argued that a lenient view may be taken against the convict, as he belongs to a poor strata of society.