SRINAGAR: More than twelve years after the sensational murder and mutilation of a sadhu whose chopped body parts were recovered from the Tawi river near Jammu’s Bhoothnath Temple, a Jammu court has sentenced the main accused to life imprisonment, holding that the murder was a “crime against humanity” committed brutally and inhumanly.
The sentence was awarded by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge Jammu, presided over by RN Watal, in the case titled State vs Sarwan Panday and Others, arising out of FIR No. 42/2014 registered at Police Station Nowabad under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Ranbir Penal Code and Section 4/25 Arms Act.
The prosecution was represented by Public Prosecutor Hemanshu Parkash, while Advocate Tarun Sharma appeared for the accused Sarwan Panday. Advocate Anil Bargotra appeared as Amicus Curiae for co-accused Mohammad Saleem and Pintu Paswan.
The court convicted Sarwan Panday under Section 302 RPC and Section 4/25 Arms Act and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The court also awarded him three years’ simple imprisonment under the Arms Act, directing that both sentences would run concurrently.
However, the court declined the prosecution’s plea for capital punishment, observing that although the crime was heinous, it did not fall within the category of “rarest of rare” cases warranting the death penalty.
“The convict is not a professional criminal but was having the greed for money and was indulging in the charas business,” the court observed while passing the sentencing order.
The court further noted that “a young body having been murdered by the accused, such an accused should be severely punished so that same may be deterrent in the society as same is crime against humanity.”
The trial court directed that the sentence would remain subject to confirmation by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh under Section 374 CrPC.
Grisly Discovery Near Tawi
The case had shocked Jammu in March 2014 because of the gruesome manner in which the body was mutilated and dumped in the Tawi river.
According to the prosecution’s case, police on March 9, 2014, received information that mutilated body parts of a person were lying in the Tawi river near Bhoothnath Temple.
The investigation was led initially by Police Station Nowabad officials, including Dy SP Satvinder Singh.
During the trial, Dy SP Satvinder Singh told the court that police, along with SDRF personnel, forensic experts, photographers and dog squad teams, reached the spot where severed neck, arms and legs of a man were found inside the river.
The officer stated that the corpse had been wrapped in a blanket and weighed down with stones before being thrown into the water.
“The body of that corpse was mutilated,” the officer deposed before the court.
Police later identified the deceased as Chikna Bawa, a sadhu residing at Bhoothnath Temple.
The prosecution alleged that Chikna Bawa and the accused were involved in the illegal sale and purchase of charas and disputes over money and narcotics trade had led to the murder.
According to the investigating officer, witnesses informed police that accused Sarwan Panday had a long-standing dispute with the deceased over narcotics business and earnings.
“Accused and deceased were indulging in narcotics business and as a result of which the deceased was murdered,” the investigating officer told the court.
Prosecution Narrative
The prosecution argued that tensions between Chikna Bawa and Sarwan Panday escalated after Shivratri in March 2014.
Witnesses told investigators that the deceased had allegedly been assaulted repeatedly by the accused before his disappearance.
According to prosecution’s arguments recorded in the judgment, Sarwan Panday was allegedly jealous of the deceased’s earnings from charas trade and had decided to eliminate him.
Public Prosecutor Hemanshu Parkash argued before the court that the accused, “in absolute brutal inhumane manner beat him with lathis, injured him with sharp edged weapon parth and axe, rendered him unconscious, confined him in a room, wrapped his body in a blanket and brutally mutilated his body using axe and parth.”
The prosecution further argued that the crime demonstrated “complete disregard to humanity” and deserved strict punishment.
During the arguments on the sentence, the Public Prosecutor pressed for death penalty, arguing that the murder had been committed in an exceptionally barbaric and inhuman manner.
Dog Squad and Blood Stains
One of the major pieces of evidence discussed during the trial was the testimony of dog squad personnel.
According to prosecution witnesses, after the police dog smelled the corpse, it moved towards the Bhoothnath Temple premises, where blood stains were allegedly found on the walls.
A dog handler told the court that the dog repeatedly circled the accused persons after smelling the corpse and blood-stained areas.
“The dog started to smell three persons repeatedly,” the witness stated.
Forensic officials who visited the temple confirmed recovery of blood samples from the walls which were seized and later sent for forensic analysis.
Recovery of Weapons
The prosecution also relied heavily on disclosure statements made by the accused during the investigation.
Police witnesses testified that the accused Sarwan Panday disclosed that the axe used in the murder had been concealed in a room.
Another accused, Mohammad Saleem, allegedly disclosed that the blood-stained clothes of the deceased had been burnt and their ashes concealed.
Police subsequently recovered an axe, lathis, a sharp-edged weapon identified as “parth”, and ashes allegedly linked to the burnt clothes of the deceased.
Several police witnesses identified the recovered weapons during the trial.
The prosecution argued that these recoveries, coupled with forensic evidence and witness testimony, formed a complete chain connecting the accused to the murder.
Medical Evidence
A medical board comprising Dr Vijay Kumari, Dr Sindhu Sharma and Dr Abhineet Suri conducted the post-mortem examination.
Doctors told the court that the body had suffered multiple ante-mortem injuries caused by heavy, sharp-edged weapons.
The board concluded that the death occurred due to “haemorrhage and shock as a result of multiple injuries caused by a heavy sharp-edged weapon.”
Doctors stated that the body had been chopped into pieces and the injuries were fresh in duration.
During cross-examination, the doctors acknowledged that injury No. 4 appeared to have been caused by blunt force, while other injuries were consistent with sharp-edged weapons.
The medical board also stated that the death had likely occurred around three days before the post-mortem examination conducted on March 10, 2014.
Defence Arguments
The defence challenged the prosecution’s case on multiple grounds, arguing that the evidence was entirely circumstantial and riddled with contradictions.
Defence counsel argued before the court that several prosecution witnesses had turned hostile and that statements recorded during the investigation were obtained under “threat, intimidation, undue influence and coercion.”
The defence further argued that the disclosure statements attributed to the accused were unreliable and legally weak.
Counsel also stressed that two of the accused were physically handicapped and incapable of participating in such a brutal crime.
“It is absolutely imaginable and falsity of charge sheet is obvious,” the defence argued while seeking acquittal.
The defence further pleaded for leniency during sentencing, arguing that the convict was not a habitual offender and had family responsibilities.
Counsel submitted that imprisonment of the convict would subject his family to starvation.
Court’s Findings
After examining the evidence, witness testimonies, forensic reports and the circumstances surrounding the case, the court concluded that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused.
The court held that the chain of circumstances was complete and consistent with the prosecution’s theory.
The judgment extensively discussed the principles governing circumstantial evidence and the admissibility of disclosure statements leading to the recovery of weapons and incriminating material.
The court relied upon the recovery of weapons, blood-stained material, forensic evidence, post-mortem findings and testimonies of investigating officers and witnesses.
The court observed that the conduct of the accused and recoveries made during the investigation corroborated the prosecution’s story.
While awarding sentence, the court held that although murder attracts either life imprisonment or the death penalty, capital punishment can only be imposed in the “rarest of rare” cases.
“No other ground has been put forth before me, which would warrant imposing extreme penalty on the convict,” the court observed.
The convict was informed about his right to appeal before the High Court against the conviction and sentence.
