13 Death Sentences In 3 Months: Judge Who Ordered Survey of Gyanvapi in Spotlight Over String Of Capital Punishments
Muzaffarnagar Additional District and Sessions Judge Ravi Kumar Diwakar awarded death sentences to 13 convicts in six murder cases within three months, invoking the 'rarest of rare' doctrine, with all verdicts now awaiting confirmation by the Allahabad High Court
Judge Ravi Kumar Diwakar awarded death sentences to 13 convicts across six murder trials in three months, with the capital punishments now subject to mandatory confirmation by the Allahabad High Court
A judicial officer in Uttar Pradesh, Judge Ravi Kumar Diwakar, who gained national prominence for ordering the initial video survey of the Gyanvapi complex in May 2022, is once again in the limelight
Currently posted as an Additional District and Sessions Judge in Muzaffarnagar, Judge Diwakar has handed down the death penalty to 13 convicts across six distinct murder trials in exactly a three-month span (April 6 to July 6, 2026).
The extraordinary pace and severity of these judgments have sparked intense conversations about the application of the 'rarest of rare' doctrine at the district judiciary level, with local prosecutors lauding the verdicts for restoring public faith in the rule of law.
Details of the cases
The sheer volume of capital punishments stems from a backlog of gruesome and, in some cases, decades-old murder trials. The chronological breakdown of the 13 death sentences is as follows:
• 2019 Advocate Murder case: On April 6, the court sentenced three men, namely Singol Alvi, Rizwan, and Shalu, to death for the 2019 abduction and brutal murder of Advocate Sameer Saifi over a ₹40 lakh financial dispute.
• 2019 Shekhar Murder Case: In an exceptionally rare ruling against an entire family, Judge Diwakar awarded the death penalty to a 60-year-old man named Mukesh, alongside his three sons (Pradeep, Sandeep, and Sonu). They were convicted of beating a man named Shekhar to death with bricks in 2019 over a mere ₹70,000 loan.
• 2011 Double Murder Case: On May 30, a man named Rahis (alias Zahid) was sentenced to death for a 15-year-old double murder case, where he brutally killed a woman and her six-year-old son by bludgeoning them with bricks in a sugarcane field.
• Saini Murder case: On June 20, two convicts, Ramkaran and Gilu, were handed the death penalty for their involvement in the murder of Rajendra Saini.
• 2020 Homeguard Murder case: Emphasizing that an attack on law enforcement is a "direct challenge to the rule of law," the court sentenced Deepak Singh to death for fatally stabbing a home guard named Rati Ram who had intervened to stop Singh from assaulting his own mother in 2020.
• Election Rivalry Murder case: On July 6, the 13th death sentence was pronounced against a former village head, Pramod Singh, and his aide for the 2010 murder of a farmer over a panchayat poll rivalry. While delivering the sentence, Judge Diwakar notably observed that "democracy is based on the ballot, not the bullet."
In all of these judgments, Judge Diwakar considered the sheer brutality of the crimes, the vulnerability of the victims, or the threat posed to law enforcement, warranting the capital sentence. He found that all the cases fell under the 'rarest of rare' doctrine.
Government advocates in the district have highly praised these verdicts, asserting that such decisive and stern rulings finally deliver justice to the grieving families of the victims.
They argue that resolving long-pending cases with maximum statutory punishments serves as a potent deterrent against hardened criminals.
However, it is pertinent to note that under the Indian criminal justice system, a death penalty handed down by a Sessions Court cannot be executed until it receives the final seal of confirmation from the High Court.
This mandatory confirmation procedure is strictly governed by Chapter XXX (Sections 407 to 412) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Moving forward, all 13 death sentences passed by Judge Diwakar will now be submitted to the Allahabad High Court for confirmation. The convicts can also file an appeal independently to challenge their conviction before the Higher Court.