‘I Would Rather Die Than Be Called A Coward Judge’: Judge Who Awarded 23 Death Sentences Speaks Out On Case Withdrawals

“I would rather die than be called a coward judge,” Additional District and Sessions Judge Ravi Kumar Diwakar of Muzaffarnagar said in a judgment sentencing a man to death for burning his wife alive, while alleging that serious criminal cases had been withdrawn from his court to benefit “mafias/gangsters/criminals”.

Judge Diwakar made the observation in his September 7 judgment while sentencing Nadeem to death for deliberately pouring kerosene on his 23-year-old wife, Shahzadi, and setting her on fire. The judge said he had been “deeply hurt and saddened” by the withdrawal of cases from his court and alleged that he had also received a message from a western Uttar Pradesh gangster threatening to have his court changed or his transfer effected if he pursued certain cases or commented on the matter.

The 38-page judgment said the judge knew the “complete reason” behind the withdrawal of the cases but would not disclose everything, citing the dignity of his office. He also wrote that a person could “fool the world but cannot fool his own conscience”.

The judge said that if he became afraid of such forces, he would have no right to remain in the judiciary and would rather resign. But as long as he occupied the judge’s chair, he said, the authority to decide cases remained with him.

These observations came against the backdrop of the withdrawal of 97 pending cases involving murder and other serious offences from Judge Diwakar’s court in August. The judge had, in the preceding four months, awarded 22 death sentences in 10 cases. His latest death sentence to Nadeem took the number to 23.

Turning to the case before him, the judge held that Nadeem’s killing of Shahzadi was an exceptionally brutal act and fell within the “rarest of rare” category warranting the death penalty.

Court noted that Shahzadi had suffered about 98 per cent burns. It said the victim was killed by the person from whom she was entitled to expect “protection, trust and security”. By deliberately setting her on fire, the accused had subjected her to extreme physical pain, fear, helplessness and mental agony before her death.

The judgment also dwelt on the manner in which the killing was carried out. It said that deliberately pouring kerosene or another inflammable substance on a person, setting them on fire and leaving them to burn alive demonstrated not merely the consequence of the crime but the “horrifying nature of the means” chosen to cause death.

The judge questioned what treatment should be given to a person who burns a helpless woman alive and whether such a person deserved sympathy. His answer was that such a person was “not at all entitled to sympathy” and that the maximum punishment was warranted.

Court further said the crime was not merely a brutal violation of the victim’s right to life but also undermined human dignity and created fear and insecurity in society. It observed that such an act was contrary to human values and affected the collective conscience of society.

While deciding the sentence, court found the killing deliberate, cold-blooded and pre-planned and noted the absence of remorse on the part of the convict. It held that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances and that no mitigating circumstance took the case outside the “rarest of rare” category.

Court sentenced Nadeem under Section 302 of the IPC to death and imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh. It also awarded him two years’ imprisonment under Section 504, with the sentences to run concurrently.

The death sentence, however, cannot be executed unless it is confirmed by the Allahabad High Court. The trial court directed that the case be sent to the High Court for confirmation and informed Nadeem of his right to appeal within 30 days.

The judge also directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary. He suggested that in serious sessions cases, where the State is the complainant, the District Government Counsel (Criminal) should be given an opportunity to place the State’s position if records are transferred from one court to another without adequate reason, particularly where such transfer could benefit accused persons or influential criminals.

Case title: State v. Nadeem & Others

Court: Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court No. 3, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh

Judge: Ravi Kumar Diwakar

Judgment date: September 7, 2026