In a landmark ruling, a Bilaspur court has sentenced 34-year-old Umend Kevat to death for the brutal murder of his wife and three young children, including his 18-month-old son, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The court deemed the crime as one of the “rarest of the rare,” justifying the death penalty.
Kevat, driven by suspicions about his wife’s character, strangled 32-year-old Sukrita Kevat along with their daughters Khushi, 5, Lisa, 3, and their infant son, on January 1, 2024. The court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Avinash K Tripathi, emphasized that the severity and cold-blooded nature of the crime left no room for leniency.
The tenth Additional Sessions Judge in Bilaspur, Avinash K Tripathi, stated, “The court believes that a witness may lie, but circumstances do not.” Circumstantial evidence is the foundation of norms and laws. In this situation, the accused bears sole responsibility for the offense from which he cannot escape. The phrase ‘Actions Speak Louder Than Words’ applies perfectly to this situation. The only conclusion is that the crime was done solely by the accused, Umend Kevat.”
Citing Supreme Court decisions in previous situations as well as the facts of this case, the court determined that the accused’s act of murdering his family was nothing short of barbarous. The victims, particularly the children, were both innocent and helpless. Following a premeditated plot, the accused strangled his wife and children one by one with a rope, most likely motivated by concerns about his wife’s character.
The accused first took his wife outside on the pretext of doing some work, strangled her from behind with a rope, and then returned to the room to murder his three children. This shows that the accused was well aware of his actions and the repercussions. The method in which these killings were carried out suggests a determined and deliberate plot, leaving no doubt that this was a particularly horrific crime, the trial court said.
Kevat was sentenced to death and fined Rs 10,000. The sentence is subject to confirmation by the High Court, as required under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court concluded that the death penalty was warranted to serve justice and protect society.
