Summary
A Muzaffarnagar additional district and sessions judge, Ravi Kumar Diwakar, awarded his 23rd death sentence in five months on September 7, convicting Mohd. Nadeem of burning his wife Shahzadi to death in a 2018 dowry case.
All 11 prosecution witnesses turned hostile and the conviction rested on the victim's dying declaration. In his 38-page order, the judge went beyond the facts of the case to write that he would rather "die" than be called a "cowardly judge," citing alleged threats from local mafia elements in western Uttar Pradesh.
He had previously drawn national attention in 2022 for ordering a videographic survey of the Gyanvapi mosque complex.
WHY IN NEWS FOR UPSC & STATE PCS
A trial judge's sentencing order explicitly naming his fear of being called a coward, alongside allegations of mafia intimidation, raises a direct question of judicial ethics: whether the personal courage a judge displays against external threats can be separated from the specific, doctrine-bound act of deciding whether a case meets the "rarest of rare" threshold for the death penalty. With 23 death sentences from one court in five months and an appellate confirmation from the Allahabad High Court still pending, the case sits squarely at the intersection of judicial independence and the risk of self-justifying reasoning in the most irreversible sentence the law allows.
Standard News
The Judge Who Told You Why, Not Just What, He Decided
Imagine you are the appellate judge who must now read this sentencing order. Nothing about the facts troubles you - a woman burned alive, a dying declaration that survived eleven hostile witnesses, a conviction that looks sound. What stops you is a single line the trial judge did not have to write: that he would rather die than be called a coward, because the local mafia has been watching him.
The Weight on Both Sides There is a
real cost to staying silent about that fear. A judge operating under genuine local intimidation who says nothing risks exactly the outcome the intimidation is designed to produce - cases quietly softened, sentences quietly reduced, courage quietly rationed.
Naming the threat on the record is, in one reading, an act of institutional honesty: it tells the system and the public, that this judge is not being coerced and it creates a paper trail if retaliation follows. But there is an equally real cost to naming it inside the sentencing reasoning itself.
The "rarest of rare" doctrine from Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) demands that a death sentence rest solely on the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of that specific crime - nothing else. The moment a judge's own reputation, his fear of being seen as "cowardly," enters the same document as the sentencing rationale, an appellate court reading it cannot fully separate the two.
Was this the rarest of rare case on its facts or did it become one partly because this judge, this month, needed to prove something?
The Framework This is not a
contrived dilemma with an obvious answer. Judicial courage is a genuine constitutional value - subordinate judges in western Uttar Pradesh do face real intimidation and a judiciary that flinches under mafia pressure fails the very people, like Shahzadi's family, who most need it to hold firm.
But judicial impartiality demands that the reasoning in a capital sentencing order be insulated from the judge's own personal stakes, however sympathetic those stakes are. Both values are load-bearing here; neither can simply cancel the other out.
The Resolution
The honest position is that Judge Diwakar's underlying courage deserves institutional protection - through the Allahabad High Court's administrative channels and personal security arrangements, not through his own sentencing order.
What he should not have done is fold his fear of being called a coward into the same 38-page document meant to persuade a reviewing court that this killing, on its own facts, crossed the rarest-of-rare threshold. That choice does not make the conviction wrong, but it hands any future appeal a genuine, avoidable question about whether the sentence was reasoned or partly performed - a cost this case did not need to carry.
Quick Facts
Key numbers & takeaways — revise these first
-
Judge Ravi Kumar Diwakar of the Muzaffarnagar Additional District and Sessions Court awarded his 23rd death sentence in five months, on September 7.
-
2.
-
The case involved the 2018 murder of Shahzadi by her husband, Mohd.
-
Nadeem, who set her on fire; all 11 prosecution witnesses turned hostile.
-
3.
-
The conviction relied on the victim's dying declaration, admissible under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
-
4.
-
The "rarest of rare" doctrine governing death sentences was laid down in Bachan Singh v.
-
State of Punjab (1980) and elaborated in Machhi Singh v.
-
State of Punjab (1983).
-
5.
-
All death sentences from trial courts require confirmation by the Allahabad High Court before execution.
Connect the dots for your UPSC preparation.
Standard news covers the event. Log in to read our comprehensive analysis and uncover the hidden constitutional, structural, and ethical dimensions of this topic:
What is Working and What Is Not Working when judicial courage against mafia intimidation is weighed against the doctrinal purity the "rarest of rare" standard demands.
The specific institutional channels - beyond a judge's own sentencing order - through which threatened trial court judges in western Uttar Pradesh could seek documented protection.
The Short Term and Long Term reforms that would let subordinate judges record intimidation on the record without that record becoming part of the sentencing rationale itself.
How an appellate bench at the Allahabad High Court is likely to treat personal reasoning embedded inside a capital sentencing order during confirmation proceedings.
Included in this analysis
Join thousands of aspirants analyzing the news deeply.
Log In to Read Full ArticleDon't have an account? Sign up for free