Judge Ravi Kumar Diwakar: 23rd Death Penalty in 5 Months in India

• Judge Ravi Kumar Diwakar of Muzaffarnagar issued his 23rd death sentence in five months on September 7, 2026, condemning Nadeem for burning his wife alive.
• Trial courts in India sentenced 128 people to death in 2025, with Uttar Pradesh recording the highest number.
• Over the past decade, sessions courts imposed 1,279 death sentences across India.
• In 2025, the Supreme Court of India confirmed no death sentences for the third consecutive year, acquitting 10 and commuting 71 out of 153 capital cases reviewed.
• The Allahabad High Court historically confirms only 8.31% of death sentences referred to it, highlighting a significant appellate reversal trend.

The significant discrepancy between trial court sentencing and appellate court outcomes in India's capital punishment system carries crucial implications for legal practitioners.

On September 7, 2026, Additional District and Sessions Judge Ravi Kumar Diwakar, presiding in Muzaffarnagar, delivered his twenty-third death sentence within a five-month period. The ruling condemned Nadeem to capital punishment for the heinous crime of burning his wife alive in a dowry-related incident. In his extensive thirty-eight-page judgment, Judge Diwakar directly invoked “the great people of India,” a sentiment consistent with his earlier public declaration that he would “rather die than be called a cowardly judge.” This previous statement was made after ninety-seven criminal cases were reassigned from his court.

While judicial fortitude is generally esteemed, its application as a primary framework for determining sentencing, particularly in capital cases, presents significant concerns. The prolific rate of death sentences issued by Judge Ravi Kumar Diwakar highlights a particular approach to capital punishment in India at the trial court level, drawing attention to the role of individual judicial discretion in such grave matters.

The trajectory observed in cases handled by judges like Diwakar points to a fundamental systemic issue within India's capital sentencing framework. Data compiled by the Square Circle Clinic reveals that trial courts across the nation sentenced 128 individuals to death in 2025 alone, with Uttar Pradesh recording the highest number of any state. Over the preceding decade, sessions courts collectively imposed a staggering 1,279 death sentences, underscoring a consistent trend of capital punishment being handed down at the initial judicial stage, contributing to the capital sentencing paradox India faces.

However, the appellate record presents a starkly contrasting picture, revealing a significant divergence from these trial court decisions. This statistical divide suggests a profound challenge in the consistent application of capital punishment and the exercise of judicial discretion across different levels of the Indian justice system, particularly when examining trial court death sentences India statistics.

The higher judiciary in India demonstrates a markedly different approach to capital punishment. For the third consecutive year, the Supreme Court of India confirmed no death sentences in 2025. During that same year, the Supreme Court reviewed 153 capital cases, resulting in the acquittal of ten accused individuals—the highest number of acquittals in a decade—and the commutation of seventy-one death sentences to lesser penalties, reflecting a robust Supreme Court India death sentence review process.

Similarly, the Allahabad High Court, which is responsible for reviewing the death sentences issued by judges like Diwakar, has historically confirmed only 8.31 percent of the capital punishment cases referred to it. This low confirmation rate by the Allahabad High Court death penalty appeals, coupled with the Supreme Court's actions, underscores a deep-seated dysfunction within the judicial hierarchy concerning capital sentencing, highlighting the extensive use of India capital punishment judicial discretion at the appellate level to overturn or modify trial court judgments.

The significant discrepancy between trial court sentencing and appellate court outcomes in India's capital punishment system carries crucial implications for legal practitioners. The systemic issues surrounding judicial discretion at the trial court level, where judges frequently impose death sentences, necessitate a robust and meticulously planned appellate strategy for criminal defense lawyers. Given the high rate of reversals and commutations by both the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court, the initial trial phase, while critical, must be viewed as a foundational step toward a comprehensive appellate defense.

This judicial landscape underscores that the ultimate fate of individuals sentenced to death in India often rests on the rigorous review processes of higher courts. Therefore, understanding and leveraging the appellate courts' tendency to scrutinize, acquit, or commute capital sentences becomes paramount for effective legal representation in such cases.

Criminal defense lawyers in India should note the systemic issues of judicial discretion in capital sentencing at the trial court level, which necessitates a strong focus on appellate strategy given the high rate of appellate court reversals and commutations.

Source: Original reporting via legal news wire