📷 Image: Wikimedia Commons / Sir Charles Alfred Bell (1870-1945)
Crime
29-year-old convicted of child murder spared death penalty, IQ 56 cited
✍️ The Indian Express
🗓 27 Aug 2026, 04:48 AM
👁 2
A 29‑year‑old man, whose IQ was recorded at 56 and mental age at nine, was not sentenced to death for the murder of a child, the court ruled.
The trial court delivered its verdict in a murder case involving a child, confirming the guilt of a 29‑year‑old accused but refusing to impose the death penalty. The judgment highlighted the defendant's low intellectual quotient, recorded at 56, and a mental age assessed to be around nine years.
Under Indian jurisprudence, courts must consider mental retardation when deciding on capital punishment, as mandated by Supreme Court precedents. The judge concluded that the accused's cognitive impairment fell short of the threshold required for a death sentence, opting instead for a term of imprisonment.
Legal analysts noted that the ruling reflects the judiciary's cautious approach to applying the ultimate sanction to individuals with significant mental deficiencies. The decision also reignites the broader debate on the appropriateness of capital punishment in cases involving intellectually disabled offenders.
The victim's family expressed disappointment over the sentence, while human‑rights groups welcomed the court's adherence to constitutional safeguards for the mentally challenged.
Under Indian jurisprudence, courts must consider mental retardation when deciding on capital punishment, as mandated by Supreme Court precedents. The judge concluded that the accused's cognitive impairment fell short of the threshold required for a death sentence, opting instead for a term of imprisonment.
Legal analysts noted that the ruling reflects the judiciary's cautious approach to applying the ultimate sanction to individuals with significant mental deficiencies. The decision also reignites the broader debate on the appropriateness of capital punishment in cases involving intellectually disabled offenders.
The victim's family expressed disappointment over the sentence, while human‑rights groups welcomed the court's adherence to constitutional safeguards for the mentally challenged.