Udaipur court sentences husband to death for burning wife after abuse over her skin colour

Lakshmi's final statements anchor death sentence

A district court in Udaipur, Rajasthan, has sentenced a man to death for burning his wife alive after repeatedly humiliating her over her dark skin. The prosecution presented 14 witnesses and 36 documents, while the court relied on statements the victim gave to police, doctors and an executive magistrate before she died.

Judge Rahul Choudhary ruled that the murder of Lakshmi, also spelled Laxmi in some court documents, met India's rarest of rare threshold for capital punishment. Her husband is identified as Kishandas and is also referred to as Kishanlal. The death sentence must now go to the Rajasthan High Court for confirmation, and the defence has said it will appeal.

Lakshmi married in 2016. She told authorities that her husband mocked her complexion from the beginning of their marriage, using a derogatory term meaning dark skinned. On the night of 24 June 2017, she said, he brought home a bottle of brown liquid and claimed it would make her skin fairer.

According to her statements, he applied the liquid to her body, then set her alight with an incense stick after she complained that it smelled like acid. She said he poured more liquid on her as the flames spread. Relatives from his household took her to hospital, where she later died from her injuries.

The case brings together two forms of harm: violence within marriage and colourism, the prejudice that favours lighter skin over darker skin. The trial court treated the repeated taunting, the promise of a treatment to lighten her skin and the fatal attack as parts of the same course of cruelty.

Defence lawyer Surendra Kumar Menariya maintains that the death was accidental and that his client was falsely charged. The High Court will examine the conviction and punishment through the review and appeal process.

From marriage to the fatal attack

Lakshmi's account described a marriage in which criticism of her appearance became repeated humiliation. After the wedding in 2016, she said, Kishandas mocked her looks, called her derogatory names connected to her skin tone and pressured her to lighten her complexion.

The events described in the judgment span the marriage, the attack and years of court proceedings:

• 2016: Lakshmi and Kishandas married. She said the taunting about her complexion began after the wedding.
• 24 June 2017: He returned home at night with a plastic bottle containing brown liquid, which he said would improve her complexion.
• After the attack: Members of his household took Lakshmi to hospital. Police, treating doctors and an executive magistrate recorded statements before she died.
• By 3 September 2025: Following proceedings involving evidence gathered over eight years, the Udaipur court had sentenced Kishandas to death. The sentence requires High Court confirmation.

Lakshmi said her husband applied the substance to her body despite her concern about its strong, acid like smell. She described him lighting an incense stick, setting her on fire and adding more liquid while she burned. He then fled.

Prosecutors argued that he had presented a supposed remedy for her complexion as a way to carry out the attack. Their case described the use of a corrosive substance and fire, following a pattern of harassment within the marriage.

Why the court accepted her statements

The Additional District and Sessions Court in Udaipur heard testimony and examined documents assembled over an eight year period. Public prosecutor Dinesh Paliwal said the prosecution called 14 witnesses and submitted 36 documents in support of the charges.

Lakshmi's statements before her death were central to that evidence. Known as dying declarations, such statements can be admitted in an Indian trial when the person who made them has died and cannot appear in court. They allow judges to consider the victim's account despite the absence of testimony at trial.

A dying declaration concerns the circumstances leading to a person's death. Courts examine whether it was given voluntarily, whether the person could speak coherently, whether a competent authority recorded it properly and whether it fits other evidence. The account describes these statements as an exception to the usual restrictions on hearsay, information repeated in court rather than given directly by its original speaker.

Police officers, medical staff and an executive magistrate recorded Lakshmi's declarations. The judge considered their sequence and consistency, and found them credible and compatible with the medical findings. Their agreement strengthened the weight the court gave to her description of the attack.

The judge's reasoning and the defence response

Judge Rahul Choudhary described the killing as an extreme betrayal of trust within a marriage. In explaining the sentence, he connected the brutality of the attack with the repeated humiliation over Lakshmi's complexion and said the cruelty demanded the strongest punishment available under Indian law.

Choudhary expressed the court's condemnation in these words:

The court finds that this heart rending brutal crime was not just against Lakshmi, but a crime against humanity. It shocks the conscience of a healthy and civilised society.

The phrase crime against humanity has a specific meaning in international criminal law. Here, the judge used it to express moral condemnation and the sense that the killing offended basic human values. His sentencing decision rested on India's rarest of rare standard, the cruelty described in Lakshmi's statements and the court's view that a severe response was required to deter similar acts.

Paliwal called the ruling historic and said the evidence established a pattern of taunting and cruelty that ended in extreme violence. The public prosecutor also spoke about Lakshmi's youth and the loss to her family and community:

A young woman in her early twenties was murdered in a brutal way. If we do not save our daughters, then who would?

Menariya rejected the prosecution's account of an intentional killing. The defence lawyer said the trial court had erred, maintained that the evidence was insufficient and announced that he would file an appeal:

The death was accidental and my client was falsely charged.

The trial court rejected the claim of an accident. The defence has 30 days to appeal, while the sentence also goes automatically to the Rajasthan High Court for mandatory examination.

What the rarest of rare standard means

India reserves the death penalty for the rarest of rare cases, a standard shaped by Supreme Court rulings dating to the 1980s. Judges must weigh circumstances that make an offence more serious against factors that may justify a lesser punishment. They must also consider whether life imprisonment would be inadequate.

The Udaipur court identified the manner of the attack, the betrayal of marital trust and the motive rooted in prejudice about skin tone as reasons for treating this murder as exceptionally brutal. Its reasoning connected the physical violence with the deception involved in presenting the liquid as a way to make Lakshmi fairer.

A trial court's death sentence requires confirmation by the relevant High Court. The Rajasthan High Court will review this sentence, and Kishandas can challenge both his conviction and the punishment. No date for that review is given.

If the High Court confirms the sentence, the defence can seek relief from the Supreme Court through an appeal and, later, review and curative petitions. These are further procedures through which a convicted person can ask the court to reconsider a decision.

A convict may also seek mercy from the state governor and the President of India. Capital cases can take years to reach a final outcome because of these safeguards. Courts sometimes replace death sentences with life imprisonment after finding mitigating circumstances, procedural flaws or a risk that capital punishment has been applied inconsistently. Many death sentences are modified on appeal or commuted during later review.

How complexion became a source of abuse

Colourism means treating people differently because of how light or dark their skin is, including within the same ethnic group. Lakshmi's statements describe that prejudice inside her marriage: repeated insults about her complexion followed by a purported treatment to change it.

In India, preferences for lighter skin appear in everyday language, advertising, popular culture and marriage arrangements. Matrimonial advertisements often highlight a prospective bride's complexion. Film and television have long favoured women with lighter skin for leading roles and used stereotypes about darker complexions.

Skin lightening creams remain a major part of the beauty market across South Asia. Campaigners have challenged the suggestion that lighter skin brings success, acceptance or greater worth. Some brands have changed product names and advertising language to move away from that message, although the prejudice continues in both open and subtle forms.

Scholars connect these preferences to overlapping histories of colonial rule, caste and class. British rule reinforced privileges associated with white or lighter skin, while older social hierarchies in South Asia often linked lighter complexions with higher status. Those influences continue to shape beauty ideals, self worth and social choices.

Critics also point to a global market for skin lightening products worth many billions of dollars. They argue that aggressive marketing feeds insecurity about appearance, while unregulated formulations can create health risks. In Lakshmi's case, prosecutors said the promise of a fairer complexion became the pretext for a fatal assault.

The psychological cost and the research

People affected by colourism describe bullying, exclusion and pressure to change their appearance. The harm can extend beyond a single insult when the same message comes from family members, entertainment, advertising and social expectations.

In July 2025, San Rechal Gandhi, a model and former Miss Puducherry who publicly challenged prejudice about skin tone, died by suicide. She had celebrated dark beauty through her work and spoken about harassment linked to her complexion. Her death drew national attention to the psychological toll of discrimination.

Her story also became part of a wider discussion about how entrenched prejudice can combine with financial stress and online abuse to damage mental health. That discussion placed everyday humiliation alongside the pressures people face in their personal and professional lives.

Research on colourism in India shows that its effects vary by setting. An experimental study involving business school participants in Bangalore examined whether skin tone influenced hiring evaluations when resumes were identical. The researchers found no statistically significant preference for lighter skin in those assessments.

The finding adds nuance to the belief that darker skin always reduces employment opportunities in elite environments. The researchers suggested that class and caste may carry more weight in some settings, while colourism may have stronger effects in marriage decisions, media representation or ordinary social interactions.

The Bangalore hiring study is available through the public research archive on the National Institutes of Health website. Its focus on a specific hiring exercise helps explain why experiences of skin tone bias can differ across workplaces, homes and public life.

Domestic violence and the limits of punishment

Surveys in India have consistently found substantial levels of violence by intimate partners. Advocates for women's safety place Lakshmi's case at the intersection of that violence and prejudice about appearance, with repeated degrading treatment preceding the fatal attack.

Indian law includes provisions addressing acid attacks, grievous injury and murder. Enforcement remains uneven, and survivors can face pressure to withdraw complaints. Those pressures can make it difficult for abuse to reach police or remain before a court.

Public outrage over extreme violence often produces demands for harsher punishment. Courts still have to apply strict legal criteria before imposing a death sentence. In this case, the prosecution argued that the cruelty and motive justified capital punishment, while the defence disputed the finding of intentional killing.

Supporters of the verdict say it gives weight to Lakshmi's testimony and sends a message that extreme violence rooted in prejudice will bring severe consequences. They also argue that consistent prosecution matters alongside the length of a sentence.

Critics of capital punishment point to its irreversibility and the need to protect against mistakes. They argue that prevention, support for survivors and education challenging harmful beauty standards should remain part of the response. The national debate prompted by the verdict therefore reaches beyond the punishment of one convicted man.

Changes in advertising, entertainment and homes

The Advertising Standards Council of India has rules prohibiting advertisements from portraying dark skin as inferior. Rights groups have also run campaigns asking brands and media organisations to stop presenting fairness as a sign of success or virtue. Some multinational companies have revised product names and claims.

Public campaigns against colourism are more visible than a decade ago. Celebrities and influencers speak about prejudice tied to complexion, while nonprofit organisations work with schools and colleges on bullying and healthy self image. Some companies have moved away from marketing that feeds insecurity about skin tone.

Audiences have become more vocal about representation. That pressure has pushed film and television producers towards more varied casting and fewer scripts built around complexion jokes or slurs. Some matrimonial advertisements have dropped rigid complexion requirements, although many still use coded language to communicate the same preferences.

Change remains uneven inside families and online. Social media can spread support for people challenging beauty standards, while also spreading abuse. Families may continue to carry inherited assumptions about which complexions count as beautiful or desirable.

Campaigners argue that education, counselling and early intervention matter when relatives notice threats, taunting or intimidation about appearance. Teachers, health workers and local officials who encounter such behaviour can refer people to counselling or legal help. Police and courts can also respond to threats before abuse escalates.

For Lakshmi's family, the immediate development is a conviction and death sentence that must now undergo further judicial examination. The prosecution will defend the trial court's findings, and the defence will challenge them. Beyond that legal process, the case has brought renewed attention to the danger of prejudice becoming a justification for cruelty within a home.

The Bottom Line

• An Udaipur court sentenced Kishandas, also called Kishanlal, to death for burning his wife, Lakshmi, after repeated abuse over her dark skin.
• Lakshmi said he attacked her on 24 June 2017 after claiming that a brown liquid would lighten her complexion.
• The court accepted her dying declarations and considered evidence from 14 witnesses and 36 documents.
• Judge Rahul Choudhary found that the murder met India's rarest of rare standard for capital punishment.
• The defence maintains that the death was accidental, says the conviction was wrong and plans to appeal within 30 days.
• The Rajasthan High Court must confirm the sentence. Further court challenges and mercy petitions remain available.
• The verdict has renewed debate about colourism, domestic violence, capital punishment and support for people facing abuse.