Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.L. DATTU, CJI., S.A. BOBDE, ARUN MISHRA, JJ.
PURUSHOTTAM DASHRATH BORATE & ANR. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1439 OF 2013
Decided On : 08-05-2015
(b) Criminal trial – Sentencing policy – Aggravating and mitigating circumstances – Accused appellants convicted of heinous crime of rape and murder – Age alone cannot be a paramount mitigating circumstance – Similarly, family background of the accused also could not be said to be a mitigating circumstance – Lack of criminal antecedents also cannot be considered as mitigating circumstance. (Para 33)
(c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Sentencing – Rarest of rare cases – Meticulous execution of deliberate cold-blooded and pre-planned abduction, rape and murder – Appellants menace to society – Calls for death sentence – Proportionality of punishment. (Para 34, 35, 36, 37)
(1980) 2 SCC 684; (1983) 3 SCC 470; (1994) 2 SCC 220; (2012) 4 SCC 257; (1987) 3 SCC 80; (1991) 3 SCC 471; (2015) 1 SCC 67; (2011) 3 SCC 85 – Relied upon
(2002) 5 SCC 234; (2008) 16 SCC 372; (2010) 9 SCC 1 – Referred
Facts of the case:
The deceased was serving as an Associate in the BPO Branch of Wipro Company in Pune for about a year, where she used to work in the night-shift, i.e. from 11:00 p.m. to 09:00 a.m.
On 01.11.2007, at the time of the pick-up of the deceased for her work by the appointed cab, Pradeep Kokade, Accused No.2, was sitting in the rear seat behind the driver.
At about 12:45 a.m., the Accused No.1 and 2 committed the heinous offence of gang-rape and thereafter murdered her by means of strangulating her with her own Odhani, slashing her wrist with a blade and smashing her head with a stone. Further, that the accused-appellants stripped the deceased of her possessions and money and then left her body in the field of one Kisan Bodke.
The Sessions Court concluded that the chain of circumstances evince beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused-appellants have committed the heinous offence of rape and murder of the deceased. The court sentenced the appellants, inter alia, to death.
The High Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence.
Finding of the Court:
There is no error in the impugned judgment.
Result: Appeal disposed of. Death sentence maintained.
JUDGMENT
H.L. DATTU, CJI.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, passed by the High Court of Judicature for Maharashtra at Bombay in Confirmation Case No.1 of 2012 and Criminal Appeal No.632 of 2012, dated 12.09.2012, 13.09.2012, 24.09.2012 and 25.09.2012. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.284 of 2008, dated 20.03.2012, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused-appellants for the offence under Sections 302, 376(2)(g), 364 and 404 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the IPC”) and consequently awarded death sentence.
2. The Prosecution case in a nutshell is: The deceased was residing with her brother-in-law and sister, namely PW-12 and PW-13 respectively, along with their minor son, in a flat in Pune City. She was serving as an Associate in the BPO Branch of Wipro Company in Pune (for short, “the Company”) for about a year, where she used to work in the night-shift, i.e. from 11:00 p.m. to 09:00 a.m. The fateful day was to be her last day since she had tendered her resignation one month prior. The Company had arranged for and hired a private cab service to transport its employees from their residence to the workplace and back at the conclusion of their respective work-shifts. Further, to ensure the safety and security of its female employees the Company imposed a mandatory condition, upon the owner of the cab, that a security guard be present in the said vehicle, if a female employee was being transported.
3. On the fateful day, being 01.11.2007, the cab was deputed to pick up the deceased from her residence at 10:30 p.m., following which the cab would collect three other employees of the Company. As per the usual practice, at about 10:15 p.m., the deceased received a missed call from the driver of the cab, Purushottam Borate, namely Accused No.1, informing her of the pick-up. The deceased called back the Accused No.1 to pick her up in 10 minutes to take her to the workplace, upon which PW-12 and his son went down from their flat to drop her to the cab. At the time of the pick-up, Pradeep Kokade, namely Accused No.2, was sitting in the rear seat behind the driver. The next employee to be collected by the cab was one Sagar Bidkar, i.e. PW-11, and the expected time of the said pick up was at about 10:45 p.m.
4. During the journey, between 10:30 p.m. and 11:00 p.m., the deceased received calls on her mobile phone by one Jeevan Baral, a friend of the deceased residing in Bangalore, namely PW-14, who heard the former questioning the Accused No.1 as to where he was taking the cab, why he had stopped in a jungle and what he was doing. Thereafter, the phone call between the deceased and PW-14 was abruptly disconnected and subsequent attempts by the latter to call the deceased were rendered futile as her mobile phone was found to be switched off. Further, PW-14 was unable to contact either the Pune Police or the relatives of the deceased in Pune till the following day.
5. It is the case of the prosecution that the Accused No.1 and 2, being aware of the fact that the deceased would be travelling to her workplace that night and that she would be the first to be collected, under the guise of taking the deceased to the said workplace, hatched a conspiracy to abduct her and take her to a secluded spot. The prosecution has alleged that, in the time period between the abrupt end to the aforementioned phone call with PW-14 and the pick-up of PW-11 at about 12:45 a.m., the Accused No.1 and 2 committed the heinous offence of gang-rape and thereafter murdered her by means of strangulating her with her own Odhani, slashing her wrist with a blade and smashing her head with a stone. Further, that the accused-appellants stripped the deceased of her possessions and money and then left her body in the field of one Kisan Bodke.
6. Thereafter, the
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
