SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(SC) 1719

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.
Babasaheb Maruti Kamble - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1440 of 2018 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 458 of 2015]
Decided On : 01-11-2018

Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the court has the discretion to commute a death sentence based on the circumstances of the case.

Headnote:

Criminal Law - Death Penalty - Circumstantial Evidence

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 302, 376(2)(f) and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded death penalty for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC. The High Court upheld the conviction and confirmed the death sentence.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the circumstantial evidence presented an unbroken chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant's conduct and various incriminating circumstances, including DNA and post-mortem reports, corroborated the prosecution's case.

Issues: The main issue was the conviction and sentencing of the appellant under the provisions of Section 302, 376(2)(f), and Section 342 of IPC, as well as the imposition of death penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the conviction based on the unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence and the lack of a plausible explanation from the appellant. However, the court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment with a cap of 20 years rigorous imprisonment, considering the appellant's age and lack of criminal history.

Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, maintaining the sentences under Sections 376 and 342, IPC, with the clarification that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. SIKRI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard the counsel for the parties at length.

3. This appeal is filed by the appellant who has been convicted for offences under Sections 302, 376(2)(f) and 342 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'). He was awarded death penalty for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC by the trial court vide its judgment dated September 27, 2013 in Sessions Case No. 87 of 2012. For offence under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC, the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and for the offence under Section 342 of IPC, the trial court awarded simple imprisonment for two months.

4. Since sentence of death was imposed on the petitioner, the Sessions Judge made a reference to the High Court for confirmation of death sentence. The petitioner also challenged his conviction and sentences imposed by filing Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 2014 before the High Court. The said appeal as well as reference were heard together by the High Court. The High Court upheld the conviction under the aforesaid provisions and also confirmed death sentence of the petitioner vide its judgment dated July 09/10, 2014.

5. It is this judgment which is assailed in the present appeal. In the first instance, we have heard learned counsel for the parties on the question as to whether the conviction of the appellant has been rightly recorded by the trial court, and affirmed by the High Court. Learned counsel for both the parties have taken us through the material on record as well as relevant evidence which was produced by the prosecution before the trial court. No doubt it is a case of circumstantial evidence as there are no eye-witnesses. At the same time, we find that the circumstances produced before the trial court weave an unbroken chain which point accusing finger towards the appellant thereby proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. These circumstances are recorded by the High Court as well in para 8 of the judgment. There are as many as eleven incriminating circumstances which have been proved on record. These include the circumstances of last seen, namely, appellant was found talking with the victim girl and taking her to his house. Such an occurrence was seen by PW-4 Dharmendra, PW-5 Shrikant, PW-15 Survarna and PW-21 Radheshyam. The Court has also gone into the conduct of the appellant when the mother of the victim girl went to his house to enquire about her daughter. The appellant had replied that he had not sent her daughter anywhere and that he was not aware of whereabouts of her daughter. However, the dead body of the victim girl was found in his house under the bed on which he was lying down, when enquired. Slippers and clothes of the victim girl were also recovered from the house of the appellant. Likewise there was a seizure of blood stained chadar. The medical evidence produced by the prosecution including DNA report and post-mortem report of the girl completely corroborated the aforesaid circumstances. Above all, the appellant had not offered any plausible explanation about the presence of the dead body of the victim girl in his house or about other incriminating circumstances, when his statement was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC. There is an elaborate discussion about the deposition of various witnesses who proved the aforesaid circumstances. Mr. Naphade, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant was unable to point out any flaw in the impugned judgment of the High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant under the provisions of Section 302, 376(2)(f) and Section 342 of IPC. In fact, conscience of the limitation of the appellant's case insofar as his conviction is concerned, main emphasis of Mr. Naphade was on the death sentence which is imposed upon the appellant for offence under Section 302, IPC. For the aforesaid reasons insofar as conviction of the appellant under the aforesaid provisions of IPC is concerned, the same is maintained and upheld.

6. Reverting

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top