Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Digambar - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 221-222 of 2022 With Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2023
Decided On : 28-04-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 8 and 106 – Murder – Common intention – Death sentence – Last-seen evidence – Though extra-judicial confession of accused cannot be taken into consideration, however, his conduct of going to Police Station and surrendering before Police can certainly be taken into consideration – Prosecution has established that deceased and accused persons left the house together and soon thereafter death of deceased person had occurred – As such, burden to show as to what happened after leaving the house would shift on accused in view of Section 106 of Evidence Act – No interference would be warranted with concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court that accused appellants are guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC – Appellants do not have any criminal antecedents – Appellant, who has been sentenced to capital punishment, was a young boy of about 25 years at the time of incident – Appellants have not acted in a brutal manner, inasmuch as there is only single injury inflicted on both deceased – As such, present case cannot be considered to be ‘rarest of rare’ case – He is not a person with criminal mindset and criminal records – Sentence of capital punishment commuted to life imprisonment – Sentence of life imprisonment awarded to another appellant upheld. (Paras 17, 18, 19, 28, 30 and 31)
Facts of the case:
Vide impugned common Judgment & Order High Court confirmed death penalty and life imprisonment imposed upon Accused No. 1-Digambar (Appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos. 221-222/2022) and Accused No. 2-Mohan (Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 280/2023) respectively, for conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 IPC.
Findings of Court:
Criminal Appeal filed by appellant-Mohan is dismissed. Criminal Appeals filed by appellant-Digambar are partly allowed. Though the conviction of appellant-Digambar under Section 302 IPC is maintained, sentence of capital punishment is commuted to life imprisonment.
Result : Criminal Appeals Partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
B.R. Gavai, J.
1. The present criminal appeals arise out of the common Judgment & Order dated 13th December 2021 passed by the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court in Confirmation Case No. 1 of 2019 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 808 and 810 of 2019 whereby the High Court confirmed the death penalty and life imprisonment imposed upon the Accused No. 1-Digambar (Appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos. 221-222/2022) and Accused No. 2-Mohan (Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 280/2023) respectively, for conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) read with Section 34 IPC.
2. These Criminal Appeals arise from conspectus of facts adumbrated as follows :
2.1. Pooja (Deceased) was married to one Jethiba Hashanna Varshewar on 10th June 2017. Pooja was having a love affair with one Govind (Deceased) for the past 5 years. The Appellant/Accused-Digambar is the brother of Pooja.
2.2. On 22nd July 2017, Pooja left her matrimonial home without informing anybody. Thus, her husband had lodged a missing report at Bhokar Police Station on the same day.
2.3. The Accused Digambar, having knowledge of the love affair of Pooja and Govind, was suspicious that Pooja might have gone with Govind. Thus, on 22nd July 2017 itself, he called Govind on his mobile whereupon Govind informed him that Pooja was not with him and he can do whatever he wants. The Accused Digambar searched for Pooja at various places but she was not to be found. During the search, he called Govind twice or thrice and each time Govind informed him that Pooja was not with him. The Accused Digambar tried calling Govind in the night, but his phone was switched off and Digambar took this as an indication that Pooja was with him.
2.4. Next day, i.e., on 23rd July 2017, the Accused Digambar along with co-accused Mohan went to the house of the sister of Govind. In the said house, he found Govind as well as Pooja. The Accused Digambar assured Pooja that he will get her married to Govind since they both are in love for the past 5 years. Pooja was convinced with Digambar’s assurance but she denied to go without Govind. Thus, the Accused Digambar and Mohan along with Pooja and Govind left that place on motorcycle.
2.5. Near Village Beltaroda, the Accused Digambar asked Pooja and Govind to wait for some time. The Accused Digambar visited his Aunt’s house and picked up a sickle from there and concealed it near his waist. After coming back to the spot where Pooja and Govind were waiting for him, the Accused took the duo along with himself to his village. En route, he stopped his motorcycle near a canal and tried to convince them, but they were not ready to listen. At that time the Accused Digambar took out the sickle and assaulted on Govind’s throat. When Pooja tried to get hold of him, he removed the handle of the sickle and thrust the backside of the sickle in Pooja’s neck. These attacks by the Accused Digambar resulted in death of the duo.
2.6. The Accused then rushed to the Bhokar Police Station and himself lodged the FIR No. 404/2007 that he has committed the aforesaid crime.
2.7. Pursuant to the investigation, chargesheet was filed and trial was conducted by the court of Additional Sessions Judge at Bhokar, Nanded. The Trial Court, vide its judgment dated 17th July 2019, convicted the Accused Digambar for the offences punishable under Sections 302/201/120-B of IPC and sentenced him to death penalty while the Accused Mohan was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/201/34/120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.
2.8. The Accused Digambar had filed Criminal Appeal No. 810/2019 and the Accused Mohan had filed Criminal Appeal No. 808/2019 before the High Court. Confirmation Case No. 1/2019 was also lodged for confirmation of the death sentence imposed upon the Accused Digambar.
2.9. Vide the impugned judgment, the High Court confirmed the death sentence imposed upon the Accused Digambar and d
Death sentence can be awarded only in a ‘rarest of rare’ case.
(1) Minor contradictions do not go to root of matter and destroy whole prosecution which is firmly made out against accused.(2) Protection guaranteed under Article 20(3) of Constitution of India does....
The court affirmed that the extreme brutality of the crime warrants the death penalty, emphasizing its classification as a rarest of rare case due to the specific circumstances surrounding the kidnap....
Death sentence – Standardisation of sentencing would not be possible because no two criminal cases are identical and standardisation would leave no room for judicial discretion.
(1) Circumstantial evidence – Conclusions of guilt arrived at must be sure conclusions and must not be based on vague conjectures.(2) Extra judicial confession is a weak kind of evidence – Extra judi....
The court ruled that to impose a death sentence, the prosecution must conclusively demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting such a penalty, which was not established in this case.
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
