1. Murder of pregnant daughter — Kidnapping — Causing death of unborn child — Offences under Sections 302, 316, and 364, Indian Penal Code. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 930
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, ARAVIND KUMAR, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Eknath Kisan Kumbharkar – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4220 of 2024 (Arising Out Of The Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.251 OF 2020)
Decided on : 16-10-2024
Important Points
The court established that motive and corroborative evidence are crucial in murder cases, and the death penalty should only be imposed in the rarest of rare cases.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
Murder - IPC Sections 302, 316, 364 - The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Penal Code regarding murder, causing death of an unborn child, and kidnapping, emphasizing the need for motive and corroborative evidence in establishing guilt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was charged with murdering his pregnant daughter after she married against his wishes. The prosecution claimed he strangled her in an autorickshaw, while the defense argued lack of motive and reliability of witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible, establishing the appellant's motive and actions leading to the murder, thus affirming the conviction and death sentence.
Issues: Whether the appellant was guilty of murder, and if the death penalty was justified given the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence presented, including eyewitness accounts and the established motive, sufficiently proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Result: The death penalty was converted to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Dr. Aditya Sondhi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pratiksha Basarkar, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR Mr. Anubhav Kumar, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya SM, Adv. Mr. Rijuk Sarkar, Adv. Ms. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Mr. G.D. Ahmed, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Dr. Aditya Sondhi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pratiksha Basarkar, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR Mr. Anubhav Kumar, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya SM, Adv. Mr. Rijuk Sarkar, Adv. Ms. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Mr. G.D. Ahmed, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Reliability of sole eyewitness — Proof of motive — Non-examination of independent witnesses — Validity of death sentence considering mitigating circumstances. (Para 7 )
3. Motive established via spouse's testimony — Reliability of sole eyewitness — Non-examination of independent witnesses not fatal — Mitigating factors preclude death penalty. (Para 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 32 )
4. Conviction may be based on a sole reliable eyewitness — Death penalty warranted only in rarest of rare cases where reformation is impossible. (Para 12 , 24 , 32 )
5. Conviction affirmed — Death sentence converted to twenty years rigorous imprisonment without remission. (Para 33 )
6. Can a criminal conviction be based on the testimony of a single eyewitness?
Yes, a court can act on the testimony of a single witness even if uncorroborated. The court focuses on the quality rather than the quantity of evidence, and corroboration is not required unless mandated by statute or the nature of the testimony requires it as a rule of prudence. (Para 12 , 13 )
7. Does the failure to examine independent witnesses necessarily weaken a prosecution case?
No, the non-examination of independent witnesses does not by itself give rise to an adverse inference against the prosecution. It only becomes significant if the evidence of the eyewitness raises serious doubts about their presence at the time of the actual occurrence. (Para 14 )
8. Who bears the burden of proof regarding a specific fact, such as a financial dispute used to allege false implication?
Under Section 103 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on the person who wishes the court to believe in its existence. Therefore, the accused must provide evidence to prove alleged financial transactions. (Para 15 )
9. What is the legal standard for imposing the death penalty in India?
The death penalty is imposed only in the rarest of rare cases that shock the collective conscience of society. It is warranted only when the grave nature of the crime is coupled with a finding that there is no possibility of reformation of the criminal. (Para 24 , 32 )
JUDGMENT :
Aravind Kumar, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The sole accused who is the appellant before us was charged for murdering his pregnant daughter and being dissatisfied with the judgement dated 06/08/2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Confirmation Case No.3 of 2017, by which the High Court confirmed the judgement and order of death sentence awarded by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Section 302, Section 316 (10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-) and Section 364 (life imprisonment) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the present appeal has been preferred.
BRIEF FACTS
3. As per the case of the prosecution, the deceased Pramila was the daughter of appellant/accused and PW1/Smt. Aruna Kumbharkar and she is said to have married Mr. Deepak Kamble in the year 2013 against the wishes of her father and it was an inter-caste marriage. On 28/06/2013 at 5:30 AM, the appellant is said to have left his house and travelled in the auto rickshaw of PW2/Complainant/Pramod Ahire by informing him that his brother Navnath had met with an accident and requested PW2 to go to Kailash Nagar, Nandurnaka. Appellant is said to have informed PW2 on the way that there was no incident of accident of his brother, however, his mother was serious, and her last wish was to see her granddaughter Ms. Pramila. Hence, they proceeded to the house of Pramila and, appellant is said to have informed Pramila’s mother-in-law/Sangita Kamble/PW3 that the health of his mother had deteriorated and she was in serious condition and she was longing to meet Pramila. PW3 is said to have informed the appellant that Pramila was nine months pregnant and that she had an appointment with the Doctor at 11:00 AM. However, the appellant is said to have promised to get Pramila back by 10:00 AM and accordingly appellant and PW2 took her in the autorickshaw to Savkar Hospital. When they reached near the hospital, the appellant told the PW2/Complainant that his maternal uncle is working in Savkar Hospital as a watchman and instructed PW2 to secure him. Accordingly, PW2 entered inside the hospital and called him and there was no response and after some time it was intimated by the ward boy of the hospital that watchman whom the PW2 was searching was not working there. Thereafter PW2 returned towards his auto rickshaw and at that point of time he saw, Pramila lying down on the lap of the appellant in the auto rickshaw and her neck was being strangulated by a rope in the hand of the appellant and he found foam was oozing out from her mouth. PW2 rushed towards the autorickshaw and questioned the appellant and was informed that he was not concerned with the consequence as she had spoiled his reputation. PW2 started screaming and people from nearby area came near the autorickshaw but did not lend any helping hand. Thereafter PW2 dragged the appellant out of autorickshaw. PW2 is said to have attempted to save Pramila by dragging the appellant away from her and at that point of time appellant is said to have ran away from the spot. PW2 immediately took her to Savkar Hospital and the doctor informed him to take her to civil hospital as it was a police case. Hence, PW2 immediately took her to civil hospital where the doctor declared Pramila as dead. Subsequently, PW2 lodged a police complaint and on the basis of the same, police registered an FIR in CR No.159/2013.
4. After due investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed against appellant under Sections 302, 316 and 364 of IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Session. The Trial Court framed charges against the appellant for offences punishable under Section 302, 316 and 364 of IPC and after pleading not guilty, he came to be tried for the aforesaid offences.
5. To prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. After closure of evidence of the prosecution, further statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC was recorded. The case of the accused was of a total d
