Back
B. R. GAVAI, ARAVIND KUMAR, K. V. VISWANATHAN
Eknath Kisan Kumbharkar – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
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 t
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.
The court affirmed that a conviction can stand on credible eyewitness testimony, even in the absence of corroborating evidence, provided the motive is established.
The court ruled that corroborative evidence is essential in murder cases, especially when convicting based on eyewitness testimony.
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; lack of motive and unreliable witness testimonies undermine conviction.
(1) Evidence is only to be weighed and not to be counted – It is essentially, for prosecution to decide as to how many witnesses are to be examined to establish its case on any particular point.(2) D....
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) Constitutional guarantees of equality before law, protection of life and personal liberty, protection in respect of conviction, and protection against arrest and detention, do not expand into a c....
The court emphasized the necessity of considering mitigating circumstances and the possibility of reformation before imposing the death penalty.
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
