1. Murder of pregnant daughter — Kidnapping and causing death of unborn child — Charges under Sections 302, 316, and 364 of the Indian Penal Code. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 934
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 affirmed that a conviction can stand on credible eyewitness testimony, even in the absence of corroborating evidence, provided the motive is established.
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 necessity of establishing motive and the reliability of eyewitness testimony in affirming the conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was charged with murdering his pregnant daughter after taking her under false pretenses. The prosecution presented evidence from multiple witnesses, including the appellant's wife, who testified to the motive stemming from the daughter's inter-caste marriage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible and established a clear motive for the appellant's actions, leading to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the charges.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the motive for the murder and the reliability of the eyewitness testimony.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the conviction can be based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness if it is credible and corroborated by other evidence, and that the absence of independent witnesses does not automatically undermine the prosecution's case.
Result: The appeal is partly allowed; the death penalty is 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 — Absence of independent witnesses — Lack of proven motive — Financial dispute between accused and witness — Mitigating circumstances for sentencing. (Para 7 , 8 )
3. Motive established through family testimony — Sole eyewitness testimony found reliable — Non-examination of independent witnesses not fatal — Burden of proof for financial disputes on accused. (Para 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
4. Conviction can be based on a sole reliable eyewitness — Death penalty warranted only in rarest of rare cases where reformation is impossible. (Para 12 , 24 , 30 , 32 )
5. Conviction affirmed — Death sentence commuted to twenty years rigorous imprisonment without remission. (Para 33 , 34 )
6. Can a criminal conviction be based on the testimony of a single eyewitness?
Yes, the court can act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. Corroboration is not a statutory requirement unless the nature of the testimony itself requires it as a rule of prudence, focusing on the quality rather than the quantity of evidence. (Para 12 , 13 )
7. Does the non-examination of independent witnesses necessarily weaken the prosecution's case?
No, the non-examination of independent witnesses by itself does not 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 occurrence. (Para 14 )
8. Who bears the burden of proof regarding a particular fact used as a defense, such as a financial dispute?
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. (Para 15 )
9. What is the legal standard for imposing the death penalty versus life imprisonment?
Life imprisonment is the normal rule. The death penalty is imposed only in the rarest of rare cases that shock the collective conscience of society and where the court finds no possibility of reformation for the criminal. (Para 24 , 30 , 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
