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

2021 Supreme(Bom) 1673

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
V.K.Jadhav, Shrikant D.Kulkarni, JJ.
State Of Maharashtra - Appellant
Versus
Digambar - Respondent
Confirmation Case No. 01 of 2019 with Criminal Appeal No. 810 of 2019 with Criminal Appeal No. 808 of 2019
Decided On : 13-12-2021

Advocates appeared:
R. V. Dasalkar, Advocate, Santosh C. Bhosale, Advocate, Sudarshan J. Salunke, Advocate

The conviction for honour killing was upheld, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence and motive must be sufficiently established, and the death penalty was deemed appropriate for such heinous crimes.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 201, 120-B - Offence of honour killing by appellant-accused - Appellant Digambar convicted for the murder of his sister and her lover, sentenced to death - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence and proximity of the last-seen together by eyewitnesses - Evidence demonstrated a motive linked to honour - Confessional FIR lodged by appellant establishes guilt despite arguments on jurisdiction and evidentiary matters. (Paras 1, 57, 70)

Facts of the case:
The appellant Digambar murdered his sister Pooja and her lover Govind due to an honour-related motive after suspecting their relationship which continued despite Pooja's marriage. The incident unfolded after Pooja left her matrimonial home and contacted Govind, ultimately leading to her and Govind's murder. (Paras 1, 2, 5)

Findings of Court:
The evidence established the murder was premeditated, with the court highlighting the brutality of the crimes, the method employed, and the impact of societal norms regarding honour. The appeal against death penalty was dismissed. (Paras 67, 72)

Issues: The jurisdiction of the trial court, the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the legitimacy of the confessional FIR, and the appropriateness of the death penalty as a sentence. (Paras 5, 26)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution successfully established a chain of circumstantial evidence connecting the appellants to the crime, maintaining that the honour killing was driven by premeditated motive. In terms of jurisdiction, the trial court was deemed proper given the relationship and proximity of the events leading to the murder. The plea for mitigation in sentencing was also seen unfavorably. (Paras 15, 57, 67)

Result: Convictions upheld with death sentence confirmation for Digambar and life imprisonment for co-accused Mohan.

JUDGMENT

V.K.JADHAV, J. - This is a case of honour killing by the appellant-accused Digambar of his own real sister. Confirmation Case No. 1 of 2019 [State of Maharashtra through Police Station Bhokar v. Digambar Baburao Dasre], Criminal Appeal No. 810 of 2019 [Digambar Baburao Dasre v. The State of Maharashtra] and Criminal Appeal No. 808 of 2019 [Mohan S/o Nagorao Dasre v. The State of Maharashtra] arise out of the judgment and order of conviction dated 18.07.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhokar in Session Case No. 24 of 2017.

2. The prosecution case in brief is as under :

    a. The appellant-accused Digambar had two brothers and three sisters. All the sisters were married. Deceased Pooja was the younger sister. Her marriage was performed on 10/06/2017. She was given in marriage to one Jethiba Hashanna Varshewar. Deceased Pooja had a love affair with deceased Govind prior to her marriage.

    b. On 22/07/2017, deceased Pooja left her matrimonial home without informing to anybody. Thus, her husband had lodged a missing report at Bhokar Police Station. Appellant-accused Digambar was knowing the love affair of deceased Pooja with deceased Govind. Thus, he had suspicion that deceased Pooja might have gone along with deceased Govind. Thus, appellantaccused Digambar had made a phone call to deceased Govind at about 11.00 a.m. on his mobile. However, deceased Govind had informed to him that his sister i.e. deceased Pooja was not with him and do whatever he want. Appellant-accused Digambar had thereafter taken search of deceased Pooja at various places. However, during the said search, he had called deceased Govind on his mobile two/three times. Deceased Govind had informed him that deceased Pooja was not with him and as to why he was giving trouble to him. In the night, appellant-accused Digambar had again made a phone call to deceased Govind on his mobile. However, it was found switched off. Appellant-accused Digambar had taken it as an indication and he became sure that deceased Pooja was with deceased Govind.

    c. Meanwhile, on 22/07/2017 itself, deceased Pooja had contacted deceased Govind on his mobile phone and informed him that she ran away from her matrimonial home to Nanded. At that time deceased Govind was in the house of his sister. PW-5 Shankar Gade is the husband of the said sister of deceased Govind. Deceased Govind had informed about the said call to his brotherin-law PW-5 Shankar Gade. Thereupon, PW-5 Shankar Gade had abused deceased Govind and told him to switch off the cell phone. PW-5 Shankar Gade thereafter went to his agricultural field and deceased Govind stayed in the house along with his sister at village Kharbala, Taluka Mudhol, District Nirmal (Telangana). At about 3.00 p.m. to 4.00 p.m., PW-5 Shankar returned to his house from the agricultural field. At that time, deceased Govind told him that he has given address of the house to deceased Pooja. At about 6.00 p.m., deceased Pooja had been to the said house. PW-5 Shankar had a talk with deceased Pooja and even he told her that her conduct was not proper and he will call her father on mobile. Deceased Pooja however told him that he should not tell anybody because she is not going to leave deceased Govind as she is in love with deceased Govind since five years. PW-5 Shankar even told deceased Pooja that her parents are not good persons and they may kill Govind and his family members who are very poor persons. However, deceased Pooja had assured him that nobody will do anything to them.

    d. On 23/07/2017, at about 8.00 to 9.00 a.m., appellant-accused Digambar and appellant-accused Mohan had been to the house of PW-5 Shankar Gade situated at village Kharbala, Taluka Mudhol and inquired with him the whereabouts of deceased Pooja. After meeting deceased Pooja, appellant-accused Digambar had assured deceased Pooja that he will perform her marriage with deceased Govind since they are in love with each other for last five years. Deceased Govind was also a chil

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