IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Vibha Kankanwadi, Abhay S.Waghwase, JJ.
State of Maharashtra - Appellant
Versus
Baburao Ukandu Sangerao - Respondent
Criminal Confirmation Case No. 01 of 2021 with Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2021 with Criminal Application No. 2382 of 2021 with Criminal Application No. 2746 of 2021 with Criminal Application No. 2701 of 2022
Decided On : 15-09-2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER
ABHAY S.WAGHWASE,J. - Vide instant proceedings, on one hand, State is seeking confirmation of death sentence awarded by Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge [under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012], Bhokar dtd. 22/3/2021 and 23/3/2021 in Special [POCSO] Case No. 06 of 2021; whereas, on the other hand, convict is also assailing the same judgment on its legality, maintainability and sustainability. Resultantly, both proceedings are taken up and decided by way of common judgment.
CASE OF PROSECUTION IN TRIAL COURT IS AS UNDER:
2. Afternoon of 20/1/2021 turned out to be the darkest of all times and also the last for the little soul born to PW1 and PW10. Unmindful of the outrageous and perverse intentions of her so-called "uncle", she innocently took a last run to be in his company. According to prosecution, this is a classic illustration of how blatant and patent breach of trust can be committed by a person who is like a guardian to child. Accused has victimized a girl child, who, on seeing him arrive, ran towards him only to be ravished at his hands in the very vicinity, where her parents were labouring, probably to give their blood and flesh a bright future. Unfortunately, all their hopes and joys were dashed and shattered within few hours that late afternoon.
3. Story of prosecution as is unfolded from the FIR is that, PW1 informant-father and PW10 mother alongwith grandmother of the victim went for their daily agricultural activities in their own field. Accused-appellant was engaged a year back by PW1 for herding buffaloes on yearly basis. As such, accused was well acquainted with informant, his family members including the victim, who was reported to be barely six years of age. On fateful day after mid-day meals at home, when informant and his wife PW10, were about to return to resume their agricultural work, the victim insisted to join them and finally they yielded to her demand and took her along with them and on the way, informant also purchased snacks (kurkure) and they all reached the field.
4. According to prosecution, around 2.15 p.m. or so, as usual, accused untied the buffaloes to take them for grazing on the pastures. Seeing accused arrive, victim ran towards him after greeting him and was in his company and well within the sight of informant-father and her mother i.e. on a trench (bandh) of the field. After a short while, when buffaloes were seen entering the field, informant gave calls to his servant i.e. accused, but neither he nor the victim were seen at the spot where she was seen sitting and chatting with accused. Consequently, search activity was undertaken. The informant updated PW2 Sk. Imamsab @ Gulab and PW3 Madhav Karewad, who were in the square of the said village and all three went in search of both, the child as well as the accused. During twilight time, in the river bed they came across footwear and frock of the child and at a short distance, on further search, they came across the ghastly scene. They noticed naked dead body of the child with several injuries and bite marks all over the body. On further search, according to prosecution, in the very vicinity, at a short distance from the dead body, accused was also spotted in naked condition and on being questioned, he confessed raping and murdering the child. The Bit Jamadar and other Constables, who had also reached there, took accused in custody and thereafter, informant PW1 set law into motion.
5. In the above backdrop, PW15 P.I. Vikas Patil [IO], who was entrusted with the investigation, undertook the same and after completing it and on gathering sufficient evidence, he chargesheeted accused.
Learned trial Judge, who was seized with the matter, framed and explained charge and on its denial, permitted the prosecution to adduce evidence. On completion of recording of evidence, parties were allowed to advance arguments and after appreciating and analyzing the evidence on behalf of prosecution, learned trial Judg
Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab
Accused 'X' vs. State of Maharashtra
Manoj and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Manu Sharma vs. State [NCT of Delhi]
Neel Kumar vs. State of Haryana
Omprakash S/o. Gayaram Nirmalkar vs. State of Maharashtra
Param Hans Yadav and Sadanand Tripathi vs. State of Bihar and Others
Parminder Kaur Alias P.P. Kaur Alias Soni vs. State of Punjab
Piara Singh vs. State of Punjab
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik vs. State of Maharashtra
Raju Jagdish Paswan vs. State of Maharashtra
Reena Hazarika vs. State of Assam
Sandesh Alias Sainath Kailash Abhang vs. State of Maharashtra
Sangeet and Another vs. State of Haryana
Santa Singh vs. State of Punjab
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar vs. State of Maharashtra
Shashi Nayar vs. Union of India and Others
Shiva Karam Payaswami Tewari vs. State of Maharashtra
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra
State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran and Another
State of Gujarat vs. Kishanbhai and Others
State of Rajasthan vs. Gurmail Singh
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohd. Iqram and Another
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Wasif Haider and Others
Tattu Lodhi Alias Pancham Lodhi vs. State of M.P.
Thimma and Thimma Raj vs. State of Mysore
Ajay Kumar Ghoshal and Ors. vs. State of Bihar
Alluddin Mian and Others Sharif Mian and Another vs. State of Bihar
Anjan Kumar Sarma and Others vs. State of Assam
Ankush Maruti Shinde and Others vs. State of Maharashtra
Anter Singh vs. State of Rajasthan
Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab
Dayal Singh and Others vs. State of Uttaranchal
Dhal Singh Dewangan vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Ganesh Bhavan Patel vs. State of Maharashtra
Irappa Siddappa Murgannavar vs. State of Karnataka
Kanhai Mishra Alias Kanhaiya Misar vs. State of Bihar
The imposition of the death penalty requires the statutory provision of special reasons, and a balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances must be conducted.
The court ruled that the death penalty is not warranted in this case, emphasizing the need for a balance between aggravating and mitigating circumstances, ultimately commuting the sentence to 30 year....
(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 ruled that the death penalty is not warranted as the case does not fall under the 'rarest of rare' category, emphasizing the need for special reasons for such a sentence.
The court emphasized the necessity of considering mitigating circumstances and the possibility of reformation before imposing the death penalty.
The court ruled that corroborative evidence is essential in murder cases, especially when convicting based on eyewitness testimony.
The court held that death sentence should be imposed only in rarest of rare cases considering the possibility of rehabilitation, thereby modifying the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years.
Offence of Murder – Death Sentence Confirmed - Imposition of death sentence in ‘rarest of rare’ cases - Instant case falls in category of 'rarest of rare case', warranting capital punishment. Hence d....
The court ruled that the death penalty is an exception, emphasizing the need for considering the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused, leading to a modification of the sentenc....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.