COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DATE OF ORDER
APRIL 28, 2023.
BENCH
HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI
PARTIES
APPELLANT –DIGAMBAR
RESPONDENT-THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 280 OF 2023
SUBJECT
Court examines whether the present case would fall under the category of ‘Rarest of the Rare’ cases.
OVERVIEW
- The present appeals are preferred against the common judgement passed by the High Court of Maharashtra dated 13th December 2021.
- In the judgement, High Court upheld death penalty and imprisonment on Accused no.1 named Digambar ( appellant in the first appeal) and accused no. 2 named Mohan (appellant in second appeal) under Section 302 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC.
- The fact of the case is such that one Pooja(deceased) who got married to one Jethiba in 2017 had an affair with Govind(deceased) for last five years. Pooja is the sister of Digambar (accused).
- On 22nd July 2017, Pooja left her husband’s home without informing to anyone. Accused no.1 suspected that she ran away with Govind. The accused no.1 contacted with the lover of Pooja to ask about Pooja but he kept on saying that he knew nothing about her.
- 23rd July 2017, accused no.1 and no.2 went on a search to the house of Govind’s sister where they found both Govind and Pooja.
- On the way back to bringing them back, accused with the help of a sickle killed both Govind and Pooja. Subsequently, he himself lodged a FIR at the Bhokar Police Station and confessed his crime.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY APPLLEANT
- The counsel contended that the High Court and Trial Court have committed gross error in the conviction.
- It was submitted before the court that the confessional statement that was made by the appellants before the police cannot be relied upon for deciding the conviction.
- It was argued that there was no evidence for conviction except the confession made by the appellant.
- It was also submitted by the counsel that there was enough time gap between the accused last seen together with the deceased and the death of deceased which gives benefit of doubt to the appellants.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY RESPONDENT
- The learned counsel favoured the decision of the trial court and high court in upholding conviction of the appellants.
- It was submitted before the apex court that the present case is a case of honour killing.
- It was argued that the accused no.1 is not an illiterate person. Such heinous crime committed by an educated person cannot be pardoned.
- It was argued that the accused was against the love affair between the deceased and hence he assaulted and murdered him.
JUDGEMENT
- The apex court partly allowed the appeal preferred by accused no.1 but dismissed the appeal preferred by accused no.2.
- Court held that it won’t interfere with the findings of the High Court and Trial Court regarding appellants being guilty of the offence under Section 302 of IPC.
- The court upheld the conviction of accused no.1 under Section 302 of IPC and commuted the sentence of death penalty to life imprisonment.
- Court observed that the accused in the present case are not habitual offender and do not have criminal history. The medical tests shows that the appellants did not acted in a brutal manner.
- Court referred to the case of Sundar @ Sundarrajan v State by Inspector of Police where it was held that capital punishment is no the only punishment for offence under ‘rarest of the rare’ case.
- Court held that High Court and Trial Court has erred in considering the present case as ‘rarest of the rare’ case.
CONCLUSION
The apex court emphasized that punishment of death penalty has a grave and serious nature and consequences. Thus, there is no doubt that this punishment requires scrutinizing of every fact. Courts must pay due consideration to the possibility of reformation of a criminal.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
