His Conduct Was Akin To ‘Cannibalism’- Bombay HC Confirms Death Penalty Of Man Accused Of Killing Mother & Eating Her Flesh
|The Bombay High Court has confirmed the death penalty of a man who was accused of killing her 60-year-old mother and eating her flesh or body parts.
The Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Kolhapur had made a reference under Section 366(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for confirmation of the death sentence awarded by him to the said man.
A Division Bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan remarked, “Apart from the extreme brutality, cruelty and barbarism with which the convict had murdered his mother in a cold blooded manner, one cannot turn nelson’s eye that his conduct was akin to cannibalism and, therefore, he could be a potential threat and danger to the inmates in the jail, in case, sentence of life imprisonment is awarded. A person who could commit such a heinous crime by killing his mother, can do so with anyone else, including his own family. His social integration, therefore, is unquestionably foreclosed. These are ‘special reasons’ as mandated in Section 354(3) of the Cr.P.C. It would be extremely difficult to fathom his psychology and mindset, though the report of the Psychiatrists, Psychologist and his overall conduct in different jails, appear to be normal.”
The Bench said that, he is not at all fit for any kind of reformatory and rehabilitation scheme and that the life imprisonment would be completely futile as the sentencing aim of reformation is completely unachievable.
Advocate Yug Mohit Chaudhary appeared on behalf of the accused while APP P.P. Shinde appeared on behalf of the State.
Facts of the Case -
As per the prosecution case, the deceased mother had two sons including the accused. Both were married and residing separately at Kolhapur. The accused was accustomed to consume liquor and used to allegedly harass his wife. The wife could not tolerate harassment at the hands of the accused and, therefore, she deserted him with three daughters and a son and came to Mumbai. The deceased mother was a widow surviving on the pension of her husband to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- per month. Since the accused was residing alone, she used to provide him two square meals. However, he used to beat her on account of pension amount. One day in 2017, an 8-year-old girl who was playing in front of the accused’s house, first noticed the deceased mother murdered in house and her dead body lying in a pool of blood. She also noticed the accused standing over there, whose hands, clothes and mouth were smeared with blood. When that girl made a hue and cry and rushed to the accused’s brother’s house, he rushed to the spot of incident to witness the horrendous crime. He saw that his mother was lying on the floor naked, in a pool of blood and her body parts i.e. liver, intestine, heart, rib, and breast were eviscerated outside.
Trail of blood was found flowing till the adjoining house of the accused and two knives and one Sattur (Chopper) stained with blood, were lying on the spot. By that time, the police arrived at the scene of occurrence. His brother slapped him twice out of extreme anger and anguish and the crowd over there apprehended the accused, who was later taken into the custody by the Police. The Sub-Inspector had noticed that the heart of the deceased mother was kept in a platter and ribs were inserted in an oil bottle. Rest of the internal body parts were also found over there. Hence, a case was registered against the accused. The ASJ, Kolhapur having meticulously gone through the facts and evidence and after giving full opportunity to the prosecution and the defence, found that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the convict had committed most gruesome, barbaric, and horrendous murder of his mother. Resultantly, he was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was sentenced to hang by neck, till he is dead along with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-.
The High Court in view of the above facts, observed, “This is a most brutal, barbaric and gruesome murder of a 60 years old mother by her son … The conduct of the convict even cannot be regarded as a “Betrayal of Trust” of his mother as it would be too small a word to describe what he did. We do not think anything more is required to be said in that regard as we have already stated in the foregoing paragraphs.”
The Court said that the accused is not at all fit for any kind of reformation and having juxtaposed the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the aggravating circumstances out weighed the mitigating circumstances.
“He kept heart of his deceased mother in a utensil over the platform of the kitchen. He soaked and moped the blood scattered on the floor, meaning thereby he tried to destroy the evidence also. As already stated, the cause of death was due to multiple injuries caused to the victim by sharp edged weapons. The brutality and cruelty with which the convict had dealt with the body of his mother is evident from the fact that he had even cut the genital organ of his mother, which is one of the causes associated with her death Torture and pain with which the deceased must have suffered is unimaginable and unfathomable”, it also noted.
The Court observed that it is not an easy conclusion to be deciphered to categorize the case as a ‘rarest of the rare’ one and that the accused would be a continuing threat to the society even after completion of his sentence of life, if awarded.
“During interaction with the convict through Video Conferencing, we do not find any remorse, penitence or repentance on his face. Normally, a deep regret should have some from him by a deep sense of guilt. He just feigned innocence contending that he does not remember anything”, it said.
Moreover, the Court said that it has not only taken into account the gruesome, merciless, brutal and inhuman act of the accused but also the improbability of his reformation in case he is awarded an alternative sentence of life imprisonment and that his act indeed shocked the conscious of the society.
“Under the circumstances, showing mercy or leniency to such a person, would be misplacing the concept of mercy. That apart, showing leniency would be a mockery on the criminal justice system. Therefore, death penalty imposed by the trial Court, needs to be confirmed and accordingly stands confirmed. It is a well settled law that possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the convict is an important factor which is to be taken into account as a mitigating circumstance before sentencing him to death”, it added.
The Court, therefore, concluded that this case falls within the ‘rarest of rare’ category justifying award of capital punishment and is a fit case wherein the death penalty awarded by the Trial Court needs to be confirmed.
Accordingly, the High Court answered the reference and confirmed the death sentence.
Cause Title- The State of Maharashtra v. Sunil Rama Kuchkoravi (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:38777-DB)