"Possibility Of Reformation": Supreme Court Commutes Death Penalty Of Man Convicted For Murdering Pregnant Daughter Over Inter-Caste Marriage
|The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of a man convicted of murdering his pregnant daughter over her inter-caste marriage noting that despite the gruesome crime, the accused cannot be presumed to be a hardened criminal beyond reform.
Noting that the accused hailed from a “poor nomadic community” in Maharashtra, the Court upheld his conviction under Sections 302, 316, and 364 of the IPC but stated that the case did not fall in the category of “rarest of rare cases” warranting capital punishment. The prosecution’s case was that the accused had allegedly strangulated his pregnant daughter with a rope after she had an inter-caste marriage against his wishes.
A Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice K.V. Viswanathan held, “In the instant case, it is to be noted that appellant hails from a poor nomadic community in Maharashtra. He had an alcoholic father and suffered parental neglect and poverty. He dropped out of school when he was 10 years old and was forced to start working to support his family, doing odd jobs. All efforts put by the appellant to bring his family out of poverty did not yield desired results. Neither the appellant nor any of his family members have any criminal antecedent. It cannot be presumed that appellant is a hardened criminal who cannot be reformed. Hence, it cannot be said that there is no possibility of reformation, even though the appellant has committed a gruesome crime.”
Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi represented the appellant, while Advocate Siddharth Dharmadhikari appeared for the respondent.
The accused had challenged the decision of the Bombay High Court that confirmed the judgement and order of death sentence awarded by the Trial Court.
As per the prosecution, the mother of the victim (accused’s wife) had deposed that the accused was nursing a grudge against their daughter for having married a person from a lower caste as it tarnished his image in the society. The prosecution alleged that the accused convinced the victim to accompany him, claiming his mother's last wish was to see her. He took her from her home, and while they were in an autorickshaw, he strangled her with a rope.
The Supreme Court stated that the testimony of the mother fortified the case of the prosecution regarding the motive of the accused for the commission of the crime. “There was no reason for PW1 to depose falsely against her husband and it is also not the case of the appellant that his wife had any enmity towards him and she has falsely deposed against him.” the Bench remarked.
“The chain of events establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and there are no other circumstances to disbelieve the theory of the prosecution,” the Court stated.
The Court upheld the decision of the High Court regarding the conviction, however, the death penalty imposed by the courts under Section 302 was converted to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission.
The Court considered the prison conduct report forwarded by Jail which reported that the conduct and behaviour of the accused was satisfactory with other inmates and prison staff, and neither was he involved in any criminal activity in jail for the past 6 years.
“We have scrutinized the aforesaid reports submitted to this court. We find that the present case would not fall in the category of “rarest of rare cases” wherein it can be held that imposition of death penalty is the only alternative. We are of the considered opinion that the present case would fall in the category of middle path as held by this court in various judgments of this court,” the Bench observed.
Consequently, the Court held, “The order of conviction as recorded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay…is affirmed. However, the sentence of death penalty imposed by the courts below under Section 302 is converted to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission. It is made clear that appellant-accused shall not be entitled to make any representation for remission till he completes 20 years of actual rigorous imprisonment.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Eknath Kisan Kumbharkar v. State Of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 779)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi; Advocates Pratiksha Basarkar, Anubhav Kumar, Aishwarya SM, Rijuk Sarkar and Prabhleen A. Shukla; AOR Apoorv Shukla
Respondent: AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande; Advocates Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Bharat Bagla, Aditya Krishna, Preet S. Phanse, Adarsh Dubey and G.D. Ahmed