DIGAMBAR versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2023] 4 S.C.R. 96 · Decided: 28-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
96
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 96
96
DIGAMBAR
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 221-222 of 2022)
APRIL 28, 2023
[B. R. GAVAI, VIKRAM NATH AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
Criminal Law – ‘Rarest of rare’ case – When not – One ‘P’
was married but had a love affair with ‘G’ – This was opposed by
her brother-‘D’, who along with co-accused-‘M’ committed the
murder of ‘P’ and ‘G’ – Trial court and High Court holding the case
to be ‘rarest of rare’, awarded death penalty and life imprisonment
to ‘D’ and ‘M’, respectively – Correctness of – Held: No interference
warranted with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the
High Court that the accused appellants are guilty of offence
punishable u/s.302, IPC – However, the present case cannot be
considered to be ‘rarest of rare’ – Both the appellants do not have
any criminal antecedents – Medical evidence further reveals that
the appellants did not act in a brutal manner, inasmuch as there
was only single injury inflicted on both the deceased – Appellant-
‘D’ who has been sentenced to capital punishment, was a young
boy of about 25 years at the time of the incident – Report of the
Probation Officer as well as the Superintendent of the prison shows
that he has been found to be well-behaved, helping and a person
with leadership qualities – He is not a person with criminal mindset
and criminal records – Trial court and High Court erred in holding
the case to be rarest of rare and awarding capital punishment to
‘D’ – Though, his conviction u/s.302, IPC is maintained, the sentence
of capital punishment is commuted to life imprisonment – However,
life imprisonment awarded to ‘M’ is not interfered with – Evidence
Act, 1872 – ss.106, 8 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.34.
Criminal Law – Rarest of rare doctrine – Imposition of death
sentence – Held: ‘Rarest of rare’ doctrine does not require that in
such a case only death sentence has to be imposed – While
considering as to whether the death sentence is to be inflicted or
not, the Court will have to consider not only the grave nature of
crime but also as to whether there was a possibility of reformation
of a criminal.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
97
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Krishna Master and others
(2010) 12 SCC 324 : [2010] 9 SCR 563; Gandi
Doddabasappa alias Gandhi Basavaraj v. State of
Karnataka (2017) 5 SCC 415 : [2017] 2 SCR 62;
Prakash Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) v. State of
Maharashtra (2002) 2 SCC 35 : [2001] 5 Suppl. SCR
612; Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2013) 3 SCC
294 : [2013] 3 SCR 90; Sundar @ Sundarrajan v State
by Inspector of Police Criminal Appeal Nos. 300-301
of 2011 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2010] 9 SCR 563
relied on
Para 21
[2017] 2 SCR 62
relied on
Para 22
[2001] 5 Suppl. SCR 612
relied on
Para 24
[2013] 3 SCR 90
relied on
Para 25
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 221-222 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.12.2021 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad in CC No.1 of 2019 and CRLA
No. 810 of 2019.
With
Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2023.
Subodh S. Patil, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Mahesh P. Shinde, Ms.
Rucha A. Pande, M. Veeraragavan, Advs. for the Appellant.
Chinmoy Khaladkar, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha
Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B. R. GAVAI, J.
1. The present criminal appeals arise out of the common Judgment
& Order dated 13th December 2021 passed by the Aurangabad Bench
of the Bombay High Court in Confirmation Case No. 1 of 2019 and
Criminal Appeal Nos. 808 and 810 of 2019 whereby the High Court
confirmed the death penalty and life imprisonment imposed upon the
DIGAMBAR v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
98
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
Accused No. 1-Digambar (Appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos. 221-222/
2022) and Accused No. 2-Mohan (Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
280/2023) respectively, for conviction for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as
“IPC”) read with Section 34 IPC.
2. These Criminal Appeals arise from conspectus of facts
adumbrated as follows:
2.1.
Pooja (Deceased) was married to one Jethiba Hashanna
Varshewar on 10th June 2017. Pooja was having a love
affair with one Govind (Deceased) for the past 5 years.
The Appellant/Accused- Digambar is the brother of Pooja.
2.2.
On 22nd July 2017, Pooja left her matrimonial home without
informing anybod
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.