DNYANESHWAR SURESH BORKAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2019] 4 S.C.R. 863 · Decided: 20-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
863
DNYANESHWAR SURESH BORKAR
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1411 of 2018)
FEBRUARY 20, 2019
[A. K. SIKRI. S. ABDUL NAZEER AND M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
Sentence/Sentencing: Death sentence – For killing a minor
child – Held: The offence committed was brutal, but did not warrant
death sentence as the accused was not a previous convict or a
professional killer – At the time of commission of offence, he was
22 years of age – His jail conduct was also reported to be good –
Mitigating circumstances being in favour of the appellant, in the
interest of justice,  death sentence is commuted to life imprisonment.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:  Striking the balance between the aggravating and
mitigating circumstances, mitigating circumstances are in favour
of the accused while commuting the death sentence to life
imprisonment. The mitigating circumstances in favour of the
accused are that : the accused at the time of commission of the
offence was aged of 22 years; that, by now, he has spent 18 years
in the jail; that, while in jail, his conduct was good; that, the
accused tried to  become a civilized man and completed his
graduation in B.A. from jail. He has tried to become reformative;
that, from the poems, written by him in the jail, it appeared that
he realised his mistake which was committed by him at the time
when he was of young age and therefore he can be reformed and
rehabilitated. These details show there was a possibility that
accused would not commit similar criminal acts. That the accused
would not be a continuing threat to the society. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, the decision of capital punishment is
not warranted.  [Para 6.1, 7] [866-C-H]
Sunil v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017) 4 SCC 393;
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684;
Shyam Singh alias Bhima v. State of Madhya Pradesh
(2017) 11 SCC 265  – relied on.
                                        [2019] 4 S.C.R. 863
863
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
864
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
(2017) 4 SCC 393
   relied on
Para 4
(1980) 2  SCC 684
   relied on
Para 8
(2017) 11 SCC 265
   relied on
Para 8
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No.1411 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.05.2006 of the High Court
of  Judicature at Bombay in Confirmation Case No. 1 of 2005 with
Criminal Appeal No. 618 of 2005.
Anand Grover, Sr. Adv., Himanshu Agarwal, Shadan Farasat,
Ms. Jahnavi Sindhu, Ms. Shruti Narayan, Anshu Raj Singh, Ms. Tripti
Tandon, Advs.  for the Appellant.
Ms. Deepa Kulkarni, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Advs.
for the Respondents.
The  Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned judgment and order dated 05.05.2006 passed by the High Court
of Bombay in Confirmation Case No.1 of 2005 with Criminal Appeal
No.618 of 2005 whereby the High Court has allowed the Confirmation
Case filed by the State and dismissed the appellant’s Criminal Appeal
and confirmed the conviction for the offences punishable under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and confirmed the death sentence
awarded by the learned Sessions Court, the accused viz Dnyaneshwar
Suresh Borkar has preferred the present appeal.
2. That the appellant herein-original accused was tried by the
learned Sessions Court for the offences under Sections 302, 364 and
Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC for having killed a minor
child viz ‘Rishikesh’. That the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune
held the appellant herein guilty for the offences punishable under Sections
302, 364 and Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC and awarded
the capital punishment. The conviction and sentence imposed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge have been confirmed by the High
Court by the impugned judgment and order. Hence the present appeal.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
865
3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that Shri Anand Grover,
learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has fairly
stated and conceded that so far as the conviction is concerned, the
appellant is not challenging the same. However, he has prayed for to
commute the capital punishment imposed by the learned Sessions Court,
confirmed by the High Court. Therefore, as such the present appeal is
now restricted to the sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge of capital punishment confirmed by the High Court.
4. Shri Grover has pointed out the mitigating circumst

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.