LexPURUSHOTIAM DASHRATH BORATE &ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 1112 A PURUSHOTIAM DASHRATH BORATE &ANR. B v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal No.1439of2013) MAYOS, 2015 [H. L. DATTU, CJI, S.A. BOBDE AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] c Penal Code, 1860: ss;302, 376(2)(g), 364 and 404 rlw s. 120-8 - Rape and murder- Victim-deceased girl working in night shift and commuted in cab hired by the company - On fateful day, accused driver alongwith co-accused committed her rape and murder - Conviction based on D circumstantial evidence and imposition of death sentence - Accused-appellants seeking commutation of sentence - Held: The extreme depravity with which the deceased girl was done to death coupled with the other factors including the position of trust held by accused driver would tilt balance E between aggravating and mitigating circumstances greatly against accused-appellants - Accused No. 1 abducted the deceased with help of accused No. 2, and subsequently they raped and murdered her - They did not show any regret, sorrow or repentance at any point of time during the F commission of the heinous offence, nor thereafter, rather they acted in a normal manner after commission of crime - The manner in which the commission of the offence was so meticulously and carefully planned coupled with the sheer G brutality and apathy for humanity in the execution of the offence, in every probability they have potency to commit similar offence in future - Both the accused persons have proved to be a menace to society which strongly negates the probability that they can be reformed or rehabilitated - The H mitigating circumstances were wholly absent in the present 1112 PURUSHOTTAM DASHRATH BORATE v. STATE OF 1113 MAHARASHTRA factual matrix - Interference with death sentence not called A for. Sentence/Sentencing: Death sentence - Aggravating and mitigating circumstances - Discussed. Criminal law: Rule of proportionality - Held: Criminal law requires strict rule of proportionality in awarding punishment and same must be in accordance with the culpability of criminal act. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Protection of society and stamping out . criminal proclivity must be the object of law which may B c be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, in this context, the vital function that this Court D is required to discharge is to mould. the sentencing system to meet this challenge. The facts and given· circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned· and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the E accused and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. Based on the facts of the case, this Court is required to be stern where it should be and tempered F with mercy where warranted. [Para 23] [1128-F-H] . Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh 2012 (3) SCR 630 = (2012) 4 SCC 257; Macchi Singh and Ors. v. state of Punjab 1983 (3) SCR 413 = (1983) 3 SCC 470; · Mahesh v. state of M.P. 1987 (2) SCR710 = (1987) 3 SCC80; SevakaPeromalv. StateofT.N.1991 (2)SCR 711= (1991) 3 SCC 471; Mofil Khan v. State of Jharl<hand (2015) 1 SCC 67; B.A. Umesh v. High Court of Kamataka 2011 (2) SCR 367 = (2011) 3 SCC 85 - relied on. G H 1114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 5 S.C.R. A 2. In the facts of the present case, age alone cannot be a paramount consideration as a mitigating circumstance. Similarly, family background of the accused also could not be said to be a mitigating · circumstance. Insofar as Accused No.1 is concerned, it B has been contended that he was happily married and his wife was pregnant at the relevant time. However, the Accused No.1 did not take into consideration the condition of his wife or his mother while committing the said offence and, as a result, his wife deserted him and C his widowed mother is being looked after by his nephew and niece. Insofar as Accused No.2 is concerned, he has two sisters who are looking after his widowed mother. Lack of criminal antecedents also cannot be considered 0 as mitigating circumstance, particularly taking into consideration, the nature of heinous offence and cold and calculated manner in which it was committed by the accused persons. [Para 33] [1136-B-E] 3. The "rarest of the rare" case exists when an E accused would be a menace or, threat to and incompatible with harmony in the society. In a case where the accused does
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.