LexSANDESH ALIAS SAINATH KAILASH ABHANG versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2012) 13 S.C.R. 1049 SANDESH ALIAS SAINATH KAILASH ABHANG v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal No. 1973 of 2011) DECEMBER 13, 2012 [SWATANTER KUMAR AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 307, 394 and 376 (e) - Robbery with murder, attempt to cause death, causing hurt and committing rape of pregnant woman - Injured eye-witness C - Extra-judicial confession - Conviction by courts below and death sentence - On appeal, accused not challenging the conviction, but seeking to commute the death sentence - Held: The evidence established the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt - The accused committed cold-blooded D murder and his conduct was that of a brutal person - Therefore, his conviction is confirmed - However, the courts below failed to consider the state of mind of the accused at the relevant time, in its correct perspective, his capacity to realize the consequences of crime and lack of intent to E commit murdef"- Accused was under influence of alcohol at the relevant time -The manner in which he assaulted reflects the conduct of an abnormal person - There is also no evidence to show that he was a hardened criminal and there was no possibility of his being reformed - His case does not F fall in the category of the rarest of the rare case - Death sentence commuted to rigorous imprisonment for life - The life imprisonment shall be for life and sentences to run consecutively. Sentence/Sentencing - Death sentence - Award of - G Principles to be followed - Held: It is not only crime and its various facets which is foundation for formation of special reasons as contemplated u/s. 354(3) Cr.P.C. for imposing 1049 H 1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R. A death sentence, but the criminal, his background, his mental condition at the relevant time, manner of commission of crime, motive and brutality are also to be examined - Doctrine of rehabilitation and doctrine of prudence are also the guiding principles - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - 8 s. 354 (3). Doctrines - 'Doctrine of rehabilitation' and 'Doctrine of prudence' - In the context of award of death sentence - Applicability. C The appellant-accused was prosecuted ulss. 302, 307, 397, 394 and 376 (e) IPC, uls. 25 of Arms Act and ul s. 135 of Bombay Police Act. The prosecution case was that he entered the house of PW2 and the deceased in the guise of a mechanic, looted the valuables of the D house, assaulted them. He inflicted 21 injuries on the old woman which resulted in her death. He inflicted 19 injuries on PW2 (who was 5 months pregnant) and also committed rape on her. He made extra-judicial confession to PW-13. E Trial court convicted him under provisions of IPC for which he was charged. The court finding the case falling in the category of the rarest of rare cases, awarded death sentence alongwith other sentences. High Court confirmed the conviction as well as the sentence F awarded by the trial court. In appeal to this court, appellant stated that he did not wish to challenge the conviction, and contended that his case did not fall in the category of the rarest of rare G cases and hence death sentence was not correct. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The prosecution evidence, particularly the statements of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW7, PW8 and PW13 H clearly establish that the accused had entered the house SANDESHALIAS SAINATH KAILASHABHANG v. STATE 1051 OF MAHARASHTRA of the deceased and PW2, with an intention to commit A robbery and was smelling of alcohol. However, he committed the crime in a very brutal manner. He did not heed to the request of PW2 to take away all the ornaments and money that were available in their house and to spare the life of both of them. According to the B prosecution evidence, he did not accede to that request and even after taking the gold kept on inflicting injuries • upon the deceased as well as PW2. The worst assault of the accused was that he asked PW2 to remove her clothes and committed rape on her while she was five c months pregnant. Ultimately, he gave the last fatal blow with the kukri (the weapon he was carrying) on the neck of the deceased resulting in her immediate death. PW2 displayed wisdom and bravery and received the injuries on her back. She resisted the attack to the extent it was D possible for her in order to survive and protect the child in her womb from any harm. The appellant commi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.