SUNIL DAMODAR GAIKWAD versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2013] 9 S.C.R. 295 · Decided: 10-09-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA, KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 9 S.C.R. 295 
SUNIL DAMODAR GAIKWAD 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 165-166 of 2011) 
SEPTEMBER 10, 2013 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
ss. 302 and 307 - Accused causing death of his wife and 
A 
B 
c 
2 sons and attempting to cause death of his daughter -
Sentenced to death by counts below u/s. 302 and life 
imprisonment u/s. 307 - Held: Apart from drawing a 'balance 
sheet' of mitigating and aggravating factors, socio-economic 0 
compulsions such as poverty are also factors that are to be 
considered by courts while awarding a sentence -- In the 
instant case, it has come in evidence that accused suffered 
from economic andi psychic compulsions - He had no prior 
criminal record -- He had, in fact, intended to wipe out the 
whole family including himself on account of abject poverty -
E 
- The possibility of reforming and rehabilitating him cannot 
be ruled out - He is not likely to be menace or threat or 
danger to society -- In the facts and circumstances, the case 
does not fall under the rarest of rare category so as to wan-ant 
a punishment of death -- The 'individually inconclusive and 
F 
cumulatively marginal facts and circumstances' tend towards 
awarding lesser sentence of life imprisonment - Sentence u/ 
s. 302 commuted to life imprisonment which would be till the 
end of his biological life - Sentence uls 307 reduced to 7 
years RI - In case the sentence of imprisonment for life is G 
remitted or commuted to any specified period, the sentence 
of imprisonment uls. 307 shall commence thereafter. 
295 
H 
296 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
s. 354(3) - Awarding of death sentence in a case of 
murder - Special reasons to be recorded - Held: This shows 
the paradign shift to life imprisonment as the rule anti death, 
8 
as the exception -- Before awarding a sentence of death, in 
view of s. 354(3), court has to first examine whether it is a case 
fit for awarding of life sentence and if not and only then, death 
sentence can be awarded - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 
- s. 367(5). 
C 
Judicial comity - Held: Judicial comity is an integral part 
of judicial discipline and judicial discipline the cornerstone of 
judicial integrity -- When there are binding decisions, judicial 
comity expects and requires the same to be followed . 
. o 
The appellant was prosecuted for causing the death 
of his wife and two sons, and attempting to kill his 
daughter whom he had caused serious stab injuries. After 
the occurrence the appellant was stated to have gone to 
the police station and reported that one of his sons had 
E been suffering from Asthama, which required C(lnstant 
medication; that his income was hardly sufficient to 
maintain his family because of which he was under stress 
and, therefore, he decided to finish the entire family 
including himself. In the process he killed his wife and 
F two sons with a pair of scissors and inflicted stab injuries 
to· her daughter (PW 1) and also pressed her mouth with 
pillow but she did not succumb to death; and leaving the 
child in that condition and bolting the door from outside 
he reached the police station. This was corroborated by 
PW 4 in her deposition. However, the appellant, in his 
G statement uls. 313 Cr.P.C., simply denied everything and 
did not lead any evidence. The trial court convicted the 
appellant ulss 302 and 307 IPC and sentenced him to 
death under the first count and life imprisonment under 
the second one. 
H 
. 
SUNIL DAMODAR GAIKWAD v. STATE OF 
297 
MAHARASHTRA 
In the instant appeal, the sole issue for consideration 
A 
was that of commutation of the death sentence. 
Allowing the appeals in part, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Before awarding a sentence of death, in 
view of s. 354(3), Cr.PC, the court has to first examine 
B 
whether it is a case fit for awarding of life sentence and 
if not and only then, the death sentence can be awarded. 
The rule is life imprisonment for murder, and death is the 
exception for which special reasons are to be stated. The 
death sentence has been relegated to the 'rarest of rare' 
C 
cases after Constitution Bench decision in Bachan 
Singh. The most significant aspect of the decision :n that 
case is the mandate laid down by the Constitution Bench 
that courts must not only look at the crime but also the 
offender and 
give 
due consideration to 
the 
D 
circumstances of the offender at the time of

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