The court noted, among other things, the age of the offender, the non-brutal nature of the murders, his lack of criminal antecedents, and his good behavioural record in prison..—–.ON Friday, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence of a man who killed his sister along with her lover..Digambar, who was one of the appellants before the Supreme Court, was awarded the death sentence while his co-appellant, Mohan, was punished with life imprisonment by a Sessions Court in 2019, which was confirmed by the Bombay High Court in 2021..The Bench, which comprised Justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol, observed that Digambar did not have any criminal antecedents.."…Digambar, who has been sentenced to capital punishment, was a young boy of about 25 years at the time of the incident. The medical evidence would further reveal that the appellants have not acted in a brutal manner, inasmuch as there is only single injury inflicted on both the deceased. As such, we find that the present case cannot be considered to be 'rarest of rare' case," the Bench held..To commute the death sentence, the Bench also took note of a report of the Probation Officer, Nanded as well as the Superintendent, Nashik Road Central Prison which showed that Digambar had been found to be well-behaved, helping and a person with leadership qualities.."He is not a person with criminal mindset and criminal records," the Bench noted..It, however, maintained the conviction of both Digambar and Mohan under Sections 302 (punishment for murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information, to screen offender) and 120B (punishment of criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code..Digambar, with the aid of Mohan, had killed his sister and her lover in 2017 with a sickle. Afterwards, he had rushed to the Bhokar Police Station and lodged a first information report that he committed the crime..Digambar and Mohan challenged their convictions before the Supreme Court, mainly on the ground that it was based only on Digambar's extra-judicial confession.Refusing to overturn the lower courts' findings, the Supreme Court Bench opined that though the extra-judicial confession of Digambar could not be taken into consideration by courts, his conduct of going to the police station and surrendering before the police could certainly be taken into consideration in view of Section 8 (motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct) of the Indian Evidence Act..The Bench also held that the prosecution established that the deceased and the accused persons left the house of the public witness together, soon after which the deaths of the deceased persons had occurred.."As such, the burden to show as to what happened after leaving the house would shift on the accused in view of Section 106 [(burden of proving fact especially within knowledge)] of the Indian Evidence Act. It is to be noted that what transpired after the accused left along with the deceased, is only within the knowledge of the accused. However, the accused persons have utterly failed to discharge the said burden," it held..The Bench resultantly partially allowed the appeal of Digambar by commuting his death sentence to life imprisonment. It dismissed the appeal filed by Mohan and confirmed his life imprisonment..Click here to view the Supreme Court's full judgment in Digambar versus The State of Maharashtra.
The court noted, among other things, the age of the offender, the non-brutal nature of the murders, his lack of criminal antecedents, and his good behavioural record in prison..—–.ON Friday, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence of a man who killed his sister along with her lover..Digambar, who was one of the appellants before the Supreme Court, was awarded the death sentence while his co-appellant, Mohan, was punished with life imprisonment by a Sessions Court in 2019, which was confirmed by the Bombay High Court in 2021..The Bench, which comprised Justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol, observed that Digambar did not have any criminal antecedents.."…Digambar, who has been sentenced to capital punishment, was a young boy of about 25 years at the time of the incident. The medical evidence would further reveal that the appellants have not acted in a brutal manner, inasmuch as there is only single injury inflicted on both the deceased. As such, we find that the present case cannot be considered to be 'rarest of rare' case," the Bench held..To commute the death sentence, the Bench also took note of a report of the Probation Officer, Nanded as well as the Superintendent, Nashik Road Central Prison which showed that Digambar had been found to be well-behaved, helping and a person with leadership qualities.."He is not a person with criminal mindset and criminal records," the Bench noted..It, however, maintained the conviction of both Digambar and Mohan under Sections 302 (punishment for murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information, to screen offender) and 120B (punishment of criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code..Digambar, with the aid of Mohan, had killed his sister and her lover in 2017 with a sickle. Afterwards, he had rushed to the Bhokar Police Station and lodged a first information report that he committed the crime..Digambar and Mohan challenged their convictions before the Supreme Court, mainly on the ground that it was based only on Digambar's extra-judicial confession.Refusing to overturn the lower courts' findings, the Supreme Court Bench opined that though the extra-judicial confession of Digambar could not be taken into consideration by courts, his conduct of going to the police station and surrendering before the police could certainly be taken into consideration in view of Section 8 (motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct) of the Indian Evidence Act..The Bench also held that the prosecution established that the deceased and the accused persons left the house of the public witness together, soon after which the deaths of the deceased persons had occurred.."As such, the burden to show as to what happened after leaving the house would shift on the accused in view of Section 106 [(burden of proving fact especially within knowledge)] of the Indian Evidence Act. It is to be noted that what transpired after the accused left along with the deceased, is only within the knowledge of the accused. However, the accused persons have utterly failed to discharge the said burden," it held..The Bench resultantly partially allowed the appeal of Digambar by commuting his death sentence to life imprisonment. It dismissed the appeal filed by Mohan and confirmed his life imprisonment..Click here to view the Supreme Court's full judgment in Digambar versus The State of Maharashtra.
