Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence Of Man Who Murdered His Sister & Her Lover From Another Caste; Takes Note Of 'Social Pressure'

The Supreme Court recently has commuted the death penalty imposed on a murder convict to the sentence of life imprisonment on the ground that manner in which the offence committed by him does not fall under ‘rarest of rare’ category and he does not have any criminal antecedents.

The convict was a man, who killed his sister and her lover from another caste in 2017. After the murder, the convict himself surrendered before the police station and got the FIR lodged against himself.

The bench comprising Justice B. R. Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Karol observed:

“The appellant, 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. In any case, the report of the Probation Officer, Nanded as well as the Superintendent, Nashik Road Central Prison would show that the appellant has been found to be well-behaved, helping and a person with leadership qualities. He is not a person with criminal mindset and criminal records".

Factual background

In 2017, the sister of the appellant had got married to one person on June 10, 2017. Twelve days after the marriage, she left her matrimonial home to join her lover, with whom she was in a relationship for over five years. Coming to know about the development, the appellant visited his sister and her lover, and murdered them.

The Trial Court vide its judgment dated July 17, 2019 convicted the present appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302, Section 201 and Section 120B of IPC and sentenced him to death penalty while the co-accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302, Section 201, Section 34 and Section 120B of IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.

The Bombay High Court vide impugned judgment and order dated December 13, 2021 confirmed the death penalty and life imprisonment imposed upon the present appellant and co-accused respectively.

Hence, the appellant approached the Supreme Court assailing the impugned judgment and order of the High Court.

The Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that apart from the extra-judicial confession before the police, there was absolutely no evidence to convict the appellants.

It was further submitted that only on the basis of the evidence of last seen together, without there being any corroboration, the conviction could not have been recorded by the Trial Court.

It was submitted that present case cannot be considered to be a ‘rarest of rare’ case so as to award death penalty.

The Supreme Court noted that the prosecution case mainly based upon the circumstances of the accused being lastly seen in the company of the deceased, and the death of the deceased occurring shortly thereafter

The Court observed:

“Though the extra-judicial confession of the appellant-accused cannot be taken into consideration, however, his conduct of going to the Police Station and surrendering before the Police can certainly be taken into consideration in view of Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.”

Thus, the Court upheld the conviction of both the accused persons under Section 302 of IPC.

Social pressure, sudden provocation

However, the Court after relying upon its precedents on ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine and mitigating circumstances in favour of the appellant held that the present case cannot be considered to be ‘rarest of rare’ case.

The Court relied upon the report of the Probation Officer, Nanded with regard to the conduct of the appellant which stated as follows:

“The Sarpanch and the people in the village stated that, the inter-caste marriage of Deceased sister and her deceased friend was putting the social pressure and being angry about it, the subjected incidence was happened in sudden provocation by the appellant. Overall, everyone who were present during the Home Inquiry gave the good opinion about the behaviour of the appellant.”

Thus, the Court after taking into consideration, the young age of the appellant at the time of incidence, the manner in which the crime was committed, no criminal antecedent of the appellant and the report of the Probation Officer as well as the Superintendent of the Correctional Home in which the appellant is serving his sentence, commuted the death sentence imposed on the appellant to the life imprisonment.

Case Title: Digambar v. The State of Maharashtra

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 361

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment