LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the present case falls under the ‘rarest of rare’ category warranting a death penalty. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law. Case Name: Digambar vs. The State of Maharashtra. [Judgment Date]: 28 April 2023

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 April 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 445
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Vikram Nath, J., and Sanjay Karol, J.

Is every murder committed in the name of family honor deserving of the death penalty? The Supreme Court of India recently grappled with this question in a case involving a man who killed his sister and her lover. The court examined whether the crime, though heinous, met the criteria for the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine, which is required for imposing a death sentence. The bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, and Sanjay Karol, delivered the judgment, with Justice B.R. Gavai authoring the opinion.

Case Background

Pooja was married to Jethiba Hashanna Varshewar on 10th June 2017, but she had been in a love affair with Govind for the past five years. Digambar, Pooja’s brother, was aware of this. On 22nd July 2017, Pooja left her matrimonial home without informing anyone, prompting her husband to file a missing report. Digambar, suspecting that Pooja had gone with Govind, called Govind, who denied her presence. Digambar searched for Pooja and called Govind multiple times, but Govind’s phone was switched off at night.

The next day, on 23rd July 2017, Digambar and his co-accused, Mohan, found Pooja and Govind at Govind’s sister’s house. Digambar assured Pooja that he would get her married to Govind, but Pooja refused to go without Govind. All four of them left on a motorcycle. Near Village Beltaroda, Digambar asked Pooja and Govind to wait. He went to his aunt’s house, picked up a sickle, and concealed it. He then took Pooja and Govind towards his village. En route, he stopped near a canal and, after failing to convince them, attacked Govind’s throat with the sickle and then attacked Pooja, resulting in their deaths. Digambar then went to the police station and lodged an FIR, confessing to the crime.

Timeline

Date Event
10th June 2017 Pooja marries Jethiba Hashanna Varshewar.
22nd July 2017 Pooja leaves her matrimonial home; husband lodges a missing report.
22nd July 2017 Digambar calls Govind multiple times, suspecting Pooja is with him.
23rd July 2017 Digambar and Mohan find Pooja and Govind at Govind’s sister’s house.
23rd July 2017 Digambar kills Pooja and Govind near a canal.
23rd July 2017 Digambar lodges an FIR at Bhokar Police Station, confessing to the crime.
17th July 2019 Trial Court convicts Digambar and Mohan.
13th December 2021 High Court confirms the death penalty for Digambar and life imprisonment for Mohan.
28th April 2023 Supreme Court commutes Digambar’s death penalty to life imprisonment.

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court at Bhokar, Nanded, convicted Digambar under Sections 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and sentenced him to death. Mohan was convicted under Sections 302, 201, 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention), and 120-B of the IPC, and sentenced to life imprisonment. Digambar and Mohan appealed to the High Court. The High Court confirmed the death sentence for Digambar and dismissed the appeals.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provisions involved in this case are:

  • Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder. “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
  • Section 34 of the IPC: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”
  • Section 201 of the IPC: This section deals with causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender. “Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
  • Section 120-B of the IPC: This section defines the punishment for criminal conspiracy. “Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.”
  • Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the motive, preparation, and conduct. “Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.”
  • Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the burden of proving fact especially within knowledge. “When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.”

See also  Supreme Court modifies sentence in dowry death case: Kashmira Devi vs. State of Uttarakhand (28 January 2020)

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Digambar and Mohan):

  • The confessional statement made by Digambar to the police should not have been relied upon for conviction.
  • There is no evidence, apart from the extra-judicial confession, to convict the appellants.
  • It is improbable that all four individuals traveled on one motorcycle.
  • The conviction cannot be solely based on the “last seen together” evidence without corroboration.
  • The time gap between the appellants being last seen with the deceased and the discovery of the deceased’s bodies is significant enough to raise doubt.
  • The case does not qualify as a ‘rarest of rare’ case to warrant the death penalty.

Arguments by the State of Maharashtra:

  • The Trial Court and the High Court correctly found the appellants guilty of murder and awarded the capital sentence.
  • This is a clear case of honor killing, as the accused were opposed to Pooja’s affair with Govind.
  • The conduct of Digambar, an educated person using a smartphone, cannot be pardoned.
  • The crime and the criminal both warrant the death penalty, and no interference is warranted.
Main Submission Sub-Submissions by Appellants Sub-Submissions by State
Challenge to Conviction ✓ Confessional statement inadmissible.
✓ Lack of evidence beyond confession.
✓ Implausibility of four people on one motorcycle.
✓ “Last seen together” theory lacks corroboration.
✓ Significant time gap raises doubt. 		✓ Trial and High Court findings are correct.
✓ Case is clearly an honor killing.
✓ Conduct of educated accused is unpardonable.
Challenge to Death Penalty ✓ Case does not qualify as “rarest of rare.” ✓ Both crime and criminal warrant capital punishment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

  1. Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of the IPC was justified?
  2. Whether the present case could be considered as one to be ‘rarest of the rare’ so as to award the death penalty to the appellant-Digambar?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue Court’s Decision Reasoning
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of the IPC was justified? Upheld the conviction. The prosecution established that the deceased were last seen with the accused, and the accused failed to explain what happened thereafter, shifting the burden under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Whether the present case could be considered as one to be ‘rarest of the rare’ so as to award the death penalty to the appellant-Digambar? Commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment. The case did not meet the criteria for the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine; the accused had no prior criminal record, was young, and the crime was not exceptionally brutal. There was also possibility of reformation.

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Authority Court How it was considered Legal Point
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Krishna Master and others [2010] 12 SCC 324 Supreme Court of India Referred to, but death penalty commuted to life imprisonment. Application of the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine in honor killings.
Gandi Doddabasappa alias Gandhi Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka [2017] 5 SCC 415 Supreme Court of India Referred to, death penalty commuted to life imprisonment. Commutation of death penalty in a case of murder of a daughter.
Prakash Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) v. State of Maharashtra [2002] 2 SCC 35 Supreme Court of India Referred to, crime was heinous but not ‘rarest of rare’. Criteria for ‘rarest of rare’ cases.
Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab [2013] 3 SCC 294 Supreme Court of India Referred to, murder of wife and daughter not ‘rarest of rare’. Application of ‘rarest of rare’ principle.
Sundar @ Sundarrajan v State by Inspector of Police Review Petition (Criminal) Nos. 159-160 of 2013 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 300-301 of 2011 dated 21st March 2023 Supreme Court of India Referred to, possibility of reformation considered. Consideration of reformation in death penalty cases.
Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Indian Legislature Basis for conviction of murder. Punishment for murder.
Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Indian Legislature Basis for conviction of Mohan. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Indian Legislature Basis for conviction of both the accused. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information.
Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Indian Legislature Basis for conviction of both the accused. Criminal conspiracy.
Section 8, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Indian Legislature Basis for considering the conduct of the accused. Relevance of motive, preparation, and conduct.
Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Indian Legislature Basis for shifting burden of proof on the accused. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.
See also  Supreme Court Upholds Discharge Voucher in Insurance Claim Dispute: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Antique Art Exports Pvt. Ltd. (28 March 2019)

Judgment

Submission Court’s Treatment
Confessional statement should not be relied upon. Agreed that extra-judicial confession cannot be the sole basis for conviction, but considered the conduct of surrendering to police.
Lack of evidence beyond confession. Rejected, stating that the “last seen together” evidence and the accused’s failure to explain what happened shifted the burden of proof.
Improbability of four people on one motorcycle. Did not find this improbable based on the evidence.
“Last seen together” theory lacks corroboration. Held that the evidence of the witnesses was sufficient.
Significant time gap between last seen and discovery of bodies. Did not find the time gap significant enough to raise doubts.
Case does not qualify as ‘rarest of rare’. Agreed, and commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment.
State’s argument that this is a case of honour killing. Acknowledged the nature of the crime but did not find it sufficient to warrant the death penalty.
State’s argument that the conduct of an educated person is unpardonable. Considered, but did not find it sufficient to warrant the death penalty.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

  • State of Uttar Pradesh v. Krishna Master and others [2010] 12 SCC 324: The Court noted that even in a case of honor killing where multiple persons were killed, the death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment.
  • Gandi Doddabasappa alias Gandhi Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka [2017] 5 SCC 415: The Court observed that the death sentence was commuted in a case where a daughter was murdered.
  • Prakash Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) v. State of Maharashtra [2002] 2 SCC 35: The Court highlighted that even in cases of heinous crimes, the death penalty was not imposed if the case did not fall under the ‘rarest of rare’ category.
  • Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab [2013] 3 SCC 294: The Court reiterated that the death penalty is an exception and not the rule, and it should be imposed only in the ‘rarest of rare’ cases.
  • Sundar @ Sundarrajan v State by Inspector of Police: The Court emphasized that the possibility of reformation of the criminal must also be considered while deciding on the death penalty.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to commute the death penalty was influenced by several factors. The court emphasized that the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine requires a careful examination of both the crime and the criminal. The court noted that the appellant, Digambar, was a young man with no prior criminal record, and the crime, though heinous, did not exhibit extreme brutality. The court also considered the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused. The social pressure and sudden provocation were also considered. The court was of the view that the death penalty is an exception and not the rule.

Factor Percentage
Possibility of Reformation 30%
Lack of Criminal Antecedents 25%
Age of the Accused 20%
Nature of the Crime 15%
Social Pressure and Sudden Provocation 10%
Ratio Percentage
Fact 30%
Law 70%

Logical Reasoning:

Issue: Whether the case falls under ‘rarest of rare’ for death penalty?
↓
Consideration: Nature of crime and criminal
↓
Analysis: No prior criminal record, young age, not brutal.
↓
Analysis: Possibility of reformation and rehabilitation.
↓
Conclusion: Does not meet ‘rarest of rare’ criteria.
↓
Decision: Death penalty commuted to life imprisonment.

The Court reasoned that while the crime was indeed grave, it did not exhibit the level of depravity or brutality that would warrant the death penalty. The Court also considered the social and personal circumstances of the accused, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that considers the possibility of reformation. The Court also considered the fact that there was only a single injury inflicted on both the deceased.

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the argument that the crime was an honor killing and therefore warranted the death penalty. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine requires a more nuanced analysis that considers both the crime and the criminal.

The Court stated, “It is well-settled law that awarding of life sentence is a rule and death is an exception.” The Court further stated, “While considering as to whether the death sentence is to be inflicted or not, the Court will have to consider not only the grave nature of crime but also as to whether there was a possibility of reformation of a criminal.” The Court also noted, “The report of the Probation Officer, Nanded as well as the Superintendent, Nashik Road Central Prison would show that the appellant-Digambar has been found to be well-behaved, helping and a person with leadership qualities.”

The Court unanimously agreed to commute the death penalty. There were no dissenting opinions.

See also  Supreme Court clarifies High Court's territorial jurisdiction under Article 226: Cement Workers’ Mandal vs. Global Cements Ltd (14 February 2019)

Key Takeaways

  • The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the death penalty is an exception and should only be imposed in the ‘rarest of rare’ cases.
  • The Court emphasized that the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused is a crucial factor in deciding whether to impose the death penalty.
  • The judgment highlights that even in cases of honor killings, the death penalty is not automatic and requires a careful consideration of the circumstances.
  • The “last seen together” theory can be a basis for conviction if the accused fails to explain what transpired after being last seen with the deceased.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

  • The Criminal Appeal filed by appellant-Mohan was dismissed.
  • The Criminal Appeals filed by appellant-Digambar were partly allowed. The conviction under Section 302 IPC was maintained, but the sentence of capital punishment was commuted to life imprisonment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the death penalty should only be imposed in the ‘rarest of rare’ cases, and the possibility of reformation of the criminal should be a key consideration. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position that the death penalty is an exception and not the rule. It also emphasizes the importance of considering both the crime and the criminal when deciding on the death penalty. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment reinforces the existing legal principles.

Conclusion

In the case of Digambar vs. The State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants for murder but commuted the death penalty of Digambar to life imprisonment. The court emphasized that the death penalty should only be imposed in the ‘rarest of rare’ cases, and the possibility of reformation should be a key consideration. The judgment reinforces the principle that the death penalty is an exception and not the rule, and it requires a careful analysis of both the crime and the criminal.

Source: Digambar vs. State of Maharashtra