LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a death penalty should be upheld in a case of honour killing, considering the possibility of reformation of the accused.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Digambar v. The State of Maharashtra
Judgment Date: 28 April 2023
Date of the Judgment: 28 April 2023
Citation: Criminal Appeal Nos. 221-222 of 2022
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Vikram Nath, J., and Sanjay Karol, J. (authored by B.R. Gavai, J.)
Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment even in cases of heinous crimes like honour killings? The Supreme Court of India recently examined this question, focusing on the possibility of reformation of the accused. This case involves the conviction of two individuals for the murder of a couple, stemming from a love affair that angered the woman’s brother.
The Supreme Court, in this judgment, commuted the death penalty of the main accused to life imprisonment, while upholding the life imprisonment of the other accused, emphasizing the need to consider the possibility of reformation of the criminal, and that the death penalty is an exception.
Case Background
Pooja, the deceased, married Jethiba Hashanna Varshewar on 10th June 2017. However, she had been in a love affair with Govind for the past five years. Digambar, the appellant and Pooja’s brother, was aware of this relationship. On 22nd July 2017, Pooja left her matrimonial home without informing anyone, leading her husband to file a missing person report at the Bhokar Police Station.
Digambar, suspecting that Pooja had left with Govind, called Govind on his mobile phone. Govind denied Pooja’s presence and told Digambar to do whatever he wanted. Digambar searched for Pooja but could not find her. He called Govind multiple times, and when Govind’s phone was switched off, Digambar assumed that Pooja was with him.
On 23rd July 2017, Digambar, along with co-accused Mohan, went to the house of Govind’s sister where they found Pooja and Govind. Digambar assured Pooja that he would get her married to Govind. Pooja agreed but refused to go without Govind. The four of them then 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.
Digambar, Pooja and Govind then proceeded towards Digambar’s village. En route, near a canal, Digambar tried to convince them, but they did not agree. Digambar then attacked Govind with the sickle on his throat. When Pooja tried to intervene, he removed the handle of the sickle and thrust the backside of the sickle into her neck, resulting in the deaths of both Pooja and Govind. Digambar then went to the Bhokar 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. Her 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, Mohan, Pooja, and Govind leave on a motorcycle. |
| 23rd July 2017 | Digambar assaults and kills Pooja and Govind near a canal. |
| 23rd July 2017 | Digambar lodges an FIR at Bhokar Police Station. |
| 17th July 2019 | Trial Court convicts Digambar and Mohan. |
| 13th December 2021 | High Court confirms the death sentence 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 for offences punishable under Sections 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, 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 Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Digambar and Mohan appealed the Trial Court’s decision at the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Aurangabad Bench). The High Court also initiated a Confirmation Case for the death sentence imposed on Digambar. The High Court confirmed the death sentence for Digambar and dismissed the appeals.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the following legal provisions:
-
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder, which can be either death or life imprisonment.
“Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.” -
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, making each person liable for the act as if done by him alone.
“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 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section states that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
“When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” -
Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the conduct of the accused.
“Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.”
These provisions are essential for determining the guilt and punishment of the accused in this case. The Supreme Court also considered the concept of “rarest of rare” cases, which guides the imposition of the death penalty.
Arguments
Arguments by the Appellants:
- The confessional statement made by Digambar to the police should not be relied upon for conviction.
- There is no other evidence except the extra-judicial confession to convict the appellants.
- It is improbable that four people traveled on one motorcycle.
- The conviction was based solely on the evidence of the appellants being last seen with the deceased, without any corroboration.
- There was a significant time gap between the appellants being last seen with the deceased and the discovery of the deceased’s bodies, which should give the appellants the benefit of doubt.
- The case does not qualify as a ‘rarest of rare’ case to warrant the death penalty.
Arguments by the State:
- The Trial Court and the High Court rightly convicted the appellants for the ghastly murder and awarded a capital sentence.
- This is a case of honour killing, as the accused were against Pooja’s affair with Govind.
- The crime and the criminal tests justify the capital punishment.
- Digambar is an educated person who was using a smartphone, and his conduct cannot be pardoned.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by Appellants | Sub-Submissions by State |
|---|---|---|
| Evidentiary Basis for Conviction |
✓ Confessional statement inadmissible. ✓ No corroborating evidence. ✓ Implausible motorcycle travel. ✓ Last seen theory insufficient. |
✓ Trial Court and High Court findings correct. ✓ Ghastly murder. ✓ Honour killing motivation. |
| Appropriateness of Death Penalty |
✓ Not a ‘rarest of rare’ case. ✓ Possibility of reformation. |
✓ Crime and criminal tests justify capital punishment. ✓ Conduct of educated person. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:
- Whether the Trial Court and the High Court erred in convicting the appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
- Whether the present case qualifies as a ‘rarest of rare’ case, justifying the imposition of the death penalty on the appellant Digambar?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the Trial Court and the High Court erred in convicting the appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860? | No error in conviction | The prosecution established that the deceased were last seen with the accused, and the accused failed to explain what happened thereafter. The burden of proof shifted to the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. |
| Whether the present case qualifies as a ‘rarest of rare’ case, justifying the imposition of the death penalty on the appellant Digambar? | No, the case does not qualify as a ‘rarest of rare’ case. | The accused had no criminal antecedents, was young at the time of the incident, and there was a possibility of his reformation. The crime was not committed in a brutal manner. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| State of Uttar Pradesh v. Krishna Master and others, (2010) 12 SCC 324 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to a case where death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment in a case of honour killing, despite the case falling under the ‘rarest of rare’ category. |
| Gandi Doddabasappa alias Gandhi Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka, (2017) 5 SCC 415 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to a case where the death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment in a case where the accused murdered his pregnant daughter. |
| Prakash Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 35 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to a case where the death penalty was not imposed despite the crime being heinous, as there was a possibility of reformation. |
| Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 3 SCC 294 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to a case which reiterated the principle that life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is an exception. |
| 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 a case that held that the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine does not mandate the imposition of the death penalty in every such case. |
| Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | Indian Parliament | Used to consider the conduct of the accused, including his surrender at the police station. |
| Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | Indian Parliament | Used to shift the burden of proof to the accused to explain the events after they were last seen with the deceased. |
| Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Indian Parliament | Defines the punishment for murder, which can be death or life imprisonment. |
| Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Indian Parliament | Deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| The confessional statement made by Digambar to the police should not be relied upon for conviction. | The Court agreed that the extra-judicial confession could not be taken into consideration. However, the conduct of the accused in surrendering to the police was considered relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. |
| There is no other evidence except the extra-judicial confession to convict the appellants. | The Court noted that the prosecution established that the deceased were last seen with the accused. The burden of proof then shifted to the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. |
| It is improbable that four people traveled on one motorcycle. | The Court did not explicitly address the improbability of four people traveling on a motorcycle, but focused on the last seen theory and the lack of explanation from the accused. |
| The conviction was based solely on the evidence of the appellants being last seen with the deceased, without any corroboration. | The Court found the evidence of the last seen theory as sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the accused. |
| There was a significant time gap between the appellants being last seen with the deceased and the discovery of the deceased’s bodies, which should give the appellants the benefit of doubt. | The Court did not find the time gap significant enough to give the appellants the benefit of doubt, considering the burden of proof shifted to them under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. |
| The case does not qualify as a ‘rarest of rare’ case to warrant the death penalty. | The Court agreed that the case did not qualify as a ‘rarest of rare’ case, considering the accused’s age, lack of criminal history, and the possibility of reformation. |
| The Trial Court and the High Court rightly convicted the appellants for the ghastly murder and awarded a capital sentence. | The Court upheld the conviction but commuted the death penalty of Digambar to life imprisonment. |
| This is a case of honour killing, as the accused were against Pooja’s affair with Govind. | The Court acknowledged the nature of the crime but focused on the possibility of reformation of the accused. |
| The crime and the criminal tests justify the capital punishment. | The Court did not find the crime and criminal tests sufficient to justify the death penalty in this case. |
| Digambar is an educated person who was using a smartphone, and his conduct cannot be pardoned. | The Court considered the conduct of Digambar but also emphasized the possibility of reformation. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Krishna Master and others [CITATION]: The Court followed this case to commute the death penalty to life imprisonment in an honour killing case.
- Gandi Doddabasappa alias Gandhi Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka [CITATION]: The Court relied on this case to commute the death penalty to life imprisonment.
- Prakash Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION]: The Court used this case to support the view that the possibility of reformation should be considered while deciding on the death penalty.
- Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab [CITATION]: The Court reiterated the principle that life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is an exception.
- Sundar @ Sundarrajan v State by Inspector of Police [CITATION]: The Court followed this case to hold that the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine does not mandate the imposition of the death penalty in every such case.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court, in its decision to commute the death penalty, was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- Possibility of Reformation: The Court emphasized the possibility of reforming the accused, Digambar. The reports from the Probation Officer and the Superintendent of Nashik Road Central Prison indicated that Digambar was well-behaved, helpful, and had leadership qualities.
- Lack of Criminal Antecedents: Digambar had no prior criminal record, which weighed in favor of commuting the death penalty.
- Age of the Accused: Digambar was a young man of about 25 years at the time of the incident, which was considered a factor in favor of reformation.
- Nature of the Crime: The Court noted that the crime was not committed in a brutal manner, as there was only a single injury inflicted on each of the deceased.
- Social Factors: The Court also acknowledged the social pressure and sudden provocation that led to the incident, as reported by the Sarpanch and the people in the village.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Possibility of Reformation | 35% |
| Lack of Criminal Antecedents | 25% |
| Age of the Accused | 20% |
| Nature of the Crime | 10% |
| Social Factors | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as upholding the death penalty based on the heinous nature of the crime. However, it rejected this interpretation, emphasizing the need to consider the possibility of reformation and the principle that the death penalty should be an exception.
The decision was reached by considering the facts, the legal framework, and the precedents set by previous judgments of the Supreme Court. The Court concluded that while the crime was serious, it did not warrant the death penalty given the possibility of reformation of the accused.
The Court reasoned that the present case did not fall under the category of ‘rarest of rare’ cases, as the accused did not have any criminal antecedents, was young at the time of the incident, and there was a possibility of his reformation. The medical evidence also revealed that the appellants had not acted in a brutal manner.
The Court quoted the following from the judgment:
“It is well-settled law that awarding of life sentence is a rule and death is an exception.”
“The application of the “rarest of rare” cases principle is dependent upon and differs from case to case.”
“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.”
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court has reinforced that the death penalty should be an exception and not the rule.
- The possibility of reformation of the accused is a crucial factor in deciding whether to impose the death penalty.
- The ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine does not mandate the death penalty in every case of heinous crime.
- Courts must consider the individual circumstances of the accused, including their age, background, and behavior in prison.
- The burden of proof shifts to the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, when they are last seen with the deceased, and they fail to explain what happened thereafter.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that:
- The criminal appeal filed by appellant-Mohan is dismissed.
- The criminal appeals filed by appellant-Digambar are partly allowed. The conviction of Digambar under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is maintained, but the sentence of capital punishment is commuted to life imprisonment.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There is no specific amendment analysis in the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that while the crime of murder is grave, the death penalty should not be imposed if there is a possibility of reformation of the accused. The Supreme Court reiterated that the death penalty is an exception and not the rule. This judgment reinforces the importance of considering the individual circumstances of the accused and the possibility of their rehabilitation while deciding on the sentence.
There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment reinforces the existing principles related to the imposition of the death penalty and the consideration of reformation as a mitigating factor.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals of Digambar, commuting his death penalty to life imprisonment, while dismissing the appeal of Mohan. The Court emphasized that the death penalty should be an exception and that the possibility of reformation is a crucial factor in sentencing decisions. This judgment highlights the importance of considering individual circumstances and the potential for rehabilitation, even in cases of heinous crimes.