Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Honor Killing Case: Eknath Kisan Kumbharkar vs. State of Maharashtra (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: October 16, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 779

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Aravind Kumar, J., K.V. Viswanathan, J.

Can a death sentence be justified when a father murders his pregnant daughter for marrying outside their caste? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this grim question in the case of Eknath Kisan Kumbharkar vs. State of Maharashtra. The court examined whether the death penalty, initially awarded by the trial court and upheld by the High Court, was appropriate given the circumstances of the case and the background of the accused. The Supreme Court ultimately commuted the death sentence to a fixed term of imprisonment, emphasizing the need for reformation and rehabilitation, even in cases of heinous crimes. The bench comprised Justices B.R. Gavai, Aravind Kumar, and K.V. Viswanathan, with the judgment authored by Justice Aravind Kumar.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Pramila, the daughter of the appellant, Eknath Kisan Kumbharkar. Pramila had married Deepak Kamble in 2013 against her father’s wishes, as it was an inter-caste marriage. On June 28, 2013, Eknath, under the false pretense of his mother being seriously ill and wanting to see her granddaughter, took Pramila from her in-laws’ house. Pramila was nine months pregnant at the time. Eknath, along with a witness, PW2, took Pramila in an auto-rickshaw. Near Savkar Hospital, Eknath instructed PW2 to find a watchman, claiming he was his maternal uncle. When PW2 returned, he found Eknath strangling Pramila with a rope, with foam oozing from her mouth. PW2 tried to intervene, but Eknath fled. Pramila was rushed to the hospital but was declared dead.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Eknath Kisan Kumbharkar under Sections 302 (murder), 316 (causing the death of a quick unborn child), and 364 (kidnapping) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to death. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay confirmed this death sentence. Eknath then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging both his conviction and the death penalty.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 316, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with causing the death of a quick unborn child by an act amounting to culpable homicide. It states, “Whoever does any act under such circumstances, that if he thereby caused death he would be guilty of culpable homicide, and does thereby cause the death of a quick unborn child, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 364, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines kidnapping or abducting in order to murder. It states, “Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

These sections are part of the broader criminal law framework in India, which is designed to protect individuals’ lives and ensure justice for violent crimes.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• Motive Not Proven: The appellant argued that the prosecution failed to establish a clear motive for the murder. The claim that he was angry about his daughter’s inter-caste marriage was vague, especially since he and his daughter visited each other’s homes. The prosecution did not explain why he would wait a year to commit the crime in a public place. The appellant relied on Balaji v State of Maharashtra [(2019) 15 SCC 575] and Dandu Jaggaraju v State of A.P. [(2011) 14 SCC 674] to argue that the motive was not established.

• Unreliable Eyewitness: The appellant contended that PW2, the eyewitness, was not reliable due to a prior monetary dispute and heated exchange between them.

• Non-Examination of Witnesses: The appellant argued that the non-examination of PW2’s wife, the owner of a nearby tea stall, people near the hospital, and a ward boy was detrimental to the prosecution’s case. He cited Jaikam Khan v. State of UP [(2021) 13 SCC 716], Jagadish v. State of Haryana [(2019) 7 SCC 711], and Hem Raj v. State of Haryana [(2005) 10 SCC 614] to support this argument.

• Contradictions in Testimony: The appellant pointed out material contradictions in the testimonies of PW1 and PW3, raising doubts about their reliability.

• Discrepancies Regarding Seized String: The appellant argued that the seizure and sealing of the string used to strangle the deceased were not properly proved, and there were discrepancies regarding its length. The prosecution failed to establish that the string was linked to the appellant or could have caused the ligature mark.

• Unexplained Injuries: The appellant submitted that the cause of the scratches on the deceased’s face and nose was not proved by the prosecution.

• Investigative Errors: The appellant highlighted multiple investigative errors that cast doubt on the prosecution’s case.

• Mitigating Circumstances: The appellant requested that the death sentence be converted to life imprisonment, arguing that both courts failed to consider mitigating circumstances.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• Motive Established: The respondent argued that the prosecution successfully proved the motive for the murder, which was the appellant’s anger over his daughter’s inter-caste marriage, as stated by PW1.

• Circumstantial Evidence: The respondent submitted that the prosecution successfully established that the deceased went with the appellant, and he was seen strangling her, and fleeing the scene.

• Homicidal Death: The respondent argued that the death of Pramila was homicidal, proven by the doctors who conducted the post-mortem.

• Rarest of Rare Case: The respondent contended that this case fell into the “rarest of rare” category, justifying the death sentence due to the heinous nature of the crime.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the Trial Court and the High Court erred in convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 316, and 364 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Whether the capital punishment imposed on the appellant by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court deserves to be maintained or not.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Vadivelu Thevar and another Vs. State of Madras [AIR 1957 SC 614]*: The court followed this authority to hold that conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness.
• Guru Dutt Pathak v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2021) 6 SCC 116]*: The court followed this authority to hold that non-examination of independent witnesses does not automatically lead to an adverse inference against the prosecution.
• Rohtash Kumar v State of Haryana [(2013) 14 SCC 434]*: The court followed this authority to hold that minor discrepancies in evidence should not be given undue importance.
• Manoj Suryavanshi v State of Chhattisgarh [(2020) 4 SCC 451]*: The court followed this authority to hold that minor contradictions between witnesses should not be used to reject evidence entirely.
• Madan v State of Uttar Pradesh [2023 SCC Online SC 1473]*: The court followed this authority to summarize the principles regarding the imposition of death penalty.
• Bachan Singh v State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 684]*: The court followed this authority for the guidelines for imposing the death penalty, stating it should only be in the “rarest of rare cases”.
• Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka [(2008) 13 SCC 767]*: The court followed this authority to establish the concept of a “middle path” where death penalty can be converted to a fixed term of imprisonment without remission.
• Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharasthra [(2013) 5 SCC 546]*, Gandi Doddabasappa alias Gandhi Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka [(2017) 5 SCC 415]*, Prakash Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) v. State of Maharastra [(2002) 2 SCC 35]*, Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab [(2013) 3 SCC 294]*: The court followed these authorities to reiterate the concept of “middle path” in sentencing.
• Balaji v State of Maharashtra [(2019) 15 SCC 575]*, Dandu Jaggaraju v State of A.P. [(2011) 14 SCC 674]*, Jaikam Khan v. State of UP [(2021) 13 SCC 716]*, Jagadish v. State of Haryana [(2019) 7 SCC 711]*, Hem Raj v. State of Haryana [(2005) 10 SCC 614]*: The court distinguished these authorities, which were relied upon by the appellant to argue that the motive was not established and the non-examination of independent witness is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to commute the death sentence was influenced by several factors, primarily focusing on the concept of reformation and the specific circumstances of the appellant. The court acknowledged the heinous nature of the crime but emphasized that the death penalty should only be imposed in the “rarest of rare cases,” where there is no possibility of reformation.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning process can be summarized as follows:

The Court considered the following points:

• The appellant’s socio-economic background, including his poor nomadic community, alcoholic father, and parental neglect.
• His efforts to bring his family out of poverty and his lack of criminal antecedents.
• The appellant’s health issues, including speech problems, a history of angioplasty, and cognitive impairment due to a stroke.
• His satisfactory conduct in prison for the past six years.
• The court also considered the fact that the appellant was 38 years old at the time of the crime, and there was no evidence to suggest that he was a hardened criminal who could not be reformed.

The Court emphasized that while the crime was heinous, the possibility of reformation should be considered. It was also noted that a life sentence is subject to remission, which would not be appropriate given the nature of the crime. Therefore, the Court adopted the “middle path” by converting the death penalty to a fixed sentence of 20 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission.

The court quoted from the judgment:

“The doctrine of “rarest of rare” requires that death sentence should not be imposed only by taking into consideration the grave nature of crime but only if there is no possibility of reformation by a criminal.”

“Being conscious of the fact that sentence of life imprisonment is subject to remission, which would not be appropriate in view of the gruesome crime committed by the appellant, the course of middle path requires to be adopted in the instant case.”

“The medical reports of the appellant would disclose that he has speech issues, and he has undergone an angioplasty in 2014, apart from suffering other serious ailments, as already noted herein above.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission, emphasizing the possibility of reformation.
• The court considered the appellant’s socio-economic background, lack of criminal history, health issues, and satisfactory conduct in prison.
• The judgment highlights the importance of considering mitigating circumstances in death penalty cases.
• The case reinforces the principle that the death penalty should be reserved for the “rarest of rare cases” where there is no possibility of reformation.
• The court adopted the “middle path” approach, converting the death sentence to a fixed term of imprisonment without remission.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant shall not be entitled to make any representation for remission until he completes 20 years of actual rigorous imprisonment.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction under Sections 302, 316, and 364 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, the court modified the sentence, commuting the death penalty to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission. This decision reinforces the “middle path” approach in sentencing, where the court considers both the gravity of the crime and the possibility of reformation. The case also reiterates that the death penalty should be reserved for the “rarest of rare cases,” where there is no possibility of reformation.

Conclusion

In the case of Eknath Kisan Kumbharkar vs. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of a father who murdered his pregnant daughter for marrying outside their caste. The court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence, emphasizing the importance of considering mitigating circumstances and the possibility of reformation, even in cases of heinous crimes. This judgment underscores the principle that the death penalty should be reserved for the “rarest of rare cases” and highlights the court’s willingness to adopt a “middle path” approach in sentencing.