Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence to Life Imprisonment in Child Kidnapping and Murder Case: Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar vs. State of Maharashtra (20 February 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 20 February 2019
Citation: Not Available in the source.
Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J., and M. R. Shah, J.

Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment based on the convict’s reformation in jail? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the kidnapping and murder of a minor child. The court commuted the death sentence of the accused to life imprisonment, emphasizing his reformation and good conduct during his 18 years of incarceration. This judgment highlights the importance of considering mitigating circumstances in capital punishment cases. The bench comprised Justices A.K. Sikri, S. Abdul Nazeer, and M. R. Shah, with the judgment authored by Justice M. R. Shah.

Case Background

The case involves Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar, who was accused of kidnapping and murdering a minor child named Rishikesh. The Sessions Court found Borkar guilty under Sections 302 (murder), 364 (kidnapping), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced him to death. The High Court of Bombay upheld this conviction and sentence.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court convicted Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar for offences under Sections 302, 364, and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentencing him to death. The High Court of Bombay confirmed this decision. The case then reached the Supreme Court, where the primary focus shifted to the appropriateness of the death sentence given the circumstances.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the application of Sections 302, 364, and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with the punishment for murder.
• Section 364, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Addresses kidnapping or abduction in order to murder.
• Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Concerns causing disappearance of evidence of an offence, or giving false information to screen offender.
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Explains that 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.

Arguments

The appellant, Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar, did not challenge the conviction but appealed against the death sentence. His counsel argued for commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment, citing several mitigating circumstances.

• Mitigating Circumstances (Appellant’s Argument):
  • The appellant was 22-23 years old at the time of the crime.
  • He had no prior criminal record and was not a hardened criminal.
  • He was a college student with no history of misconduct.
  • He has a widowed mother and is the eldest child.
  • He has spent 18 years in jail without remission and 23 1/2 years with remission.
  • His conduct in jail has been very good.
  • He has completed his Bachelor of Arts degree while in jail.
  • He has undergone training in Gandhian thoughts.
  • His poems reflect his remorse and realization of his mistake.
• Aggravating Circumstances (State’s Argument):
  • The accused killed a minor child for ransom.
  • The crime was pre-planned and had a severe impact on the victim’s family.

The innovativeness in the argument by the appellant was to highlight his reformation and rehabilitation during his 18 years of incarceration, which was not a conventional argument in death penalty cases.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the death sentence awarded to the appellant should be commuted to life imprisonment, given the mitigating circumstances presented.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [CITATION]: The Court referred to this case to reiterate that the death penalty should be reserved for the ‘rarest of rare cases’.
• Shyam Singh alias Bhima v. State of Madhya Pradesh [CITATION]: This case was also considered to understand the principles for awarding the death penalty.
• Sunil v. State of Madhya Pradesh [CITATION]: The Court relied on this case to support the commutation of the death sentence based on mitigating circumstances and the possibility of reformation.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the mitigating circumstances presented by the appellant, particularly his young age at the time of the crime, his good conduct in jail, his efforts towards reformation, and the absence of a prior criminal record. The Court also acknowledged the gravity of the crime but concluded that it did not fall under the ‘rarest of rare’ category warranting the death penalty.

The Court considered the possibility of the accused being reformed and rehabilitated. The Court noted that the accused was not a previous convict or a professional killer. The court also considered the fact that the accused was 22 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence.

The court emphasized that while the crime was brutal, it did not warrant the death sentence. The court also considered the jail conduct of the accused, which was reported to be good.

The court stated:

“…we are unable to satisfy ourselves that this case would fall in the category of ‘rarest of rare case’ warranting the death sentence.”

The court further stated:

“The offence committed, undoubtedly, can be said to be brutal, but does not warrant death sentence.”

The court also noted:

“It is required to be noted that the accused was not a previous convict or a professional killer. At the time of commission of offence, he was 22 years of age. His jail conduct is also reported to be good.”

The Court did not find any minority opinion.

Key Takeaways

• Mitigating circumstances, such as the convict’s young age at the time of the crime and their reformation during incarceration, can be significant factors in commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment.
• The ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine, as established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, continues to be a crucial guideline in death penalty cases.
• The reformation and rehabilitation of a convict during imprisonment can be a valid ground for commuting a death sentence.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that it would be open to the accused to apply for remission to the State Government, which may be considered in accordance with the law and on its own merits.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the death sentence can be commuted to life imprisonment if there are significant mitigating circumstances, particularly the reformation and rehabilitation of the convict during incarceration. This judgment reinforces the principle that the death penalty should be reserved for the ‘rarest of rare cases’ and that the possibility of reformation should be considered. This case does not overrule any previous position of law, but it applies the existing principles to a specific set of facts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to commute the death sentence of Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar to life imprisonment underscores the importance of considering mitigating circumstances and the possibility of reformation in capital punishment cases. The judgment reflects a balanced approach, acknowledging the gravity of the crime while also recognizing the potential for rehabilitation.