CASE TITLE- EKNATH KISAN KUMBHARKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
CASE NO.- SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 251 OF 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT- 16.10.2024
CORAM- JUSTICE B. R. GAVAI, JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR, JUSTICE K. V. VISWANATHAN
FACTS OF THE CASE-
The appellant is accused of deceiving an auto rickshaw driver to take the deceased, his daughter, to a hospital by falsely claiming that his mother was seriously ill and wanted to see the deceased. Despite being informed that the deceased was nine months pregnant and had a doctor’s appointment, the appellant promised to return her in time. However, upon reaching the hospital, the appellant instructed the driver to take the deceased to the hospital watchman, who was allegedly the appellant’s uncle.
PW2 entered a hospital and found Pramila lying on the appellant’s lap, strangulated by a rope. He questioned her, but was told she had ruined his reputation. PW2 dragged her out of the autorickshaw, attempting to save her. She ran away, and PW2 took her to Savkar Hospital. The doctor advised her to be taken to a civil hospital, where she was declared dead. PW2 lodged a police complaint, which led to an FIR in CR No.159/2013.
After the Trial Court framed charges against the appellant for offences under Sections 302, 316, and 364 of the IPC, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses to prove the charges. The accused’s defense was a total denial, claiming false implication due to a dispute over monetary transactions. The Trial Court convicted the appellant for the aforementioned offences and the case was referred to the High Court as Confirmation Case No.3/2017.
ISSUES OF THE CASE-
- Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the capital punishment imposed on appellant by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court deserves to be maintained or not?
- Whether the present case would fall in the category of “rarest of rare case” so as to confirm the death penalty or the sentence can be commuted?
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT-
Learned Senior Counsel, Dr. Aditya Sondhi appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, both the Trial Court and the High Court have erred in convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 316 and 364 IPC.
The defense argues that there is no clear motive for the accused to kill the deceased. They claim that the witness’s statement about the appellant being angry with the deceased for marrying outside her caste is vague and unsubstantiated. The defense also points out that the appellant and the deceased had a seemingly amicable relationship, as confirmed by other witnesses. Additionally, they question why the appellant would wait for over a year to commit the crime in a public place. The defense also challenges the reliability of another witness, citing a financial dispute between the witness and the appellant. They argue that the prosecution’s case is weakened by the non-examination of the witness’s wife and the lack of evidence proving the appellant’s visit to the deceased’s house.
It is further submitted that the prosecution has been successful in establishing and proving that the deceased went with the appellant at his instance and that the appellant was seen strangulating her neck with rope/string and subsequently fleeing from the spot on being confronted by PW2. All these circumstances will singularly point towards the guilt of the accused and does not give scope for raising any doubt. 8.4 It is further submitted that death of deceased Pramila was homicidal death, which has been established and proved by examining the doctors who conducted the post-mortem.
It is also submitted that this is a fit case to award death sentence and the case would fall into the “rarest of the rare case”. It is further submitted that the balance of mitigating and aggravating circumstances would not lie in favour of the appellant and he has committed a heinous crime by killing his own daughter who was in advanced pregnancy stage in a merciless manner. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal and confirm the death sentence awarded by the High Court.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT-
The respondent contended that evidence of Dr. Vikrant Savkar/PW5 is not trustworthy and reliable, and there are material contradictions in the testimonies of PW2 and PW5 regarding the events that occurred at the hospital. It was further submitted that the cause of injury nos.2 to 4 i.e. curvilinear scratches on the deceased’s face and Nose Bridge is not proved by the prosecution.
CONCLUSION/ANALYSIS-
The wife of the appellant (PW-1) claims that her husband had a grudge against their daughter, Ms. Pramila, for marrying a lower caste person, which tarnished his image in society. She also claims that the appellant used to visit Pramila’s house but had groused against her for marrying out of their caste. PW-2, the complainant, narrates how the appellant persuaded him to visit the deceased’s brother’s house and later changed his version to see her grand-daughter. He also recounts how he was coaxed to believe the appellant’s words and was coaxed to fetch the watchman of Savkar Hospital. The appellant escaped, leaving the deceased in the auto and rushed to Savkar Hospital and later to a civil hospital.
The prosecution’s motive for the crime is supported by PW1 and PW2, who did not falsely depose against their husband. The appellant’s argument that motive for crime is not proven is rejected. The appellant’s arguments include non-examination of the tea stall owner, ward boy, and independent witnesses. However, these arguments should be answered against the appellant, as non-examination of independent witnesses does not necessarily lead to adverse inference against the prosecution.
The prosecution’s case is strengthened by the testimony of PW3/Sangita Dashrath Kamble, the mother-in-law of the deceased Pramila. PW3 claims that the appellant visited Pramila’s house and informed her that his mother was ill and wanted to see her. When Pramila didn’t return, she asked her son Deepak to call his mother-in-law. They all went to the hospital and found Pramila’s dead body. The appellant visited Pramila’s house and took her in an auto rickshaw, strangulating her with a rope or string. The chain of events establishes the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The High Court upheld the conviction of the accused for offences under Sections 302, 316, and 364 IPC. The appellant, aged 47, is found to be satisfactory with inmates and staff. However, his mental health issues, including confusion about the death sentence, worsen with age. During his early years, he engaged in multiple prison activities. The appeal is partly allowed, and the conviction order is affirmed, but the sentence of death penalty is converted to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission. The appeal is allowed to the extent noted herein above.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- ALOK G. CHHAPARWAL
