Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently observed that the "rarest of rare" doctrine requires that a death sentence should not be imposed solely based on the severity of the crime, but only when there is no possibility of the offender’s reformation.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai, Aravind Kumar, and K V Vishwanathan upheld the conviction of a man for strangulating his pregnant daughter to death but commuted the death sentence awarded to him to life imprisonment without any remission till he completes 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.

Holding that the present case fell in the category of middle path, the court also noted that neither the appellant nor any of his family members had any criminal antecedent and it could not be presumed that the appellant was a hardened criminal who could not be reformed. Hence, it cannot be said that there is no possibility of reformation, even though the appellant has committed a gruesome crime, the bench opined.

"Even though the crime committed by the appellant is unquestionably grave and unpardonable, it is not appropriate to affirm the death sentence that was awarded to him. 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," the bench said.

Court partly allowed an appeal filed by one Eknath Kisan Kumbharkar against the Bombay High Court's judgment of 2017 which confirmed the death penalty awarded to him by the trial court for murdering his daughter Pramila on June 28, 2013, as he harboured grouse for her marriage with a lower caste man.

In his appeal, the appellant's counsel contended that the statement by appellant's wife that he was angry with the daughter as she got married out of caste, was a vague statement and without basis. 

The deceased was married for over a year and it is unexplained by the prosecution as to why the appellant would wait for a year to commit the offence and that too in a public place, he argued.

The state counsel, on the other hand, said that the prosecution had 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. He also said that the motive of the accused was to take revenge.

The bench said that the testimony of the appellant's wife and an auto-rickshaw driver fortified the case of the prosecution and the motive of the appellant for commission of the crime. There was no reason for the wife to depose falsely against her husband and it is also not the case of the appellant that his wife had any enmity towards him and she has falsely deposed against him, the bench pointed out. 

The bench also said that it is an established principle of law that conviction can be based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness. 

It said that in the case of Vadivelu Thevar and another Vs. State of Madras (1957) it was held that the court can act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. This court has held that it would consider the quality and not the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or not proving a fact, the bench noted. 

The court also pointed out that it is a settled principle of law that non-examination of independent witnesses by itself would not give rise to an adverse inference against the prosecution. 

Relying upon prosecution witnesses, the bench said that it was clear that appellant with the motive of killing his daughter had visited her matrimonial home along with auto-rickshaw driver and had taken her in the auto-rickshaw on the pretext of visiting his mother and had strangulated her. 

"We are of the opinion that High Court has not committed any error in upholding the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 316 and 364 IPC and we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Trial Court and the High Court in that regard," the bench said.

Examining the issue of punishment, the bench called the Prison Conduct Report, Probation Officer's Report, Psychological Evaluation Report of Accused and Mitigation Investigation Report and noted that the present case would not fall in the category of “rarest of rare cases” wherein it could be held that imposition of death penalty was the only alternative. 

The bench highlighted that the appellant hailed from a poor nomadic community in Maharashtra. He had an alcoholic father and suffered parental neglect and poverty. He dropped out of school when he was 10 years old and was forced to start working to support his family, doing odd jobs. 

All efforts put by the appellant to bring his family out of poverty did not yield the desired results, it noted.

"The appellant was aged about 38 years at the time of commission of the crime. He has no criminal antecedents and there are various other mitigating circumstances existing in his favour," the bench said.

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. The conduct report from the prison would disclose that the behaviour of the appellant in the jail is satisfactory with everyone for the past six years, it further pointed out. 

Therefore, court held that the death penalty needed to be converted to a fixed sentence during which period the appellant would not be entitled to apply for remission.

Case Title: Eknath Kisan Kumbharkar Vs State of Maharashtra