| Equivalent Citations | Digambar vs. the State of Maharashtra |
| Date of Judgement | 28th April 2023 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case No. | 221-222 |
| Case Type | Appeal |
| Appellant | Digamber |
| Respondent | State of Maharashtra |
| Bench | Justice B.R.Gavai |
| Legal Provisions | Section 302,34 of the Indian Penal Code, |
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
Pooja (deceased) was in love with Govind (deceased) for 5 years. This is one of the cases of inter-caste love affairs. Digambar ( Appellant) is a brother of Pooja (deceased). Pooja married Jethiba Hashana Varshewar. One day, she left her matrimonial house and went to the Govind (deceased) sister’s house. She wants to live with Govind. Digambar was against their relationship. He got annoyed due to his sister’s step to live with Govind who belonged to another caste. Due to the sudden provocation, Digambar murdered his sister Pooja. The trial court and high court awarded the death penalty to Digambar under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The Accused in this case was unsatisfied with the decision of the Hon’ble High Court. Hence he along with accused no. 2 (Mohan) appealed before the Supreme Court of India for relief.
INTRODUCTION
It is a classic example of “Honour Killing” by a brother of his real sister. The trial court and high court awarded the death penalty to the accused. The present criminal appeal arises out of the common Judgement and Order dated 13th December 2021 passed by the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court in confirmation case No.1 of 2019 and criminal appeal no. 801 and 810 of 2019. The High Court awarded the death penalty and life imprisonment to accused No. 1 (Digambar) and Accused No. 2 (Mohan) respectively.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Pooja (deceased) was married to Jethiba Hashanna Varshewar on 10th June 2017. Pooja was having a love affair with Govind (Deceased) for 5 years. The Appellant is the brother of Pooja. On 22nd July 2017, Pooja left her matrimonial house. His Husband was not aware of where she had gone. Furtherance of this, he had lodged a missing report at Bhokar Police Station on 22nd July 2017.
The accused Digambar, knowing about the love affair of Pooja and Govind, was suspicious that Pooja might have gone with Govinda. Digambar called Govinda many times, and every time Govinda replied that Pooja was not with him.
On the next day, 23rd July 2017, the accused Digambar and Mohan ( accused no.2) went to Govinda’s sister’s house where they found Govinda and Pooja. Digambar then convinced Govinda and Pooja to come with him after giving the assurance of marriage. Digambar, Mohan, Govinda, Pooja all these four people left that place on a motorcycle.
Near village Beltaroda, Accused Digambar picked up a sickle from his aunt’s house and concealed it near his waist. Then the accused stopped his motorcycle near a canal. He was trying to convince both Govinda and Pooja to not continue their love affair. But both Govinda and Pooja did not listen to him. Digambar assaulted Govinda’s throat with the help of the sickle. It results in the death of the duo.
After this incident, the accused lodged FIR No. 404/2007 at Bhokar Police Station confession of his commission of crime.
ISSUES
- Whether the appellant is liable under Section 302, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code 1860 or not ?
- Whether the present case could be considered as one to be “rarest of rare” case to award death penalty
CONTENTION
Appellant’s Argument
The Appellant’s learned counsel vehemently contended that both the trial court and the High Court made an error in converting the appellant. He stated that the Court cannot just rely on the confession made by the accused before the police. It is not admissible before the court of law as per the Indian Evidence Act. He pointed out that it is impossible for both the deceased and the appellant on one motorcycle. This shows that the Police had not investigated the matter diligently. There are many loopholes in Police Investigation. In this present case, there is no strong evidence available on which the court can rely. There is an absence of any corroboration merely that both the accused and deceased are seen together not form any strong evidence against the accused.
The learned counsel submits that there is a long gap between the appellant being last seen in the company of the deceased and the deceased found to be dead. It creates doubt whether he has committed the crime or not. The learned counsel submitted that this present case cannot be considered as the “rarest of rare” case to award the death penalty.
Respondent Argument
The learned counsel on behalf of the respondent submitted that the trial court as well as the high court have found that the appellants committed murder and were awarded the death penalty and life imprisonment respectively. The prosecution states that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased. After that, the death of the deceased happened. This is circumstantial evidence. As per the Indian Evidence Act, courts can rely on circumstantial evidence. The learned counsel relies on the testimony of the two prosecution witnesses.i.e. P.W.-5 Shankar and P.W.6 Santhosh.
As per the Shankar (P.W.No-5) testimonial, Govind told him that Pooja had come to his house on 23rd July 2017, in the morning from 8 a.m. -9 a.m. Both the accused persons came to his house. Then both the accused and both the deceased had left home on the motorcycle.
RATIONALE
The Bench delivered judgment on this present case considering the testimony given by the Prosecution Witnesses. P.W.-5 Shankar had said that in the morning at about 8 am – 9 am. Both the accused persons came to his house. He was formed on his statement that the accused and the deceased were leaving together from the house of the said witness. Similar testimony was given by P.W.-6 Santosh who is the brother of the deceased. Along with this P.W.-7, who is a police head constable was the first person to reach the crime location. He had found the body of Govind and an injured girl who succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The appellant’s conduct of going to the police can certainly be taken into consideration given Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. The accused failed to prove his burden of proof. He was liable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.
In this case, both the appellants do not have any criminal record. Appellant 1 is educated, he was just 25 years old at the time of the commission of crime. As per the medical report, an appellant did not act brutally. The Digambar is not a habitual offender. This present crime was committed by him in sudden provocation as he was against the inter-caste love affair of his sister and Govind. The Bench considers the report given by the Probation officer. As per the report, Digambar is well-mannered and kind in nature. The Bench inclined to partly allow the appeal of Appellate Digambar. The Bench did not interfere in the case of Appeal of Mohan (accused no. 2).
DEFECTS OF LAW
The trial court and high court awarded the death penalty to the Digambar. He was liable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. This is a case of Honour Killing. It is a heinous crime to kill our sister. As an adult woman and citizen of India, Pooja (deceased) has a right to choose her life partner. But, unfortunately, still, our society is male-dominated. Women did not have the freedom to make decisions about their own lives. Male members of the family try to suppress females in their family. The incidents of honor killing are increasing day by day in our society. Current legal provisions are not enough to prevent such kinds of activities in our society. It is one of the rarest of rare cases. Hence, in this case, the death penalty should be awarded. The lack of adequate legal provisions to avoid honor killing cases is a defect of law.
INFERENCE
In this case, Digambar vs. State of Maharashtra 2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court bench passed the order- that the criminal appeal filed by appellant Mohan be dismissed. A criminal Appeal filed by appellant Digambar is partly allowed. Capital punishment of the Digambar is commute to life imprisonment. If there is any pending application, it shall stand disposed of.
Vaishnvi Ajit Bidarkar
Manikchand Pahade Law College [1]
Rather useful idea