Supreme Court commutes Death Sentence into Life Imprisonment in a murder case
In a recent judgment (Digambar vs the State of Maharashtra), the Supreme Court bench commuted the death sentence on a murder convict to life imprisonment on the grounds that the offence does not fall under the category of ‘rarest of rare’. The Supreme Court also observed that the offender does not have any criminal antecedents. The bench hearing the case includes Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice BR Gavai. . After the murder, the convict surrendered and lodged FIR against himself. The bench then ordered that “The appellant-Digambar, who has been sentenced to capital punishment, was a young boy of about 25 years at the time of the incident. The medical evidence would further reveal that the appellants have not acted in a brutal manner, inasmuch as there is only single injury inflicted on both the deceased. As such, we find that the present case cannot be considered to be ‘rarest of rare’ case.”
In this case, the Accused, having knowledge of the love affair of his married sister and her male lover, murdered both of them with a sickle. The Trial Court convicted the Accused (Digambar) and sentenced him to the death penalty while the other Accused was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The Bombay High Court confirmed the death sentence imposed upon the Accused and dismissed the Criminal Appeals. The case was then presented before the Supreme Court. The bench stated that “Though the extra-judicial confession of the accused cannot be taken into consideration, however, his conduct of going to the Police Station and surrendering before the Police can certainly be taken into consideration.” The bench added, “No interference would be warranted with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court that the accused-appellants are guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.”
During the hearing, the Supreme Court said that the “case cannot be considered to be ‘rarest of rare’ case.” The top Court further observed that the report of the Probation Officer as well as the Superintendent of Central Prison would show that the appellant was found to be well-behaved, helpful, and a person with leadership qualities. Moreover, the appellant was not a person with a criminal mindset and criminal record. It was determined that the High Court as well as the Trial Court erred in holding that the present case would fall under the ‘rarest of rare’ case to award capital punishment to the appellant. The SC bench ordered, “Though the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is maintained, the sentence of capital punishment is commuted to life imprisonment.”
Also Read: Supreme Court Updates
