DIGAMBAR versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DIGAMBAR versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of guilt under Section 302 IPC against both appellants but held that the case was not 'rarest of rare' warranting death penalty for Digambar given lack of brutality (single injuries), absence of criminal antecedents, young age, and positive probation/prison reports indicating reform potential; accordingly Digambar's death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment while Mohan's life sentence was affirmed. The Court also treated the accused's surrender to police as relevant conduct under Section 8 Evidence Act and found the accused failed to discharge burden under Section 106 Evidence Act.

Parties
Appellant: Digambar; Appellant: Mohan; Respondent: The State of Maharashtra
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Following Confirmation of Conviction and Sentence; Final Judgment on Appeal by Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeals partly allowed.
Legal Topics
Rarest of Rare Doctrine, Death Penalty, Life Imprisonment, Last Seen Evidence, Extra Judicial Confession, Burden Under Section 106 Indian Evidence Act, Section 8 Indian Evidence Act, Sections 302 and 34 IPC
Criminal Law Evidence Penal Code Sentencing/capital Punishment Rarest of Rare Doctrine Death Penalty Life Imprisonment Last Seen Evidence +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Digambar

Appellant

Mohan

Appellant

The State of Maharashtra

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Following Confirmation of Conviction and Sentence; Final Judgment on Appeal by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants are guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34
  2. 2 Whether the confessional statement/extrajudicial confession could be relied upon
  3. 3 Whether the case is a 'rarest of rare' case warranting death sentence

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of guilt under Section 302 IPC against both appellants but held that the case was not 'rarest of rare' warranting death penalty for Digambar given lack of brutality (single injuries), absence of criminal antecedents, young age, and positive probation/prison reports indicating reform potential; accordingly Digambar's death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment while Mohan's life sentence was affirmed. The Court also treated the accused's surrender to police as relevant conduct under Section 8 Evidence Act and found the accused failed to discharge burden under Section 106 Evidence Act.

Court Disposition

Appeals partly allowed.

Orders

  • Criminal Appeal filed by appellant Mohan is dismissed.
  • Criminal Appeals filed by appellant Digambar are partly allowed: conviction under Section 302 IPC maintained but sentence of death is commuted to life imprisonment.