SHAM @ KISHOR BHASKARRAO MATKARI versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

SHAM @ KISHOR BHASKARRAO MATKARI versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Although the appellant caused three murders and attempted to murder two others, the crime was not premeditated but arose out of a property dispute; appellant had unblemished antecedents, was young and jobless, and no evidence of irreformability or continuing threat is shown. The case does not fall within the 'rarest of rare' category; hence, death penalty is not warranted and the sentence of life imprisonment is restored.

Parties
Appellant Accused: Sham @ Kishor Bhaskarrao Matkari; Respondent: State of Maharashtra
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
30 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal Against High Court Order Enhancing Sentence From Life Imprisonment to Death
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed.
Legal Topics
Punishment for Murder, Sentencing Principles, Death Penalty, Mitigating Circumstances, Indian Penal Code S.302 and S.307
Criminal Law Punishment for Murder Sentencing Principles Death Penalty Mitigating Circumstances Indian Penal Code S.302 and S.307

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sham @ Kishor Bhaskarrao Matkari

Appellant Accused

State of Maharashtra

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal Against High Court Order Enhancing Sentence From Life Imprisonment to Death

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether death penalty was warranted instead of life imprisonment for the murder of three family members and attempt to murder two children
  2. 2 Whether there were sufficient aggravating or mitigating circumstances to justify death penalty under Indian law

Ratio Decidendi

Although the appellant caused three murders and attempted to murder two others, the crime was not premeditated but arose out of a property dispute; appellant had unblemished antecedents, was young and jobless, and no evidence of irreformability or continuing threat is shown. The case does not fall within the 'rarest of rare' category; hence, death penalty is not warranted and the sentence of life imprisonment is restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed.

Orders

  • Death penalty imposed by High Court set aside.
  • Life imprisonment as awarded by trial court restored.