Bombay High Court: In the present case, the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur (‘the ASJ, Kolhapur’) made a reference under Section 366(1)1 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) for confirmation of death sentence awarded by him to respondent-convict in a case, decided on 08-07-2021. The ASJ, Kolhapur convicted respondent of the offence punishable under Section 3022 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and sentenced him to hang by neck, till he is dead. A fine of Rs 25,000 was also imposed and in default, respondent was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
The Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj K. Chavan*, JJ., opined that manner in which respondent had murdered his mother was brutal, cruel, and barbaric, indicated pathological cannibalism of respondent and there was no remorse, penitence, or repentance on his face. The Court also opined that respondent was not at all fit for any kind of reformatory and rehabilitation scheme and therefore, confirmed the death penalty imposed by the Trial Court.
Background
Respondent was accustomed to consuming liquor and used to harass his wife, due to which, his wife deserted him with three daughters and a son. Respondent’s mother-deceased was a widow surviving on her husband’s pension of Rs 4,000 per month and used to provide respondent with two square meals, however, respondent used to beat her mother on account of pension amount, which he used to demand.
On 28-08-2017, an eight-year-old girl noticed respondent’s mother murdered in her house and her body lying in a pool of blood and respondent was standing near the body, whose hands, clothes, and mouth were smeared with blood. The girl informed respondent’s brother, who rushed to the spot and found out that his mother was lying on the floor naked, in a pool of blood and her body parts, i.e., liver, intestine, heart, rib, and breast were drawn outside. The crowd present on the spot of the incident apprehended the convict, who was later taken into custody by the police. Thereafter, respondent’s brother lodged a report, based on which a case was registered against respondent and thus he was later arrested.
After the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against respondent in the Court of JMFC. In order to ascertain the motive in committing the offence, on 19-09-2017, a letter was issued to the Chief Officer, Employees Provident Fund. After investigation, the Investigating Officer laid a chargesheet in the Court of the JMFC and after committal of the case to the Sessions Court, a charge was framed and was read over and explained to respondent, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.
The ASJ, Kolhapur found that the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubts that respondent had committed the most gruesome, barbaric, and horrendous murder of his mother by means of a big sattur (chopper) and two knives and he eviscerated her body parts which he was about to eat. The ASJ, Kolhapur had given pre-sentence hearing as mandated in Section 235(2)3 of CrPC to both prosecution and defence and had concluded that respondent deserved death penalty and, thus, awarded sentence of death.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that the deceased died a homicidal death, and the witness ruled out any possibility of the death being either suicidal or accidental. The Court further stated that the evidence of the investigating officer indicated that respondent was apprehended by the mob and to save his life from the furious crowd, he was immediately taken to the police station. The Court observed that the defence did not dispute the fact that respondent always had a quarrel with the deceased on account of money and thus, the Court opined that, respondent had a requisite motive to eliminate his mother.
The Court stated that the testimony of the 8-year-old witness was quite natural, acceptable, and believable as neither she nor any other witness had any axe to grind against respondent. The Court also stated that merely because the witness was eight years old when the incident occurred, did not ipso facto mean that her testimony should be viewed with some suspicion, especially after considering the facts and circumstances proved by the prosecution.
The Court opined that the circumstances indicated pathological cannibalism of respondent. Pathological cannibalism is rooted in some form of psychopathology, i.e., at the core of the person’s motivation such as, someone who is psychotic or committing the act of cannibalism to act out paraphilia. It is in the realm of pathological cannibalism that most criminal acts of cannibalism are discussed. The act of respondent was quite close to cannibalism.
The Court took note of the photographs that were taken of the scene of the incident, out of the eight photographs, two showed that both the breasts had been chopped off the body by respondent and two photographs showed that blood was on the floor with some internal body parts. The Court opined that a common man would find it quite difficult, distressing, frightening, and unsettling even to have a glance at the photographs, which would speak more than thousand words and words would fall short to describe the grotesque, brutal, inhuman, and most cruel act committed by respondent with his mother.
The Court stated that the unchallenged chemical analyzer’s report (‘the CA report’) strengthened, substantiated and proved that gown, two knives, Sattur which were seized from the spot of incident and respondent’s bermuda with blood stains, matched with the blood stains of the deceased. The CA report further proved that the DNA profile from the nails of respondent were identical with the blood on the gauze piece of the deceased.
The Court stated that the prosecution succeeded in showing that the convict had some ill-intention towards his mother and, as such, the said ill-intention swelled up in his mind to such a degree as to impel him to commit the murder of his mother in such a brutal manner. The Court further stated that by taking a false defence under Section 854 of IPC, respondent impliedly admitted his guilt. The Court stated that respondent failed to rebut the presumption as no material was placed by him in that regard, indicating that he had been intoxicated or was forced to consume liquor without his knowledge or against his will. There was absolutely nothing to hold that the convict was intoxicated or under the influence of liquor. The Court relied on G. Parshwanath v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 8 SCC 593, and opined that taking a false defence would tantamount to an additional circumstance pointing towards respondent’s guilt and it had further strengthened the chain of circumstances already firmly established.
The Court took note of the submission by respondent’s counsel that respondent belonged to a de-notified tribe and as per the report of the Probationary Officer, respondent used to consume flesh of cats and pigs and, therefore, perhaps he might have committed the offence. The Court opined that to release such a person would amount to giving him a free ride and freedom to commit similar offence qua the members of society. There was no question of considering it as a mitigating circumstance and showing any leniency to respondent, rather, it was the most aggravating circumstance. Thus, the Court rejected the contention that respondent deserved leniency.
The Court opined that apart from the extreme brutality, cruelty, and barbarism with which respondent had murdered his mother in a cold blooded manner, one could not turn nelson’s eye that his conduct was akin to cannibalism and, therefore, he could be a potential threat and danger to the inmates in the jail, in case, sentence of life imprisonment was awarded. The Court also opined that a person who could commit such a heinous crime by killing his mother, could do so with anyone else, including his own family and thus, his social integration, was unquestionably foreclosed. These were the special reasons’ as mandated in Section 354(3)5 of CrPC. The Court relied on Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 and held that the present case would, therefore, fall within the doctrine of ‘rarest of rare’.
The Court considered the entire material regarding educational, financial, social, psychological, and psychiatric aspects qua respondent to ascertain whether there was any possibility or probability of reformation or rehabilitation of respondent, and the entire facts and evidence connected with the crime, and the circumstances of respondent and opined that respondent was not at all fit for any kind of reformatory and rehabilitation scheme.
The Court stated that during interaction with respondent through video conferencing, there was no remorse, penitence, or repentance on his face. The Court opined that showing mercy or leniency to respondent would be misplacing the concept of mercy, therefore, the Court held that the death penalty imposed by the trial Court, accordingly, stands confirmed. The Court stated that respondent had a right to prefer an appeal before the Supreme Court within 30 days.
[State of Maharashtra v. X, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3131, decided on 01-10-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant/s: P.P. Shinde, APP
For the Respondent/s: Yug Mohit Chaudhry, Counsel
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Corresponding Section 407 of the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS, 2023’)
2. Corresponding Section 103(1) of the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS, 2023’)
5. Section 393 of BNSS, 2023
