A recent ruling by the Supreme Court has overturned the decision of the High Court to award capital punishment in a murder case. The accused, Digambar, was initially convicted for the murder of his sister, Pooja, and her lover, Govind. However, the Supreme Court deemed the case did not fall under the category of the “rarest of rare” and thus reversed the death penalty.

Background of the Case

The deceased, Pooja, was married to Jethiba Hashanna Varshewar but maintained a secret love affair with Govind. Suspicious of their relationship, Digambar, Pooja’s brother, discovered them together at Govind’s sister’s house. A confrontation ensued, resulting in Digambar assaulting Govind with a sickle. When Pooja tried to intervene, she was also attacked, leading to the tragic deaths of both individuals.

The Prosecution’s Case and the Burden of Proof

The prosecution’s case primarily relied on circumstantial evidence, including the accused being last seen with the deceased. As per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proof shifted to the accused to explain what happened after leaving the house. However, the accused failed to discharge this burden, strengthening the prosecution’s case.

Ruling on the Death Penalty

The Supreme Court considered multiple factors in its ruling. Firstly, it observed that the accused did not act brutally and that there was only a single injury inflicted on both deceased individuals. Additionally, the accused’s conduct of surrendering to the police was taken into consideration under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court concluded that the case did not meet the criteria of a “rarest of rare” case, justifying the death penalty.

Sentences and Final Verdict

Digambar, who had no previous criminal record and was a young man at the time of the incident, had his death sentence overturned. However, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the life imprisonment sentence imposed on the co-accused, Mohan. The Court upheld the conviction of both accused individuals for the offense punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

The ruling sets a precedent regarding the consideration of factors such as the nature of the crime and the conduct of the accused when determining the appropriateness of the death penalty. It highlights the significance of a thorough examination of the circumstances of each case to ensure justice is served.

Frequently Asked Questions

• Who are the judges mentioned in the content?

  The judges mentioned in the content are Justice B.R Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath, and Justice Sanjay Karol.

• Can you provide more information about the accused, Digambar?

  Digambar is the brother of Pooja, who was married to Jethiba Hashanna Varshewar. Digambar was involved in the assault that resulted in the deaths of Pooja and Govind. However, further details about Digambar, such as personal background or any previous criminal record, are not mentioned in the given content.

• What were the charges and sentences for the accused and the co-accused?

  The accused, Digambar, was convicted for offenses punishable under Sections 302/201/120-B of the IPC and initially sentenced to death, which was later overturned by the Supreme Court. The co-accused, Mohan, was convicted for offenses punishable under Sections 302/201/34/120-B of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.

• Where did the incident take place?

  The incident mentioned in the content took place in Maharashtra, India.

• What factors did the Supreme Court consider in overturning the death sentence?

  The Supreme Court considered various factors, including the absence of brutal acts by the accused, the presence of only a single injury on both deceased individuals, the conduct of the accused in surrendering to the police, and the lack of evidence presented by the accused to refute the prosecution’s case. These factors led the Court to conclude that the case did not qualify as a ‘rarest of rare’ case warranting the death penalty.