E-Paper
SC commutes death penalty for man who murdered his pregnant daughter over inter-caste marriage
A bench of Justices B R Gavai, Aravind Kumar and K V Viswanathan set aside the death penalty but sentenced the accused to 20 years in jail.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday commuted the death penalty of a man, who had murdered his pregnant daughter for performing an inter-caste marriage against her family's will.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai, Aravind Kumar and K V Viswanathan set aside the death penalty but upheld the conviction of Eknath Kisan Kumbharkar from Nashik district in Maharashtra and sentenced him to 20 years in jail instead.
“The order of conviction as recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the high court of judicature at Bombay vide order dated August 6, 2019 in confirmation case…is affirmed,” the court said.
"However, the sentence of death penalty imposed by the courts below under Section 302 is converted to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission," the bench held.
Also Read | 18-year-old woman found dead in Bengal; family alleges rape
Kumbharkar had murdered his pregnant daughter Pramila on June 28, 2013 for marrying a man from a different caste against the family's wishes, according to the prosecution.
The top court also clarified that the accused will not be make any representation for remission till he completes 20 years of actual rigorous imprisonment.
"We find that the present case would not fall in the category of 'rarest of rare cases' wherein it can be held that imposition of the death penalty is the only alternative. We are of the considered opinion that the present case would fall in the category of middle path as held by this court in various judgments," the bench said.
Also Read | Nowhere safe for women; death penalty only justice, says sister of ‘gang rape’ survivor
While pronouncing the judgement, the observed that the appellant hails from a poor nomadic community in Maharashtra.
"He had an alcoholic father and suffered parental neglect and poverty...Neither the appellant nor any of his family members have any criminal antecedent. It cannot be presumed that the appellant is a hardened criminal who cannot be reformed. Hence, it cannot be said that there is no possibility of reformation, even though the appellant has committed a gruesome crime," the bench noted.
The court said that Kumbharkar was 38 years old at the time of the crime without any criminal antecedents and underlined the various other mitigating circumstances in his favour.
"The medical reports of the appellant would disclose that he has speech issues, and he has undergone an angioplasty in 2014, apart from suffering other serious ailments. The conduct report from the prison would disclose that the behaviour of the appellant in the jail is satisfactory with everyone for the past six years. Considering these factors....even though the crime committed by the appellant is unquestionably grave and unpardonable, it is not appropriate to affirm the death sentence that was awarded to him," it held.
The court further added: “Death sentence should not be imposed only by taking into consideration the grave nature of crime but only if there is no possibility of reformation by a criminal.”
