In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has commuted the death sentence of Eknath Kisan Kumbharkar, who was convicted of murdering his pregnant daughter, to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission. The court, while acknowledging the severity of the crime, concluded that the case did not meet the criteria of the “rarest of rare” standard required for capital punishment.
Background of the Case
Eknath Kumbharkar, the appellant, was convicted for the murder of his daughter, Pramila, in 2013. Pramila, who had married Mr. Deepak Kamble in an inter-caste marriage against her father’s wishes, was nine months pregnant at the time of her death. On June 28, 2013, Kumbharkar took Pramila from her matrimonial home under the pretext that her grandmother was critically ill and wanted to see her. According to eyewitness accounts, including that of Pramila’s mother-in-law and an auto-rickshaw driver, Kumbharkar strangled Pramila in an autorickshaw near Savkar Hospital.
Kumbharkar was initially sentenced to death by the Trial Court under Sections 302 (murder), 316 (causing death of an unborn child), and 364 (kidnapping or abducting in order to murder) of the Indian Penal Code. The Bombay High Court confirmed the death penalty in 2019, leading to this appeal in the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues
1. Death Penalty and Rarest of Rare Doctrine: The primary legal issue in the case was whether the death penalty imposed on Kumbharkar met the “rarest of rare” threshold. The court had to balance the gravity of the crime with the possibility of rehabilitation and the mitigating circumstances surrounding Kumbharkar’s life.
2. Eyewitness Reliability and Motive: The appellant challenged the reliability of the eyewitnesses and the motive presented by the prosecution. His defence also highlighted supposed monetary disputes between him and the key witness.
3. Mitigating Circumstances: The court had to consider Kumbharkar’s background, including his socio-economic situation, mental health, and conduct in prison, while deciding the appropriateness of capital punishment.
Supreme Court’s Decision
A three-judge bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Aravind Kumar, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan delivered the judgment, partly allowing the appeal by converting the death sentence into 20 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission. The court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence in light of various mitigating factors.
The court noted:
– Mitigating Factors: The appellant, aged 47, had a troubled socio-economic background. He came from a poor nomadic community, had an alcoholic father, and faced early parental neglect. Kumbharkar had to start working at the age of five and continued to struggle with poverty and emotional disturbance due to societal pressures and ostracization. Additionally, the reports presented to the court showed that Kumbharkar suffered a stroke in prison in 2021, leaving him with significant cognitive and speech impairments.
– Reformation Possibility: The court highlighted that Kumbharkar had no prior criminal antecedents and had behaved well in prison for over six years. His prison conduct reports showed that he was not involved in any violent incidents, and his cognitive condition post-stroke suggested that he was unlikely to pose a future danger to society.
The bench observed, “The doctrine of ‘rarest of rare’ requires that the death sentence should not be imposed only by taking into consideration the grave nature of the crime but only if there is no possibility of reformation by a criminal.” It further stated, “Considering these factors, we are of the considered view that even though the crime committed by the appellant is unquestionably grave and unpardonable, it is not appropriate to affirm the death sentence.”
Legal Representation
The appellant, Eknath Kumbharkar, was represented by Senior Counsel Dr. Aditya Sondhi, who argued that the motive for the crime was not sufficiently established and that the prosecution had failed to prove critical aspects of the case. Sondhi also highlighted investigative errors and discrepancies in the testimonies of key witnesses.
The respondent, the State of Maharashtra, was represented by Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, who supported the conviction and the death sentence, arguing that the murder of the pregnant daughter in such a brutal manner warranted the harshest punishment.
