Full Judgment Text
Crl.A.1963/12
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s).1963 OF 2012
[@ Special Leave Petition(Crl) No.8150 of 2008]
DNYANESHWAR HAIBHAU KULAL Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment
th
and order dated 11 January, 2008, passed by the
Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No.464 of 2007,
along with Confirmation Case No.1 of 2007.
JUDGMENT
3. The Confirmation Case was filed by the State
of Maharashtra, seeking confirmation of the death
penalty imposed upon the appellant, Dnyaneshwar
Haibhau Kulal, in Sessions Case No.2 of 2006, by the
th
Sessions Judge, Satara, on 18 November, 2006, for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code.
4. According to the prosecution case, the
Page 1
Crl.A.1963/12
2
appellant was convinced that the deceased Dhondiram
used black magic, due to which his father Haribhau had
rd
expired. On 3 September, 2004, PW-5, Genba, gave a
missing report regarding Dhondiram and, thereafter, on
the basis of a FIR lodged by the PW-7, Tanaji,
Criminal Case bearing No.64 of 2004, for offences
alleged to have been committed under Sections 302 and
201 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered against
the appellant.
5. From the evidence of PW-7, Tanaji Dhondiram
nd
Kulal, son of the deceased, it appears that on 2
September, 2004, news was received that in the field
near “Sanand” a headless body had been found. On
reaching there, P.W.7 identified the body to be that
of Dhondiram and, thereafter, complaint was lodged,
being FIR Crime No.64 of 2004, under Sections 302 and
th
201 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, on 27
JUDGMENT
October, 2004, some other articles, including a skull,
were recovered from the field known as Jotibacha Inam.
Thereafter, after investigation, the Investigating
Officer filed chargesheet against the appellant, sent
him to trial for having allegedly committed the murder
of Dhondiram.
6. PW-6, Dashrath Bhau Kachare, is the main
witness on whom the prosecution relies, since there
Page 2
Crl.A.1963/12
3
are no other witnesses to the incident. According to
the said witness, the appellant met him when he was in
the field and took out the head of the deceased from a
gunny bag, which he was carrying claiming that he had
cut off the head from the deceased after killing him.
7. Relying mainly on the said evidence, and the
circumstantial evidence, which had been gathered, the
learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under
Section 302 read with Section 201 Indian Penal Code
and upon holding that this was one of those rarest of
rare cases awarded the death penalty to the appellant,
which subsequently, came before the High Court for
confirmation.
8. Accepting the decision of the trial court, the
High Court while confirming the conviction of the
appellant, also upheld the death sentence awarded to
him by the trial court, in the circumstances mentioned
JUDGMENT
in paragraph 45 of the impugned judgment. As many as
11 reasons have been given by the High Court to hold
that this was one of such rarest of rare cases, which
merited the death penalty.
9. We have carefully perused the said reasons
and while there is no doubt that the murder appears to
have been committed in a highly depraved manner, this
does not, in our view, bring the incident within the
Page 3
Crl.A.1963/12
4
concept of rarest of rare cases, for being awarded the
death penalty.
10. Accordingly, while confirming the conviction
of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section
201 IPC, we modify the sentence awarded to the
appellant and alter the death sentence awarded to him
to one of life sentence.
11. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
........................CJI.
(ALTAMAS KABIR)
..........................J
(J.CHELAMESWAR)
NEW DELHI;
November 30, 2012.
JUDGMENT
Page 4
Crl.A.1963/12
5
ITEM NO.202 COURT NO.1 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).8150/2008
(From the judgement and order dated 11/01/2008 in CRLA No.464/2007,
of The HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)
DNYANESHWAR HAIBHAU KULAL Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T.,permission to file
additional documents and office report ))
( for final disposal )
Date: 30/11/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Minakshi Vij,AOR.(SCLSC)
JUDGMENT
For Respondent(s) Mr. Mike P.Desai, Adv.
Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,AOR.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed
order.
(Sheetal Dhingra)
(Juginder Kaur)
Assistant Registrar
[Signed order is placed on the file]
COURT MASTER
Page 5
Crl.A.1963/12
6
JUDGMENT
Page 6