Previous 4 / 5 Next

4 imprisonment. However, death sentence is set aside. The appeals are partly allowed. ……………………………………….J. [ARUN MISHRA] ……………………………………….J. [S. ABDUL NAZEER] ……………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH] NEW DELHI; JULY 10, 2019.

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Dileep Bankar

CASE BRIEF

Jurisdiction

India

Nationalities

Indian

Case Title: Dileep Bankar v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Age Group at Offence: Adult (18 to 59)

Gender: Male

Religious Group at Offence: Hindu

Jurisdiction - Geolocation

Latitude: 20.5937

Longitude: 78.9629

Jurisdiction - Geolocation (linked CASE BRIEF): India

Contributing TRP Partner

The Square Circle Clinic (India)

Latest Country's Death Penalty Status

Retentionist

Case Current Status: Closed: Commuted

Year when sentenced to Death Row: 2010s: 2013

Method of Execution: Hanging

Nature of Offences for Death Penalty

Sexual Violence: Rape
Murder: Single Victim

Case Background (300 words max): The case against the accused is for allegedly raping and murdering a minor girl aged about 5 years.

The circumstances against the accused are: last seen witness testimony; recovery (victim’s body and shirt); post mortem examination’s evidence of injury on the victim’s back, neck and vagina; criminal antecedents (of rape on minor girls on two previous occasions, considered by the trial court)

The trial court found the accused guilty and awarded the death sentence on 21.02.2013. A Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh set aside this judgement and remanded the case to the trial Court to record its satisfaction as to whether the appellant is of sound mind and is in fit mental condition to defend himself. It was found his he was fit to proceed. The High Court then confirmed the trial court’s holding on conviction and sentence, on 04.07.2013. The Supreme Court, on appeal, confirmed the conviction but commuted the sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment, 10.07.2019.

Defence Arguments (200 words max.): No defence arguments were recorded for the stage of second appeal (Supreme Court).

At the stage of first appeal (at the High Court), the accused’s defence did not examine any witness. However, the accused recorded a statement stating that he had been falsely implicated. His defence submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution with regard to last seen is not reliable. It was also urged that chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete so as to prove the offence against the appellant. However, these were not recorded in detail.

Judgement with Headnotes (200 words max): The court held that given that the accused had become a ‘victim of his own past’ and that there was only circumstantial evidence against him, it was proper to commute the sentence to 25 years of imprisonment.

Legal Representation Received

Second Appeal: Pro bono
Pre-trial: Unknown
Trial: Unknown
Appeal: Unknown

Legislation Related to the Offence(s): Sections 363, 366, 376, 376 (2) and 302 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)

Judicial Precedents: None cited

Language of Case Materials

English

Primary Documents

APznzaZ5vTafXJg2tsevG-VcbYkuLqdOYEb5CwzsVIkkiTg6hP89LxSqIsH5NsZxgjapE8b4yh3cPYp-42ow3fYm79eptT5w3DzgThsLLyCnfjkQO8j-osCzqoUoGfhb8BvtlpFYy-awTbo9TQ8NiKcs9OgZnf2g9MtFAYrMMOB7dNbpryCfMIqJ722VCqBAjDkiWvpvl2QOM-kn6Hr_SNS4X-rQnRu8g2cg7Zn-H9EfZTUi.pdf
English
Download View

Death Penalty Defence - Asia

Select target paragraph3

Dileep Bankar

Primary Documents

Notifications