Previous 7 / 23 Next

Prakash Pawar and Jitendra Chaugule i.e. persons residing near Savkar Hospital and Babu Patil (ward boy of Savkar Hospital), despite their statements being recorded by Rajesh Arkhade/investigating officer/PW10. 7.6 It is submitted that even those persons who came to the spot after PW2 shouted for help, are also not examined by the prosecution. The learned counsel relied on the judgments in Jaikam Khan v. State of UP3, Jagadish v. State of Haryana4, Hem Raj v. State of Haryana5 to contend that nonexamination of independent witness by the prosecution is a serious infirmity and is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 7.7 It is submitted that evidence of Dr. Vikrant Savkar/PW5 is not trustworthy and reliable, and there are material contradictions in the testimonies of PW2 and PW5 regarding the events that occurred at the hospital. 7.8 It is further submitted that seizure and sealing of the string which is said to have been used by the accused to strangulate the deceased is not proved and there are discrepancies regarding the length of the same. It is submitted that it is not the case of the prosecution that string is linked and it was not seized from or at the behest of the appellant and it is also not the 3 (2021) 13 SCC 716 4 (2019) 7 SCC 711 5 (2005) 10 SCC 614 7

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Eknath Kisan Kumbharkar

CASE BRIEF

Jurisdiction

India

Nationalities

Indian

Case Title: Eknath Kisan Kumbharkar v. State of Maharashtra

Age at Offence: 38

Age Group at Offence: Adult (18 to 59)

Gender: Male

Religious Group at Offence: Hindu

Vulnerable/ Marginalised Group

Minorities: Caste
Person with Disabilities: Mental
Socio-economic Status

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: 2017

Method of Execution: Hanging

Rights Allegedly Violated

Fair Trial and Due Process: Excessive and disproportionate punishment

Nature of Offences for Death Penalty

Murder: Single Victim

Expert Evidence

Forensic/Medical evidence: Autopsy/Post mortem
Mitigation Specialist
Mental Health: Other
Mental Health: Psychiatrist
Mental Health: Psychologist

Case Background (300 words max): The accused allegedly murdered his pregnant daughter as she had married outside of their caste against the appellant's wishes. The key circumstances against the accused are: direct eyewitness of incident, witnesses (who saw the accused take his daughter), post-mortem report (death by asphyxiation), and motive.

The Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death, and the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. However the Supreme Court commuted the sentence to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission but upheld the conviction.

Defence Arguments (200 words max.)

   There was an absence of motive, the daughter having entered into an inter-caste marriage against the accused’s wishes was not sufficient alone to constitute motive.

   The direct eyewitness is unreliable, the accused and the witness had a previous financial arrangement that had led to a heated argument only 15 days before the incident

   There exist material contradiction in the testimonies of other witnesses which casts a doubt on the reliability of the same

   An adverse inference must be drawn against the prosecution not examining other independent witnesses that were present at the time of occurrence despite their statements having been recorded.

   Cause of curvilinear injuries on the deceased’s face is not proven by the prosecution

Judgement with Headnotes (200 words max)

The Supreme Court, while commuting the sentence held the following:

   The accused’s wife has in certain terms, deposed of the motive. According to her, the accused (her husband) was nursing a grudge against their daughter for entering into an inter-caste marriage.

   Contradictions and inconsistencies in witness statements pointed out by the appellant were minor in nature, and do not alter the credibility of witness testimonies

   The appellant did not produce sufficient proof to establish that there existed a financial relationship between the appellant and the direct eyewitness, hence in the absence of that, there is no reason to discredit the testimony of the direct eyewitness

   While the prosecution did not examine other witnesses present at the time of occurrence, the Court stated that non-examination of independent witnesses by itself would not lead to an adverse inference. This would only be of importance if there was serious doubt about eyewitness testimony.

   Mitigating factors like prolonged duration spent in prison, absence of criminal antecedents, socio-economic background, adverse childhood experiences, mental and emotional disturbance, and satisfactory behaviour in prison were considered when commuting the sentence to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.

Legal Representation Received

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

Legislation Related to the Offence(s): Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 161 and 313 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 316, 302, 364, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 103

Judicial Precedents: Balaji v. The State of Maharashtra; Dandu Jaggaraju v. State of A.P.; Jaikam Khan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh; Jagdish and Ors. v. The State of Haryana; Hem Raj and Ors. v. State of Haryana; Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras; Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana; Manoj Suryavanshi v. State of Chhattisgarh; Madan v. State of Uttar Pradesh; Guru Dutt Pathak v. State of Uttar Pradesh; Swami Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka; Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra; Gandi Doddabasappa v. State of Karnataka; Prakash Dhawal Khairnar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra; Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab.

Language of Case Materials