上一步 23 / 23 下一步

affirmed. However, the sentence of death penalty imposed by the courts below under Section 302 is converted to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission. It is made clear that appellant-accused shall not be entitled to make any representation for remission till he completes 20 years of actual rigorous imprisonment. 34. The appeal is allowed to the extent noted herein above. Pending application(s), if any, stands consigned to records. …….………………….J. (B.R. Gavai) …….………………….J. (Aravind Kumar) …….………………….J. (K.V. Viswanathan) New Delhi, October 16, 2024 23

選擇目標文字3

● ● ●

Eknath Kisan Kumbharkar

案件摘要

司法管轄

印度

國籍

印度人

案件標題: Eknath Kisan Kumbharkar v. State of Maharashtra

作案時年齡: 38

作案時年齡組: 成年人 (18至59歲)

性别: 男性

犯罪時的宗教信仰: 印度教

弱勢 / 邊緣群體身份

社會經濟地位
少數群體: 種姓
殘疾人士: 精神障礙

司法轄區 - 地理定位

緯度: 20.5937

經度: 78.9629

司法轄區 - 地理定位 (已連結案件摘要): 印度

瑞慈合作機構

The Square Circle Clinic (印度)

該國最新死刑狀態

保留死刑

案件現狀: 已結案: 減刑

判處死刑年份: 2010s: 2017

執行方式: 絞刑

涉嫌侵犯的權利

公正審判與正當程序權利: 處罰過重或不成比例

死刑所涉罪名的性質

謀殺: 一名受害者

專家證據

心理健康: 其他
心理健康: 心理學家
心理健康: 精神科醫生
法醫 / 醫學證據: 屍檢 / 死後檢驗
減刑專家

案件背景 (最多300字)

The accused allegedly murdered his pregnant daughter.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             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.

辯方意見 (最多200字)

   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

判决摘要 (最多200字)

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.

獲得法律代理的情況

第二次上訴階段: 公益律師
偵查前階段: 未知
審判階段: 未知
上訴階段: 未知

與罪名相關的立法: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sectios 161 and 313 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 316, 302, 364, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 103

司法判例: 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.

案件材料語言