Summary
The Court upheld both appellants’ murder convictions on the established last-seen circumstances and the absence of an explanation for events within their special knowledge. The police confession was excluded, but surrender was relevant conduct. Digambar’s death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment after considering his youth, lack of antecedents and favourable reform-related reports. Mohan’s life sentence remained intact.
Issues
- Whether the circumstantial evidence sustained the murder convictions independently of the police confession.
- Whether Digambar’s case warranted the exceptional death sentence.
Provisions considered
- Sections 8 and 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Considered surrender as relevant conduct and required an explanation of events especially within the accused’s knowledge after the prosecution established the close last-seen sequence. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860Maintained the murder convictions while substituting life imprisonment for Digambar’s death sentence. (¶¶ 19, 30, 31)
Held
- The material last-seen evidence remained unshaken: the accused and deceased left together, and the deaths followed shortly afterwards. Once those circumstances were established, the accused failed to explain the intervening events especially within their knowledge. The concurrent murder findings warranted no interference. (¶ 9-19)
- The confessional statement to police could not be considered. Nevertheless, Digambar’s act of going to the station and surrendering was relevant subsequent conduct under section 8; the Court distinguished that conduct from admitting the confession’s contents. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- Capital sentencing required consideration of the offender and possibility of reform alongside the crime. Digambar was about twenty-five at the incident, had no criminal antecedents, and the probation and prison reports supported favourable behaviour and reform. The Court also considered the medical evidence of a single injury to each deceased. On the combined circumstances, the exceptional death sentence was unwarranted. (¶ 20-30)
- The murder conviction was maintained; the reform and sentencing assessment did not reduce it to a lesser offence. Mohan’s appeal against his conviction and life sentence failed, while Digambar received life imprisonment in substitution for death. (¶¶ 30, 31)
Result
Mohan’s appeal dismissed. Digambar’s appeals partly allowed solely to commute death to life imprisonment; his conviction under section 302 remained affirmed.