1. Case Overview

• Jurisdiction: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
• Appeals: Confirmation Case No. 1/2022 for death penalty confirmation; Criminal Appeal No. 1122/2023 by the convict.

2. Incident and Crime

• Date & Location: Night of 15th-16th May 1997; Flat No. 4, Princeton Town Society, Pune.
• Victims: Ramesh Patil, his wife Vijaya, daughter Pooja (12), and son Manjunath (7).
• Crime: Premeditated murder, robbery of cash and ornaments worth ₹42+ lakh, with severe brutality (e.g., bodies disposed of in a drainage chamber).

3. Trial and Sentence

• Conviction: Death penalty under Section 302 IPC, life imprisonment, and fines for offenses under Sections 449, 392, 460, and 201 IPC.
• Mitigating vs. Aggravating Factors: Judged under precedents like Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab. Aggravating factors (brutality, diabolical intent, societal impact) outweighed mitigating ones.

4. Prosecution's Case

• Evidence included:
  1. Presence of the accused near the crime scene.
  2. Recovery of stolen cash, jewelry, and blood-stained clothes linked to the accused.
  3. Incriminating disclosures by the accused.
  4. Abscondence post-crime.

5. Defense Arguments

• Claims of false implication due to stereotyping (Pardhi community).
• Alleged lack of direct evidence and procedural lapses (e.g., fingerprint and DNA testing).

6. Judgment

• Confirmation of Death Penalty: The court upheld the sentence, terming the crime as a "rarest of rare" case given its heinous nature and societal impact.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Indian Penal Code (IPC):

  • Section 302: Murder (death sentence for aggravated brutality).
  • Section 449: House trespass to commit a punishable offense.
  • Section 392: Robbery.
  • Section 460: Lurking house-trespass causing death.
  • Section 201: Causing disappearance of evidence.

• Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC):

  • Section 366: Confirmation of the death sentence by the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court emphasized that:

1. The brutality of the act and premeditation placed the case within the "rarest of rare" category.
2. The accused’s conduct and failure to explain the incriminating evidence justified the ultimate penalty.
3. Public conscience demanded the strictest punishment for deterrence.

Subjects:

Criminal Law, Death Penalty, Circumstantial Evidence.

Murder, Heinous Crimes, Judicial Precedents, Sentencing, Rare Case Doctrine.