Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune for offences under Sections 302, 364, and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the kidnapping and murder of a minor child named Rishikesh. He was awarded the death penalty, which was confirmed by the Bombay High Court in Confirmation Case No.1 of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No.618 of 2005. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, but his counsel, Senior Advocate Anand Grover, conceded the conviction and restricted the appeal to the sentence. The appellant argued for commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment based on mitigating circumstances: he was 22-23 years old at the time of the crime, had no criminal record, was a student, had a widowed mother, and had spent 18 years in jail with good conduct. During incarceration, he completed a B.A. degree, underwent Gandhian thoughts training, and wrote poems reflecting remorse and reformation. The State opposed leniency, citing the pre-planned nature of the crime and the impact on the victim's family. The Supreme Court, after hearing both sides, found that the mitigating circumstances outweighed the aggravating ones. The Court noted that the appellant was not a hardened criminal, had shown potential for reformation, and would not be a continuing threat to society. Applying the principles from Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, Shyam Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and Sunil v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court held that the case did not fall within the 'rarest of rare' category warranting the death penalty. Consequently, the Court confirmed the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, allowing the appellant to apply for remission to the State Government.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Death Sentence - Commutation to Life Imprisonment - Sections 302, 364, 201 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The appellant, convicted for kidnapping and murder of a minor child for ransom, challenged only the death sentence. The Supreme Court, balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances, held that the case did not fall within the 'rarest of rare' category. Mitigating factors included the appellant's young age (22 years at the time of offence), 18 years of incarceration, good conduct in jail, completion of B.A. degree, and evidence of reformation through poems and Gandhian training. The Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, relying on Sunil v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017) 4 SCC 393, Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684, and Shyam Singh alias Bhima v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017) 11 SCC 265. (Paras 3-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the death sentence imposed on the appellant for offences under Sections 302, 364, and 201 read with Section 34 IPC should be commuted to life imprisonment in light of mitigating circumstances.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed in part. The conviction under Sections 302, 364, and 201 read with Section 34 IPC is confirmed. The death sentence is commuted to life imprisonment. The appellant may apply for remission to the State Government, which shall be considered in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Death sentence commutation
- Rarest of rare case
- Mitigating circumstances
- Life imprisonment
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 364 IPC
- Section 201 IPC
