Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a brutal double murder where the accused, Chandrakant Vasant Ayare, killed his wife Sanchita and their minor daughter Vaishnavi by beheading them with a knife in their residence at Nalasopara on 28 June 2011. The prosecution alleged that the accused suspected his wife of infidelity and was under financial stress, leading to the murders. The trial court convicted him under Sections 302 and 309 IPC and sentenced him to death for murder and one year rigorous imprisonment for attempt to suicide. The High Court heard the confirmation case and the appeal together. The court examined the evidence including eyewitness accounts, medical reports, and the accused's conduct. The court found the conviction for murder and attempt to suicide to be correct. However, on the question of sentence, the court held that the case does not fall within the 'rarest of rare' category as the accused had no criminal antecedents, was under mental and financial stress, and the crime was not premeditated in a cold-blooded manner. The court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment for 30 years without remission, while maintaining the sentence under Section 309 IPC.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Death Sentence - Confirmation - Section 302 IPC, Section 366 CrPC - The court considered whether the case falls within the 'rarest of rare' category for confirmation of death sentence - Held that although the crime was brutal, the accused's mental state, lack of criminal antecedents, and socio-economic circumstances did not warrant the extreme penalty; death sentence commuted to life imprisonment (Paras 1-50).
B) Criminal Law - Attempt to Commit Suicide - Section 309 IPC - The accused was convicted for attempting to commit suicide after the murders - Held that the conviction under Section 309 IPC is sustainable as the accused attempted to take his own life (Paras 1-50).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the death sentence imposed on the appellant for the murder of his wife and daughter should be confirmed under Section 366 CrPC, and whether the conviction under Sections 302 and 309 IPC is sustainable.
Final Decision
The High Court confirmed the conviction under Sections 302 and 309 IPC but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment for 30 years without remission. The sentence under Section 309 IPC was maintained.
Law Points
- Death sentence commutation
- Rarest of rare doctrine
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 309 IPC
- Section 366 CrPC
- Mitigating circumstances
- Mental state of accused
- Premeditation
- Brutality of crime
- Social and economic background
Case Details
Confirmation Case No. 01 of 2014 with Criminal Appeal No. 669 of 2014
V. M. Kanade, Smt. Anuja Prabhudessai
Mrs. Nasreen Ayubi (for appellant in appeal), Mr. F.R. Shaikh (APP for State)
State of Maharashtra (in Confirmation Case) / Chandrakant Vasant Ayare (in Criminal Appeal)
Chandrakant Vasant Ayare (in Confirmation Case) / State of Maharashtra (in Criminal Appeal)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Confirmation of death sentence and appeal against conviction and sentence for murder and attempt to suicide.
Remedy Sought
State sought confirmation of death sentence; accused sought acquittal or commutation of sentence.
Filing Reason
The accused was convicted and sentenced to death for murder of his wife and daughter, and the case was referred for confirmation of death sentence.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 309 IPC and sentenced him to death for murder and one year RI for attempt to suicide.
Issues
Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC is sustainable?
Whether the case falls within the 'rarest of rare' category warranting death sentence?
Whether the conviction under Section 309 IPC is sustainable?
Submissions/Arguments
Prosecution argued that the crime was brutal and premeditated, warranting death sentence.
Defense argued that the accused was under mental and financial stress, had no criminal antecedents, and the case does not fall in the 'rarest of rare' category.
Ratio Decidendi
The death sentence should be imposed only in the 'rarest of rare' cases where the collective conscience of the community is shocked. Mitigating circumstances such as lack of premeditation, mental stress, and socio-economic background of the accused outweigh aggravating factors, making life imprisonment the appropriate sentence.
Judgment Excerpts
The appellant herein was tried by the Court of Sessions at Vasai in Sessions Case No.13 of 2012 for offence under Section 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code.
By judgment dated 03.02.2014, the learned Sessions Judge held him guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 309 of the IPC and sentenced him to death for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 309 of the IPC.
Procedural History
The accused was tried in Sessions Case No.13 of 2012 before the Court of Sessions at Vasai, convicted on 03.02.2014, and sentenced to death. The State filed Confirmation Case No.01 of 2014 for confirmation of death sentence, and the accused filed Criminal Appeal No.669 of 2014 against conviction and sentence. Both were heard together by the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 309
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 366
