2012 INSC 0789
                   SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                   Dnyaneshwar Haibhau Kulal

                      Vs.

                   State Of Maharashtra

                   Cr1.No.963of2012

                   (Altamas Kabir and Chelameswar,JJ.)

                      30.112012

                      ORDER

Altamas Kabir,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11th January, 2008, passed by
the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No.464 of 2007, along with Confirmation Case
No.1 of 2007.

3. The Confirmation Case was filed by the State of Maharashtra, seeking confirmation of the
death penalty imposed upon the appellant, Dnyaneshwar Haibhau Kulal, in Sessions Case
No.2 of 2006, by the Sessions Judge, Satara, on 18th November, 2006, for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. According to the prosecution case, the appellant was convinced that the deceased
Dhondiram used black magic, due to which his father Haribhau had expired. On 3rd
September, 2004, PW-5, Genba, gave a missing report regarding Dhondiram and, thereafter,
on the basis of a FIR lodged by the PW-7, Tanaji, Criminal Case bearing No.64 of 2004, for
offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal
Code, was registered against the appellant.

5. From the evidence of PW-7, Tanaji Dhondiram Kulal, son of the deceased, it appears that
on 2nd September, 2004, news was received that in the field near Sanand a headless body had
been found. On reaching there, P.W.7 identified the body to be that of Dhondiram and,
thereafter, complaint was lodged, being FIR Crime No.64 of 2004, under Sections 302 and
201 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, on 27th October, 2004, some other articles,
including a skull, were recovered from the field known as Jotibacha Inam. Thereafter, after
investigation, the Investigating Officer filedDnyaneshwar Haibhau Kulal vs State Of

                   1                                    SpotLaw
Maharashtra on 30 November, 2012 chargesheet against the appellant, sent him to trial for
having allegedly committed the murder of Dhondiram.

6. PW-6, Dashrath Bhau Kachare, is the main witness on whom the prosecution relies, since
there are no other witnesses to the incident. According to the said witness, the appellant met
him when he was in the field and took out the head of the deceased from a gunny bag, which
he was carrying claiming that he had cut off the head from the deceased after killing him.

7. Relying mainly on the said evidence, and the circumstantial evidence, which had been
gathered, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 read with
Section 201 Indian Penal Code and upon holding that this was one of those rarest of rare
cases awarded the death penalty to the appellant, which subsequently, came before the High
Court for confirmation.

8. Accepting the decision of the trial court, the High Court while confirming the conviction
of the appellant, also upheld the death sentence awarded to him by the trial court, in the
circumstances mentioned in paragraph 45 of the impugned judgment. As many as 11 reasons
have been given by the High Court to hold that this was one of such rarest of rare cases,
which merited the death penalty.

9. We have carefully perused the said reasons and while there is no doubt that the murder
appears to have been committed in a highly depraved manner, this does not, in our view,
bring the incident within the concept of rarest of rare cases, for being awarded the death
penalty.

10. Accordingly, while confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read
with Section 201 IPC, we modify the sentence awarded to the appellant and alter the death
sentence awarded to him to one of life sentence.

11. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

2  SpotLaw