Sunil Baban Pingle v. State Of Maharashtra

1. The appellant was convicted under Section 302 and was sentenced to punishment of death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. He was also convicted under Section 307 for having injured his wife and father-in-law. Against his conviction he carried the matter in appeal and reference was also made to the High Court for affirming the death sentence

2. The High Court by the impugned judgment affirmed the death sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and dismissed the appellants appeal. Hence the present appeal

3. The prosecution case, as unfolded through the eyewitnesses and narrated in para 3 of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, clearly indicates that the appellant with a pre-plan had reached the house of his father-in-law in the midnight armed with a sword and not only killed his mother-in-law but also one Jaishree, his sister-in-law, and also wanted to get rid of his wife Suneeta by throwing her inside the tank and also assaulted his father-in-law, both of whom luckily survived. The prosecution case brings upon as many as four eyewitnesses, PWs 1, 4, 5, and 8, PW 5 being the wife of the accused. Learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as the High Court relied upon their testimony

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant was not in a position to impeach the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses and as such was not in a position to assail the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC. She, however, urged that the appellant was only 26 years old on the date of the occurrence and did not have a mature mind and, therefore, taking that in consideration, the sentence of death should be converted into one for imprisonment for life. But we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant particularly when the entire scenario in which the appellant had come being armed with a sword and assaulted and killed two persons and also injured two persons which has been fully described in the impugned judgment of the High Court. Having scrutinised the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge as well as the judgment of the High Court, we do not find any mitigating circumstances from which the Court would be justified in taking the view that this is not one of the rarest of the rare cases. On the other hand, the manner in which the appellant had come with a prior plan to finish the entire family and for no justifiable reason would indicate that the penalty of death is the only appropriate sentence that can be awarded against the appellant.

5. In the circumstances, we affirm the conviction and sentence and do not see any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The interim order staying the execution shall stand vacated.