STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. P.S.O., P.S. DURGAPUR v. DEOPRASAD @ DEWA S/O. BHUJBAL DEOSARE
Upholding Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence; Modifying Sentence to Life Imprisonment for Remainder of Life in Heinous Murder Case; Directing Victim Compensation.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:14949-DB
Decision Date: 23-12-2025
List of Laws
The Indian Penal Code, 1860; The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; The Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Victim Compensation Scheme (Section 357-A of Cr.P.C.); Circumstantial Evidence; Last Seen Theory; Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act; Capital Punishment - Rarest of Rare Case Doctrine
- Facts: The accused was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, for offences under Sections 364-A, 302, 120-B, and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for kidnapping and murdering an 11-year-old boy, Bhardwaj. The State appealed for enhancement of the sentence to capital punishment, while the accused appealed against the conviction. The prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence, including the deceased last seen with the accused, recovery of the body and weapon at the accused's instance, and a ransom call made using the victim's mother's SIM card inserted into the accused's phone. The motive suggested was a prior dispute where the accused's parents suspected the victim's mother of causing their daughter's death through black magic.
- Procedural Posture: The case involved two criminal appeals before the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench. Criminal Appeal No. 176 of 2019 was filed by the State of Maharashtra seeking enhancement of the sentence to capital punishment. Criminal Appeal No. 178 of 2019 was filed by the accused, Deoprasad @ Dewa Bhujbal Deosare, challenging the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur.
- Issue: (1) Was the conviction of the accused justified based on the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution? (2) Did the Trial Court err in not considering the Victim Compensation Scheme under Section 357-A of Cr.P.C.? (3) Did the case qualify as the "rarest of rare cases" warranting capital punishment, and was the life imprisonment sentence inadequate? (4) Should the life imprisonment sentence be modified to life imprisonment for the remainder of his life?
- Holding: The High Court dismissed the accused's appeal, upholding the conviction. The Court partly allowed the State's appeal, modifying the sentence to life imprisonment for the remainder of the accused's life, emphasizing the gravity of the crime and lack of remorse. The Court also directed the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Nagpur, to determine and award compensation to the victim's mother under Section 357-A of Cr.P.C.
- Reasoning: The Court found that the prosecution had established a complete chain of circumstances pointing towards the accused's guilt. The Court relied on the 'last seen' theory, the recovery of the body and weapon at the accused's instance (admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act), the ransom call, and the medical evidence corroborating the cause of death. The Court considered the principles for awarding capital punishment as laid down in Machhi Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, but concluded that while the crime was heinous, it did not qualify as the "rarest of rare cases." However, considering the brutality, the victim's vulnerability, and the accused's lack of remorse, the Court modified the sentence to life imprisonment for the remainder of his life. The Court also emphasized the importance of victim compensation and directed the authorities to determine an appropriate amount.
🔒 For Members Only