Karnataka court gives death penalty to 4 for killing inter-caste couple in ’19 hate crime

A Karnataka court sentenced four family members to death for the 2019 murder of an inter-caste couple in Gajendragad, triggering widespread outrage.

By Coovercolly Indresh

Jan 31, 2025 08:10 am IST

A district court in Karnataka has sentenced four members of a family to death for murdering an inter-caste couple in Lakkalakatti village of Gajendragad taluk in 2019. The victims, Ramesh Madar, 29, and Gangamma Rathod, 23, were killed in broad daylight by members of Gangamma’s family. Madar belonged to a Scheduled Caste community while Rathod was from the Banjara community, classified as Other Backward Classes (OBC). The Gadag district court found Rathod’s brothers Ravikumar Rathod, 27, and Ramesh Rathod, 28, along with her uncles Shivappa Rathod, 25, and Parashurama Rathod, 39, guilty of the murders. Parashurama worked as a driver with the Kalyana Karnataka Road Transport Corporation.

The couple is survived by two children. Senior Gadag police officers confirmed that the four were given the death penalty. The attack occurred when the couple returned to their village for Diwali celebrations in 2019. “Gangamma’s brothers forcibly entered their home, dragged them outside and murdered them in full view of villagers,” said Gadag superintendent of police Baba Saheb Nemagouder. The incident was captured on video and circulated on social media, triggering widespread outrage.

According to Gajendragad police circle inspector Siddappa Bilagi, the couple had been in a relationship for over five years before marrying at a registrar’s office on April 2, 2017, despite opposition from Rathod’s family. Gadag district principal and sessions judge Basavaraj pronounced the death penalty for all four convicts on Wednesday. They were found guilty of premeditated murder and disrupting social harmony. Wednesday’s order, made public on Thursday, came as the Supreme Court separately reaffirmed that not every case of multiple murders qualifies as a “rarest of rare” instance warranting the death penalty, particularly when there is potential for reform. The top court bench commuted the death sentence of a man convicted of murdering his wife and four minor daughters, sentencing him instead to life imprisonment without remission. The court underscored that while the crime was brutal and deeply disturbing, the absence of criminal antecedents, favourable prison reports indicating a scope for rehabilitation and legal precedents weighed against imposing capital punishment.

Source: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/ktaka-court-gives-death-penalty-to-4-for-killing-inter-caste-couple-in-19-hate-crime-101738264204933.html

Maharashtra - Supreme Court Acquits Man Sentenced to Death for Rape and Murder Citing Flawed Evidence

January 30, 2025 | Pranav B Prem

The Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court, which upheld the conviction and death sentence awarded to Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap for the rape and murder of a 23-year-old woman in 2014. Citing major lapses in the prosecution's case, the Court acquitted the appellant of all charges.

A three-judge bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and K.V. Viswanathan observed that in cases relying solely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The bench remarked, “There are gaping holes in the prosecution story leading to the irresistible conclusion that there is something more than what meets the eye in this case.”

Case Background

The case involved the rape and murder of a 23-year-old woman traveling from Andhra Pradesh to Mumbai for work in 2014. Her body was discovered in a partially burnt and decomposed state. The chemical analysis report concluded that the cause of death was head injury and smothering, accompanied by genital injuries likely caused by the forcible insertion of an object. The prosecution argued that the accused was last seen with the deceased and relied on circumstantial evidence to establish guilt. The Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death, a decision upheld by the Bombay High Court. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Observations

Failure of Circumstantial Evidence

The Supreme Court emphasized that the evidence presented by the prosecution failed to meet the high standard required in circumstantial evidence cases. Referring to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984), the Court reiterated that: “The circumstances relied upon, when stitched together, do not lead to the sole hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The chain is not so complete as to leave no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.”

Admissibility of CCTV Footage

The prosecution relied heavily on CCTV footage to argue that the appellant was last seen with the deceased. However, the Supreme Court found the footage inadmissible due to the lack of a Section 65-B(4) certificate under the Indian Evidence Act, as mandated in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014). The bench observed: “When the prosecution was aware of the need for the 65-B(4) certificate and they themselves collected it for the CDRs, there was no reason as to why they did not collect the same for the CCTV footage. In view of the above, we are not able to place any reliance on the CCTV footage.”

Last Seen Theory

The prosecution’s reliance on the “last seen” theory was also found to be flawed. Witnesses PW-20 and PW-21, who allegedly saw the appellant with the deceased, only recorded their statements two and a half months after the incident. The Court observed that the unexplained delay significantly weakened their testimonies: “Analyzing the evidence, we must record that the witnesses fail to inspire the necessary confidence that a Court of Law looks for, to clinchingly establish the circumstances of last seen.”

Extrajudicial Confession

The prosecution also relied on an extrajudicial confession allegedly made by the appellant to PW-9. The Court rejected this as unreliable, stating: “Extra-judicial confession, by its very nature, has been held to be a weak piece of evidence... From the evidence mentioned above, we are not able to find that PW-9 enjoyed the confidence of the accused so as to safely infer that the accused would have made a clean breast of things to PW-9.”

Recovery of Trolley Bag

The recovery of the victim’s trolley bag, another key piece of evidence, was also dismissed. The witness who testified about the bag’s recovery could not clearly recall who had handed it over to her, further weakening the prosecution’s case.

Conclusion

After examining the evidence in detail, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The bench stated: “The prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, we are constrained to come to the sole irresistible conclusion that the appellant is not guilty of the offences for which he has been charged.” The Court acquitted Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap of all charges, highlighting the “gaping holes” in the prosecution's story and emphasizing the necessity of adhering to strict standards of proof in cases involving circumstantial evidence.

Cause Title: CHANDRABHAN SUDAM SANAP v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 879 OF 2019

Date: January-28-2025

Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justice K.V. Viswanathan

Source: https://www.24law.in/story/supreme-court-acquits-man-sentenced-to-death-for-rape-and-murder-citing-flawed-evidence

Maharashtra - Why the Supreme Court overturned a death sentence in 2013 rape-murder case - Chandrabhan Sanap

The case dates back to 2013 when a 23-year-old woman hailing from Machilipatnam, Andhra Pradesh was raped and murdered.

Written by: Azeefa Fathima

Edited by: Balakrishna Ganeshan

Published on: 29 Jan 2025

The Supreme Court on Tuesday, January 28, acquitted a man sentenced to death for the 2013 rape and murder of a 23-year-old woman hailing from Machilipatnam, Andhra Pradesh, stating that there are "gaping holes" in the prosecution's story. A bench of Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and KV Viswanathan was hearing an appeal preferred by Chandrabhan Sanap, who was under a death sentence for the crime. The top court set aside the judgements of a trial court and the Bombay High Court that had convicted and given him capital punishment.

The court observed that the prosecution should prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence. “All these facts cumulatively constrain us to conclude that there are gaping holes in the prosecution story leading to the irresistible conclusion that there is something more than what meets the eye in this case.” “While the old adage, witness may lie but not the circumstances, may be correct, however, the circumstances adduced, as held by this Court, should be fully established,” the court observed.

The victim was residing at the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA) in Mumbai. She had traveled to Machilipatnam in December 2013 but never returned to Mumbai despite boarding her scheduled train. Days later, on January 16, 2014, her burnt and decomposed body was discovered. Her father identified the remains based on a ring she was wearing. A trial court, in 2015, convicted Chandrabhan on several charges, including murder, abduction, rape and robbery, and awarded him death sentence for murder. Later, in December 2018, the Bombay High Court upheld this punishment. The HC relied on 14 circumstantial evidence to sustain the conviction and the sentence:

Here's a breakdown of the 14 circumstantial evidences in a few words each:

1. Victim's travel: The woman traveled from Vijayawada to Mumbai.
2. Unreachable: Victim did not reach her destination. Calls remained unanswered.
3. Body was found: Burnt body was identified as the deceased.
4. Homicide & Rape: Post-mortem confirmed murder and sexual assault.
5. Evidence tampering: Body was burnt to destroy evidence.
6. Accused's actions: Accused consumed alcohol, and left with a friend's motorcycle.
7. The accused was at the railway station: CCTV showed the accused at the Lokmanya Tilak Terminus.
8. Last seen together: CCTV showed that the victim was with the accused.
9. Accused with belongings: Accused was seen with the victim's belongings.
10. Leaving with belongings: Witnesses saw the accused leaving with the victim's trolley bag.
11. Guilt-induced rituals: Accused had performed rituals to "wash off sin" and an entry in a register showing the payment for the puja.
12. Recovered Items: Victim's belongings were recovered from him.
13. Extrajudicial confession: Accused confessed to a friend that he raped and murdered her, poured petrol and set her body on fire.
14. Medical examination: Accused's mental and physical state assessed.

What did the SC say

The Supreme Court analysed circumstances 6 to 13, while making its decisions. Regarding the CCTV footage, the court ruled that it is inadmissible because of an absence of paperwork. The prosecution was supposed to furnish a Section 65-B(4) certificate (a document that verifies the authenticity and reliability of electronic records) under the Indian Evidence Act while collecting the electronic evidence. “Thus, when the prosecution was aware of the need for the 65-B (4) certificate and they themselves collected it for the CDRs there was no reason as to why they did not collect the same for the CCTV footage...In view of the above, there is no manner of doubt that certificate under Section 65-B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of evidence by way of electronic record…,” the court said.

The court also added that it is not able to place any reliance on the CCTV footage that attributed that the appellant and the deceased were last seen together. The court also looked into the statements by eyewitnesses who saw Chandrabhan and the victim together. The court said that it found the witness statements unreliable because the statements were taken 2.5 months after the incident with no explanation for the delay. Further, the court also dismissed the statement of the astrologer to whom Chandrabhan went to conduct a puja to “wash off sins”. “We are really at a loss to understand as to what the prosecution seeks to establish. The priest has no systematic account of maintaining registers and on summoning of the Police, he seems to appear before the Police and produced the register out of the bag… In any case, the evidence given by PWs -15 16 and 17 do not constitute circumstantial evidence having any nexus with the commission of the crime in question. We totally discard this from the chain of circumstances,” the court said.

The court also dismissed the extrajudicial confession of Chandrabhan saying that it is generally held as a “weak piece of evidence”, and there was no corroboration in material particulars. Observing that there is a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved', the court said that the circumstantial evidence in the case is not complete. “On the available evidence, we are of the opinion that it will be extremely unsafe to sustain a conviction against the appellant,” the court said and added, “The prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, we are constrained to come to the sole irresistible conclusion that the appellant is not guilty of the offences for which he has been charged.”

Source: https://www.thenewsminute.com/news/why-the-supreme-court-overturned-a-death-sentence-in-2013-rape-murder-case

Calcutta High Court admits appeal of death sentence awardee in rape-murder of girl for hearing

28 Jan 2025

Admitting the appeal by Mostakin Sardar, the convict in the case, the division bench on Monday ordered that the POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act) court records on the rape and murder trial of the girl be produced before it.28 January 2025, 09:29 IST

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has admitted an appeal challenging an order of a POCSO court that sentenced capital. A division bench presided by Justice Debangsu Basak directed the state to issue notice to the parties in the matter. Admitting the appeal by Mostakin Sardar, the convict in the case, the division bench on Monday ordered that the POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act) court records on the rape and murder trial of the girl be produced before it. The bench, also comprising Justice Md Shabbar Rashidi, directed that paper books be prepared within four weeks from receipt of the trial court records. A paper book contains copies or abstracts of pleadings exchanged between the parties in a matter.

Hearing in the appeal will be taken up by the court thereafter. The POCSO court at Baruipur in South 24 Parganas district had, on December 6 last year, sentenced 19-year-old Mostakin Sardar to death for raping and murdering the 10-year-old girl. The body of the girl was recovered from a pond in Joynagar's Kultali area on October 5. The girl, a class 4 student, went missing when she was returning home from a tuition class. The additional district and sessions judge Subrata Chattopadhyay convicted Sardar under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) sections 65 (rape), 66 (punishment for causing death or resulting in a persistent vegetative state of the victim), and 103 (murder), besides the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).

The court gave the death penalty to the convict, describing the incident as the "rarest of rare" cases. The police filed the charge sheet on October 30 and the trial, which began on November 5, was completed in just 21 days.

Source: https://www.deccanherald.com/india/west-bengal/calcutta-high-court-admits-appeal-of-death-sentence-awardee-in-rape-murder-of-girl-for-hearing-3376175

Maharashtra - Bombay High Court concludes hearing 7/11 serial blasts death confirmation pleas

By Karuna Nidhi

Updated on: Jan 28, 2025 08:50 am IST

The Bombay High Court concluded hearings on death sentences for 7/11 blast convicts, with a verdict expected soon after queries on Friday.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Monday concluded the death sentence confirmation pleas and appeals of various accused convicted for their role in the 7/11 serial blasts in the city, which left 209 dead and over 700 injured. The special bench of justices Anil Kilor and Shyam Chandak, which started hearing the pleas and appeals in July 2024, has posted the matter on Friday for queries, following which it will deliver its verdict. 

On July 11, 2006, Mumbai was rocked by a series of seven powerful blasts on suburban locals on the western line, which ripped through the double-layered steel roofs and sides of each of the compartments. The Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) subsequently arrested 13 men for their purported role in the blasts and put them on trial under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).

On September 30, 2015, a special MCOCA court convicted 12 of the 13 accused barring a schoolteacher, who was exonerated. Five of the accused were sentenced to death while seven others were sentenced to life imprisonment. In July 2024, the special bench of justices Kilor and Chandak was constituted following an application by Ehtesham Siddique, one of the death row convicts, who sought an early hearing of matters, through his lawyer, advocate Yug Chaudhry. On Monday, senior advocate Raja Thakare, who was appointed as special public prosecutor for the case in September 2023, finally concluded his arguments. He questioned the relevance of the evidence presented in court, claiming the defence had tried to mislead the court by providing “misinformation” obtained through the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

He also raised concerns over the psychological state of the accused, saying, “The accused eventually came to realise that once sections under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) are applied, they are booked forever. They have been left questioning their future and feel that their fate has already been decided.” Earlier, on January 13, former Delhi high court judge S Murlidhar, appearing on behalf of two of the accused, urged the court to acquit the convicts, saying, “These accused have been in jail for 18 years now. They have not stepped outside even for a day.” Murlidhar argued that confessional statements were extracted from his clients through torture and the investigation was marred by preconceived notions of guilt and communal bias typical in terror-related cases, which had cost the accused their prime years. While wrapping up the hearing on Monday, the special bench expressed gratitude towards the counsels for carrying the arguments gracefully. It reserved the matter for queries on Friday, with the judgment in the case anticipated soon after.

Source: https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/mumbai-news/hc-concludes-hearing-7-11-serial-blasts-death-confirmation-pleas-101738004768281.html

5 who raped, killed Chhattisgarh teen, murdered 2 family members sentenced to death

By HT Correspondent

Published on: Jan 22, 2025 07:19 pm IST

Additional sessions judge Mamta Bhojwani said the crime was “extremely perverted, heinous, brutal and cowardly”

RAIPUR: A special court in Chhattisgarh’s Korba has handed down a death penalty verdict for five men who raped and killed a 16-year-old tribal girl before murdering her two family members including a four-year-old girl. A sixth convict was sentenced to life imprisonment. Additional sessions judge Mamta Bhojwani, who delivered the verdict on January 15, held that this inhuman and cruel act of the accused was extremely perverted, heinous, brutal and cowardly. The judge, who presided over a fast track special court in Korba district, sentenced Santram Manjhwar (49), Abdul Jabbar (34), Anil Kumar Sarthi (24), Pardeshi Ram (39) and Anand Ram Panika (29) to death. The sixth convict, Umashanakar Yadav (26), was given life imprisonment, said special public prosecutor Sunil Kumar Mishra.

Mishra said he had sought the death penalty for all six accused but Yadav was sentenced to life imprisonment on medical grounds. They have been convicted under sections 302 (murder), 376 (2)G (gangarape) and other sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. “.. this inhuman and cruel act of the accused is extremely perverted, heinous, brutal and cowardly because they have killed three innocent and weak people to satisfy their lust. This has shocked the collective conscience of the entire society, “ the court said.

According to the prosecution, Manjhwar, who was already married, had been pressuring the teenager to be his “second wife” but the girl and her family firmly stood up to him. Manjhwar and his associates gang-raped the girl and bludgeoned her with stones before dumping her body in a forest near Gadhuproda village under Lemru police station area of Korba district. They also killed the girl’s father, aged around 60, and his four-year-old granddaughter who were with her. The victims belonged to the Pahadi Korwa tribal community, a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG). “Punishment in proportion to the act committed by the accused is the demand of justice because justice is not done keeping in mind only the criminal but it is also necessary to pay equal attention to the victim who has been affected by that crime. Therefore, in the present case, this court is of the opinion that it is necessary to award the death sentence to the accused (except accused Umashankar), the judge said.

Source: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/5-who-raped-killed-chhattisgarh-teen-murdered-2-family-members-sentenced-to-death-101737553745672.html

Kerala - Sharon murder case: Why the court awarded 24-year-old Greeshma the death sentence

Judge AM Basheer said the Sharon murder case could not be classified as “rarest of rare” simply due to media attention, and provided reasoning for why this case qualified as such.

Written by: Azeefa Fathima

Edited by: Lakshmi Priya

Published on: 21 Jan 2025, 8:22

A Kerala court has sentenced a 24-year-old woman, Greeshma, to death, making her the youngest person to face a capital punishment sentence in the state. Greeshma is the prime accused in the 2022 murder of Sharon Raj, who was 23 at the time of his death, in what the court described as one of the “rarest of rare cases.” In its verdict, issued on Monday, January 20, the Neyyattinkara Additional Sessions Court referred to the murder as “extremely brutal, gruesome, diabolical, and revolting.” Greeshma and Sharon were in a relationship, but in 2022, Greeshma wanted to end it. Sharon, however, was allegedly unwilling to accept the breakup. Greeshma later confessed to the police that she had mixed poison into a kashayam (an ayurvedic concoction) which she gave Sharon to drink. He died on October 25 from cardiac arrest, caused by organ failure. The “rarest of rare cases” doctrine was established by the Supreme Court in 1980, in the case of ‘Bachan Singh v State of Punjab’. The top court ruled that the death penalty should only be applied in the most exceptional cases, where the crimes are heinous enough to shake the collective conscience of society, and where no other punishment would suffice. Factors such as the brutality of the crime, premeditation, the manner of execution, the convict’s potential for rehabilitation, and the impact of the crime on society are considered. Judge AM Basheer, who presided over the case, stated at the outset that the case could not be classified as one of the “rarest of rare” cases simply due to media attention. However, he went on to provide reasoning for why this case qualified as such.

Greeshma

How the Sharon murder case qualifies as ‘rarest of rare’

The court weighed the aggravating circumstances (crime test) against the mitigating circumstances (criminal test) to determine whether this murder could be considered “rarest of rare.” Aggravating factors make an offence more severe — these include whether the crime was planned or premeditated, if the victim was vulnerable, and the severity of the crime. Mitigating factors, on the other hand, reduce the severity of the offence, providing context that may warrant compassion, such as whether the crime was committed under pressure, whether it was the first offence, and the convict’s socioeconomic background or lack of criminal record.

Regarding the aggravating factors in Sharon’s murder, the court ruled that the crime was “extremely brutal.” “Only with the mind of extreme brutality one can repeat the same crime against her boyfriend or 'husband' while in love. She being a repeated offender, not entitled to mercy,” the court said. “I conclude, the murder committed by the accused is extremely brutal and diabolical one. The medical evidence speaks volumes about the brutality of the crime,” it added. The judge also said that Greeshma “actively sought to prolong the victim's suffering designed to cause extreme pain before death using gruesome methods.” He ruled that this indicated a ‘cruel motive.’ Judge Basheer observed that the crime was of a “socially abhorrent nature,” as it was “repulsive and provoked intense anger” in the community. “The offence was committed outrageously, depriving Sharon from having even a gulp of water for 11 days,” the court remarked. Further calling it a “murder without provocation,” the judge said that the crime was committed in such a brutal manner that it shocked not only the judicial conscience but also the collective conscience of the society. “The offence was committed with an intention to create fear, psychosis in the public at large and it created panic among lovers and friends. It gave a message that a lover cannot be believed,” the judge continued. He also stated that Greeshma committed a breach of trust in the relationship.

Considering the mitigating circumstances, the court said it found no evidence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance, and ruled that Greeshma was not entitled to leniency based on age, as both she and Sharon were of the same age. Furthermore, the court decided that Greeshma’s potential for reform and rehabilitation was low. “She planned murder by corrosive poison so that it can not be easily detected, for which she conducted research at length on paraquat. Therefore, I find substance in the submission by the learned Public Prosecutor that the convict had ‘devilish thought’ in her mind because only cunning and cruel criminals can repeat the offence. Such a person can not be reformed,” the judge concluded. The court further stated that it would be failing in its duty if it did not impose the maximum punishment, asserting that the death sentence alone would be proper and legally justified. “Taking into consideration all the facts and materials, it is crystal clear that the entire act of convict amounts to a barbaric and inhuman behaviour of the highest order.” “When the aggravating circumstances (crime test) outweigh the mitigating ones (criminal test), the court will typically impose a sentence on the higher end of the spectrum. The balance of justice tilts in favour of the proved aggravating circumstances. There were two attempts, one failed and the other accomplished, both held within a span of two months. For the aforementioned reasons I have no hesitation to hold that this is a rarest of rare case,” the court concluded, sentencing Greeshma to death.

Sharon was a final-year BSc Radiology student, while Greeshma was pursuing a postgraduate degree in literature when the murder occurred. On October 14, 2022, Sharon visited Greeshma’s house, where she offered him a concoction, claiming it would relieve pain. Sharon’s friend, who accompanied him, said that he began to feel unwell after leaving Greeshma’s house. He was later taken to the Parassala Government Hospital and referred to the Thiruvananthapuram Medical College Hospital. However, he was sent home after his blood tests came back normal. On October 15, 2022, Sharon’s health deteriorated further, and he was taken to several hospitals before being readmitted to the Thiruvananthapuram Medical College Hospital. He was eventually admitted to the ICU and died on October 25 due to cardiac arrest, which was caused by organ failure. After his death, Sharon’s family alleged that this was a planned murder, and on October 30, the investigation was handed over to the Crime Branch special investigation team. Greeshma was arrested for murder, while her mother Sindhu and her uncle Nirmal Kumar were arrested for abetting the crime and destroying evidence. Sindhu was acquitted, while Nirmal was sentenced to three years in prison.

Source: https://www.thenewsminute.com/kerala/sharon-murder-case-why-the-court-awarded-24-year-old-greeshma-the-death-sentence