Page 1

Crl.A.1963/12  1

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s).1963  OF 2012      [@ Special Leave Petition(Crl) No.8150 of 2008]

  DNYANESHWAR HAIBHAU KULAL                         Appellant(s)

                VERSUS

  STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                              Respondent(s)

O R D E R

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

Page 2

Crl.A.1963/12  2

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 filed 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

Page 3

Crl.A.1963/12  3

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

Page 4

Crl.A.1963/12  4

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.  

               ........................CJI.

(ALTAMAS KABIR)        

..........................J              (J.CHELAMESWAR)   

    NEW DELHI;      November 30, 2012.

Page 5

Crl.A.1963/12  5

 ITEM NO.202               COURT NO.1             SECTION II

           S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS                      Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).8150/2008

(From the judgement and order  dated 11/01/2008 in CRLA No.464/2007,  of The HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)

DNYANESHWAR HAIBHAU KULAL                         Petitioner(s)

                VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                              Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T.,permission to file  additional documents and office report )) ( for final disposal )  

Date: 30/11/2012  This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :         HON'BLE  THE CHIEF JUSTICE         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR  

For Petitioner(s)   Ms. Minakshi Vij,AOR.(SCLSC)

For Respondent(s) Mr. Mike P.Desai, Adv.                       Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,AOR.              UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following                                O R D E R  

Leave granted.    

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed  order.   

(Sheetal Dhingra) COURT MASTER

(Juginder Kaur) Assistant Registrar

[Signed order is placed on the file]

Page 6

Crl.A.1963/12  6