STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. GORAKSHA AMBAJI ADSUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned trial court, while weighing the mitigating and aggravating circumstances and keeping in mind the principle of proportionality of sentence or what it termed as "just-desert" for the brutal and diabolical killing of three innocent family members, formed an opinion that the Court could not resist from concluding that the only sentence that could be awarded to the accused was death penalty. Thus, it directed that the accused Goraksha Ambaji Adsul be hanged by the neck till he is dead in terms of Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), subject to confirmation by the High Court in accordance with law. Aggrieved by this extreme punishment and the order of conviction, the accused challenged the judgment of the learned trial court dated 14th February, 2005 by filing an appeal before the High Court which vide its detailed judgment dated 30th September, 2005, declined to confirm the death sentence referred under Section 366 of the Cr.P.C. and held the said accused guilty of offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. In other words, the High Court converted the death penalty into life imprisonment while sustaining the order of conviction.

(2.) The State of Maharashtra has preferred the present appeal bearing Crl.A. No. 999/2007, before this Court claiming that the said conversion by the High Court is not appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. The State further avers that the High Court in its judgment has fallen in error of law as well as failed in appreciation of evidence. It is contended that this Court should restore the judgment of the trial court on the quantum of sentence by awarding death penalty. The accused has filed a separate appeal being Crl.A. No. 1623 of 2007 challenging the very same judgment of the High Court on the ground that the appellant could not have been held guilty for an offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and the appellant was entitled to judgment of acquittal.

(3.) Thus, it will be appropriate for us to dispose of both the above appeals by a common judgment. For that purpose, we may briefly notice the facts giving rise to the present appeals.