The Supreme Court on Wednesday reduced the death sentence of Eknath Kisan Kumbharkar, who was convicted of murdering his pregnant daughter for marrying outside her caste against her family's wishes.

Instead, the court imposed a 20-year prison term.

A bench comprising Justices B. R. Gavai, Aravind Kumar, and K. V. Viswanathan upheld Kumbharkar's conviction while overturning the capital punishment.

"The order of conviction as recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the high court of judicature at Bombay vide order dated August 6, 2019 in confirmation case…is affirmed. However, the sentence of death penalty imposed by the courts below under Section 302 is converted to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission," held the bench.

The Supreme Court clarified that Eknath Kisan Kumbharkar will not be eligible to seek remission until he has served a full 20 years of rigorous imprisonment. After reviewing the convict's reports, the bench noted, "We find that the present case does not qualify as one of the 'rarest of rare cases' where the death penalty is the only appropriate sentence. Instead, we believe this case represents a 'middle path,' as established in various judgments by this court."

On April 25, the court had requested Kumbharkar's prison conduct reports from Yerawada Central Jail, as well as a probation officer's report, his psychological evaluation, and a mitigation investigation report. The bench acknowledged that the appellant comes from a poor nomadic community in Maharashtra.

"He had an alcoholic father and suffered parental neglect and poverty...Neither the appellant nor any of his family members have any criminal antecedent. It cannot be presumed that the appellant is a hardened criminal who cannot be reformed. Hence, it cannot be said that there is no possibility of reformation, even though the appellant has committed a gruesome crime," the bench noted.

Case Brief:

According to the prosecution, Kumbharkar murdered his pregnant daughter, Pramila, on June 28, 2013, because she married a man from a different caste against her father's wishes. The bench noted that Kumbharkar was 38 years old at the time of the crime and had no prior criminal record, highlighting several mitigating factors in his favor.

"The medical reports of the appellant would disclose that he has speech issues, and he has undergone an angioplasty in 2014, apart from suffering other serious ailments. The conduct report from the prison would disclose that the behaviour of the appellant in the jail is satisfactory with everyone for the past six years. Considering these factors....even though the crime committed by the appellant is unquestionably grave and unpardonable, it is not appropriate to affirm the death sentence that was awarded to him," it held.

The court emphasized that a death sentence should not be determined solely based on the severity of the crime. Instead, it should only be imposed when there is no possibility of reform for the offender, highlighting the importance of considering the potential for rehabilitation.

"Being conscious of the fact that sentence of life imprisonment is subject to remission, which would not be appropriate in view of the gruesome crime committed by the appellant, the course of middle path requires to be adopted in the instant case," the top court held further.