The Bombay High Court recently questioned the "strange" reasons that underpinned a trial court's decision to award the death penalty in a multi-murder case, including an "unwarranted" invocation of the Mahabharata [State of Maharashtra vs Haribhau Telgote].
The Division Bench of Justices Vinay Joshi and Abhay Mantri also criticised the trial court for relying solely on statistical data on murders to award the death sentence, instead of prioritising the specific facts of the case before it.
The High Court emphasised that each criminal trial is unique, with its own characteristics and distinctions, requiring an individualized assessment.
"The reasoning assigned by the trial Court for awarding capital punishment are quite strange. The trial Court has quoted a verse from Mahabharata, which we feel to be an unwarranted exercise. More interestingly in paragraph no.344 of the decision, the trial Court has reproduced some crime data regarding State of Maharashtra of last 10 years ... On the basis of said statistical data, it has been expressed that such incident of committing 4 murders in a single incident are rare and therefore, falls in the category of rarest of rare case. According to us, the said approach of the trial Court is erroneous, as on the basis of some statistical data, without returning to the facts of this case, the category cannot be decided ... The approach (of the trial court) is wholly erroneous," the November 13 ruling said.
The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court made these observations while hearing an appeal filed by a family —parents and their son —convicted of killing four members of their maternal family over a land dispute.
The case revolved around a longstanding dispute over 29 acres of ancestral agricultural land. The accused, Haribhau Telgote (66), his wife Dwarkabai Telgote (55), and their son Shyam Telgote (35), were convicted by the Sessions Court in May 2024 for the premeditated murders of Dhanraj Charhate, his sons Shubham and Gaurav, and his brother Baburao.
In June 2015, Dwarkabai, who had been embroiled in a land partition lawsuit against her brothers, had sown cotton on a contested parcel of land. When Dhanraj objected, a verbal altercation ensued. Dwarkabai allegedly called her husband and sons, who arrived armed with deadly weapons. The attack that followed left four family members dead.
The Additional Sessions Judge imposed the death penalty, categorizing the case as falling under the category of “rarest of rare.”
The accused filed an appeal before the High Court, arguing that the death penalty was disproportionate.
The Bombay High Court, while referring to the Supreme Court’s rulings in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, reiterated that the death penalty is reserved for cases where the crime’s brutality is unparalleled, and whether the convict shows no prospects of reformation.
Applying this test, the High Court eventually commuted the death penalty awarded to two of the accused, while acquitting one accused.
The two persons (Haribhau Telgote and his son, Shyam Telgote) whose conviction was confirmed were sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court instead of imposing the death penalty. The Court found that while the crime was brutal, it did not meet the stringent "rarest of rare" standard.
The Court acquitted Dwarkabai Telgote, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to prove her active participation in committing murder.
“At the cost of repetition, we may say that neither he stated that Dwarkabai was holding weapon, nor her participation in the actual assault. His evidence only speaks about the initial dispute of Dwarkabai with the deceased in the field, and Dwarkabai telephonically summoning her kins at village Malpura for help,” the Court observed.
Advocate RM Daga appeared for the appellants, while Additional Public Prosecutors SS Doifode and AM Badar represented the State.
[Read Judgment]