Kolhapur cannibal: Bombay High Court upholds death sentence of man who killed, cooked his mother

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday upheld the death sentence of Sunil Rama Kuchkoravi, a man from Kolhapur, who was convicted of brutally murdering his mother, dismembering her and attempting to cook parts of her body [State of Maharashtra v Sunil Rama Kuchkoravi]

A bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan confirmed the death sentence initially imposed by a Kolhapur sessions court in July 2021.

The Court found Kuchkoravi guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

It said that the acts of the man came close to cannibalism and there was no scope for his reformation and sentenced him to death besides imposing a fine of ₹25,000.

"Since he was habituated of slaughtering and eating flesh of pigs and cats, perhaps he must have killed his mother in the similar manner in order to eat her flesh, which is evident from the record. We have, therefore, in para 31 of our judgment expressed our view as to how there is a strong probability of the convict having syndrome of pathological cannibalism," the Court said.

It described the crime as "most brutal, barbaric, and gruesome."

The Court also said that it would be risky even to award imprisonment for life since he would be a potential danger to the other inmates in jail considering his inclination towards cannibalism.

"The case, therefore, falls within the ‘rarest of rare’ category justifying award of capital punishment," the Bench held.

The horrific events unfolded on August 28, 2017 when Kuchkoravi murdered his 60-year-old mother, Yallava Kuchkoravi, at their home, eviscerated her body parts and tried to cook the parts of her body with salt and chilli powder. 

Yallava, a widow living on a meagre pension, had been providing her son with meals despite his violent behaviour towards her, often stemming from disputes over her pension money. 

Witnesses recounted the chilling scene when an eight-year-old neighbour girl discovering Yallava's body lying in a pool of blood while Kuchkoravi stood nearby with blood on his hands and clothes.

The Court highlighted the trauma inflicted not only on the victim but also on the society as a whole.

“A common man would find it quite difficult, distressing, frightening and unsettling even to have a glance at the photographs, which would speak more than a thousand words,” the Court said.

The Court also addressed the disturbing implications of Kuchkoravi's actions, suggesting a possibility of "pathological cannibalism."

“The act of the convict was quite close to cannibalism,” it said.

The Court expressed disbelief at the defense's claims of insanity, noting that there was absolutely no material placed on record in that regard.’

Further, it admonished the Kuchkoravi for taking a false defence.

“Such an admission in a criminal proceeding cannot be construed as a confession, nevertheless, it can be said to be proved on behalf of the convict himself and he is estopped from denying the same. It could be said to be the best evidence against the convict himself, though not conclusive. It shifts the onus upon the maker on the principle that what he himself admits to be true, may be reasonably presumed to be true unless the presumption is rebutted,” the judgment said.

It also condemned the convict's attempts to feign innocence and highlighted the premeditated nature of the murder.

“The torture and pain with which the deceased must have suffered is unimaginable and unfathomable. The convict had torn apart the right portion of her body and thereafter removed the soft organs as above. He had also cut the neck of the deceased.”

The old, fragile lady had absolutely no chance to defend herself from a well built hefty son whom she used to provide meals twice a day, the Court said.

The Court also noted that the wife and children of the convict had already abandoned him perhaps because of his conduct.

The brutality of the crime indicated a significant threat to society, concluding that “showing mercy or leniency to such a person would be misplacing the concept of mercy.” 

In its ruling, the court reiterated the principle that the death penalty should be reserved for the “rarest of rare” cases, where the crime is so atrocious that it shocks the collective conscience of society.

The present case, falls under the category considering the gory facts of the case, the Bench underlined.

It further explained why the convict in question cannot be set out on life sentence as  his tendency to cannibalism can be a potential threat to his co-inmates as well. 

“Apart from the extreme brutality, cruelty and barbarism with which the convict had murdered his mother in a cold blooded manner, one cannot turn nelson’s eye that his conduct was akin to cannibalism and, therefore, he could be a potential threat and danger to the inmates in the jail, in case, sentence of life imprisonment is awarded. A person who could commit such a heinous crime by killing his mother, can do so with anyone else, including his own family,” the Bench said.

It also noted that during, the convict showed a lack of remorse, penitence or repentance and he just feigned innocence contending that he does not remember anything.

Additional Public Prosecutor PP Shinde appeared for the State.

Senior Advocate Yug Mohit Chaudhry appeared for the convict Sunil Rama Kuchkoravi.

[Read Judgment]