On Tuesday (1st October), the Bombay High Court upheld the conviction and death sentence of a Makadwala Vasahat, Kolhapur resident Sunil Rama Kuchkoravi who murdered his 60-year-old mother and mutilated her body. The culprit was awarded a death sentence in 2021. The Additional Sessions Judge had then convicted Sunil of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to be hanged till death. A fine of Rs.25,000/- was also imposed and in default, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
A division bench of the high court, comprising Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice PK Chavan, heard Sunil’s appeal against the Kolhapur Sessions Court’s death sentence verdict.
Notably, the body of the convict’s 60-year-old mother was found in the house, with her internal organs, including the liver, heart, ribs, and intestines, dispersed around the floor. Furthermore, the heart was placed on a plate in the kitchen, and the ribs were found in an oil bottle with chilli powder and salt. An 8-year-old girl residing in front of the victim’s house had first noticed the dead body lying in a pool of blood. The girl rushed to inform the convict’s brother Raju about it.
“Raju rushed to the spot of incident only to witness the horrendous crime, wherein his mother was lying on the floor naked, in a pool of blood and her body parts i.e. liver, intestine, heart, rib and breast were eviscerated outside. Trail of blood was found flowing till the adjoining house of the convict. He also noticed two knives and one Sattur (Chopper) stained with blood, lying on the spot. By that time, the police arrived at the scene of occurrence,” the court order states adding that Raju and other locals grabbed the convict and turned him over to the police.
Moreover, the convict’s Bermuda shorts, clothes, hands, and mouth were all smeared with blood. The prosecution said that the convict’s motivation for killing his mother was her refusal to give him her pension money, which he needed to support his alcohol addiction. The deceased victim used to receive Rs 4000 monthly pension of her husband.
As per the prosecution, the Convict was accustomed to consuming liquor. He used to harass his wife. The wife could not tolerate harassment at the hands of the convict and, therefore, she deserted him with three daughters and a son and came to Mumbai. Since the convict was alone, his mother provided him food and shelter. However, the convict used to beat his mother over not giving him the pension money.
Court highlights extreme barbarism and brutality, calls the convict a danger to other prisoners
The top court stated in its judgement that even if the convict were sentenced to life in prison, he would still represent a threat to his fellow inmates.
“Apart from the extreme brutality, cruelty and barbarism with which the convict had murdered his mother in a cold blooded manner, one cannot deny 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, the 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. His social integration, therefore, is unquestionably foreclosed,” the court said.
The court also noted that the convict showed no signs of remorse when he appeared before the court via video conferencing. “During interaction with the convict through Video Conferencing, we do not find any remorse, penitence or repentance on his face. Normally, a deep regret should have come from him by a deep sense of guilt. He just feigned innocence contending that he does not remember anything,” the court order states.
Furthermore, the judgement stated that showing mercy to the man would be an abuse of the concept of mercy and a mockery of the criminal justice system.
“Under the circumstances, showing mercy or leniency to such a person, would be misplacing the concept of mercy. That apart, showing leniency would be a mockery on the criminal justice system. Therefore, death penalty imposed by the trial Court, needs to be confirmed and accordingly stands confirmed. It is a well settled law that possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the convict is an important factor which is to be taken into account as a mitigating circumstance before sentencing him to death,” the court said.
