The State Of Maharashtra vs Ramkirat Munilal Goud
2021 Latest Caselaw 15974 Bom

        Digitally
        signed by
        VARSHA                                                      conf.1.19 with apeal.661.2019.doc
VARSHA DEEPAK
DEEPAK GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD Date:
        2021.11.17
        18:20:49

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
        +0530




                              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                              CONFIRMATION CASE NO. 1 OF 2019

              The State of Maharashtra                          ...     Appellant
              V/s.
              Ramkirat Munilal Goud                             ...   Respondent
                                           WITH
                               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 661 OF 2019

              Ramkirat Munilal Goud                             ...     Appellant
              V/s.
              The State of Maharashtra                          ...   Respondent
                                          -------------------
              Ms.M.M. Deshmukh APP for the State.
              Mr. Sachin Pawar for the respondent.
                                         ---------------------
                                    CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV &
                                            PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ.

DATED : NOVEMBER 17, 2021.

P.C. :

1. Not on board. Upon mentioning taken on board and order is passed on Praecipe.

2. It is seen from the impugned judgment that the accused was not satisfactorily heard on the point of sentence. The learned Trial Court in paragraph No. 76 has observed that,

varsha 1 of 3 conf.1.19 with apeal.661.2019.doc

"On the contrary, Ld. Advocate of Accused has finished his argument in one line that suitable order may be passed which this Court thinks proper and fit. When this Court enquired with the Accused about his submission on the point of sentence, he has only submitted that 'he is innocent".

3. By any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that mitigating circumstances in the present case were brought to the Court. It is apparent that the guidelines issued in the case of Bachan Singh V/s. State of Punjab have not been followed after the Court had made up its mind to award death penalty. We have considered these irregularities and we have called upon the learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP to file their affidavits on record in order to enable us to draw a balance-sheet between aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Similarly, we have personally heard the convict through Video Conference. He has stated before us that he originally hails from Jangaltarayani, At-Post Jokaha Khas, Tal-Rudrapur, District-Deoria, State of U.P.. He has two daughters and one son. His children are being looked after by his wife who is without any source of income. His parents are cultivating small tract of land. He was working as a security guard for hardly two weeks prior to the date of incident. He insists that he is innocent. He is falsely implicated and that he had not committed the offence for which he has been convicted and awarded the death penalty.

4. In these circumstances, the learned APP is directed to file affidavit to demonstrate before the Court that any other alternative sentence but death penalty is foreclosed in the present case. The

varsha 2 of 3 conf.1.19 with apeal.661.2019.doc

learned counsel for the appellant shall also file an affidavit about the mitigating circumstances and challenge the imposition of death penalty.

5. The Superintendent of Yerawada Central Prison is directed to permit advocate Mr. Sachin Pawar to get the affidavit affirmed by the accused.

6. Stand over to 22nd November 2021.

(PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J)              (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)




varsha                                                                     3 of 3