Bombay High Court confirms life sentence of man who killed aunt by stabbing her 54 times

The Bombay High Court recently affirmed the life sentence handed down by a sessions court to a 33-year-old man who killed his maternal aunt in 2010 by stabbing her 54 times [Saket Vikas Panase vs The State of Mahartashra]. .A Division Bench of Justices PB Varale and NR Borkar ruled that the trial court was justified in convicting the accused for the alleged offence based on the evidence on record.The Bench rejected the argument that the prosecution's case was questionable since a motive had not been attributed to the accused. "Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the case of prosecution cannot be doubted just because no motive is attributed to the accused, or no investigation is carried out in relation to few articles which were found at the place to incident," it observed..According to the prosecution, in August 2010, the accused, then 21 years old, went to the home of his maternal aunt in Mumbai and murdered her by stabbing her 54 times with a knife.On the other hand, the accused contended that two unknown persons rang the doorbell and entered the house. He added that the two individuals attempted to assault the accused with swords first, which led to him to being disoriented. He recalled witnessing his aunt in a pool of blood before losing consciousness when he was attempting to call his mother..Advocate Dr Yug Mohit Chaudhry for the appellant-accused underscored that the deceased's son had not raised any suspicions about the accused in the first information report (FIR) or in his evidence. He stated that the prosecution had not assigned a motive to the accused, and there was no evidence on record to establish that the accused was short-tempered or aggressive enough to cause 54 stab wounds to his maternal aunt. He contended that the trial court was not justified in convicting him in the absence of such evidence..According to Assistant Public Prosecutor SV Sonawane, the evidence on record showed that the safety door and main door of the flat were properly closed, and this fact was not consistent with the accused's version, as no assailant would take the risk of standing there even for a few moments after coming out of the flat to close both doors. Further, the prosecution argued that other circumstances, such as the fact that knives were seized from the scene of the crime but no swords were seen, were inconsistent with the accused's defence, and thus the trial court was correct in condemning him..The High Court noted that-1. The homicidal death of the deceased had not been disputed by the defence.2. The evidence clearly showed that the accused was the only person present in the house with the deceased.3. The accused's call data record showed that he had made two more calls to his mother, though he claimed he fell unconscious after calling her the first time.As a result, the High Court maintained the trial court's ruling convicting the appellant under section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to life in prison with a fine of ₹10,000. [Read Judgment]