The Supreme Court stayed the death sentence of a man convicted of murdering his mother. The stay was granted while reviewing the convict’s plea challenging the punishment. The defense argued against the severity of the sentence, emphasizing the need for a detailed examination of mitigating factors. The case highlights ongoing debates around capital punishment and judicial discretion.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court stayed the death sentence of a man convicted for the horrific murder of his mother, including acts of cannibalism.
A bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant, Pankaj Mithal, and Ujjal Bhuyan issued the stay and directed the State of Maharashtra to respond.
In brief, the case involves petitioner Sunil Kuchkoravi, who killed his mother in August 2017. He was apprehended after a local child discovered him near her body, covered in blood.
According to the prosecution, Kuchkoravi’s wife left him, taking their three daughters and a son, due to the continuous abuse he inflicted on her stemming from his alcoholism.
Following this, he moved in with his mother, who received a pension of Rs.4,000. Kuchkoravi frequently quarreled with her and assaulted her when intoxicated. In July 2021, a Sessions Court in Kolhapur convicted him and sentenced him to death, stating that the “crime profoundly disturbed the collective conscience of society.”
The court further noted that the case marked by “extreme brutality and shamelessness.”
A death sentence, commonly referred to as capital punishment, is a legal penalty whereby the state imposes the ultimate punishment of death on an individual convicted of a serious crime, often categorized as a capital offense.
According to the prosecution, the horrific incident occurred on August 28, 2017, when Sunil Kuchkoravi brutally murdered his 63-year-old mother, Yallama Rama Kuchkoravi, at their residence in Kolhapur city. After the murder, Kuchkoravi dismembered her body, cooking and allegedly consuming some of her organs. The prosecution revealed that the motive behind the killing was linked to a dispute over money, as the deceased had refused to give her son funds to purchase alcohol.
The Kolhapur sessions court, which sentenced Kuchkoravi to death in 2021, had described the case as falling under the “rarest of rare” category, stating that the “gruesome murder shook the social conscience of society.” Despite filing an appeal challenging his conviction and the death penalty, the Bombay High Court ultimately rejected his plea.
The court emphasized that the severity and grotesque nature of the crime left no room for leniency. “This is a case of cannibalism,” the court reiterated during its judgment, underscoring the monstrous nature of the act.
Such crimes may include murder, terrorism, espionage, and, in certain jurisdictions, drug trafficking or treason. The application of the death penalty varies around the world: some countries have completely abolished it, others retain it but seldom apply it, while some actively enforce it. The death penalty continues to be a focal point of significant legal, ethical, and political discussions, raising concerns about justice, deterrence, human rights, and the risk of wrongful executions.
Cannibalism cases are extremely rare, and this one, in particular, has raised alarm bells due to its deeply disturbing nature. The High Court’s decision highlights the gravity of such offenses and reinforces the stance that extreme crimes warrant extreme consequences.
Kuchkoravi, who has been lodged at Yerwada prison in Pune, was informed of the High Court’s decision via video conference. His death sentence not only marks a significant legal ruling but also serves as a somber reminder of the dangers posed by individuals capable of such horrific acts.
With the Bombay High Court’s confirmation of the death penalty, the case now stands as one of the most heinous crimes in recent memory. The court’s ruling sends a strong message that such acts of inhumanity will be met with the harshest punishment under the law.