Two young accused convicted for kidnapping and brutal murder of a 22-year-old victim; death penalty commuted citing ‘not rarest of rare’ despite gravity of crime.
In a significant judgment delivered on June 25, 2026, the Bombay High Court (Division Bench) has upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence of two accused, Chetan Yashwantrao Pagare and Aman Prakatsingh Jat, to life imprisonment for 30 years without remission. The case pertains to the kidnapping for ransom and subsequent brutal murder of a 22-year-old youth, Vipin Bafna, in Nashik, Maharashtra.
The prosecution’s case was built primarily on circumstantial evidence which the court found convincing and complete, establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The victim, Vipin, was kidnapped on June 8, 2013, by the accused who demanded a ransom of Rs. 1 crore from his father. When the ransom demand was not met and the family approached the police, the accused allegedly murdered Vipin and concealed his body at an isolated location.
Key evidence included eyewitness testimonies, mobile phone call records, forensic examination of recovered weapons and incriminating articles, and video footage of Vipin’s confinement recorded on a memory card recovered from the accused. The accused were seen and identified in the videos and by witnesses, and incriminating articles such as the murder weapons, clothes with blood stains, and the victim’s belongings were recovered at their instance.
The Trial Court had sentenced the accused to death considering the heinous nature of the crime, the victim’s young age, and the inhuman manner of his murder. However, the High Court, while confirming their guilt under Sections 302 (murder), 364A (kidnapping for ransom), 201 (destruction of evidence), 120B (criminal conspiracy), 343 (wrongful confinement), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, applied the “rarest of rare” doctrine with a nuanced approach.
The Court emphasized the need to balance aggravating and mitigating factors when imposing the death penalty. Although the crime was brutal and the accused had criminal antecedents, their young age (25 and 22 years) and impulsive nature were mitigating factors. The Court noted that the accused were not professional killers and that the crime was motivated by a desire to extort money, not by extreme depravity or viciousness that would put the case in the ‘rarest of rare’ category.
Referring to landmark Supreme Court judgments such as Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) and Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983), the High Court reiterated that the death sentence should be imposed only where the alternative of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed. It also relied on recent jurisprudence emphasizing a flexible, case-specific approach to sentencing, considering both the crime and the criminal.
The Court found that while the accused had hatched a premeditated plan to kidnap and extort ransom, the subsequent murder was an impulsive act when the ransom failed. The Court held that the aggravating circumstances, though significant, were outweighed by mitigating factors and the objective of reformation must be considered.
Hence, the High Court set aside the death penalty and directed that the accused serve life imprisonment for 30 years without remission. The appeals by the accused were partly allowed to this extent, while the State’s confirmation reference for the death sentence was dismissed.
This judgment underscores the judiciary’s careful calibration in capital punishment cases, balancing the severity of the crime with principles of justice, proportionality, and human dignity.
Bottom line:-
Sentence of death converted to life imprisonment for 30 years with no remission for two young accused convicted of kidnapping for ransom and brutal murder of a 22-year-old victim, based on circumstantial evidence establishing their guilt.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code Sections 302, 364A, 201, 120B, 343, 506, Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act Sections 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), Evidence Act Section 27, Code of Criminal Procedure Sections 313, 366
State of Maharashtra v. Chetan Yashwantrao Pagare, (Bombay)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2937039
