Life term it is for Pravin Mahajan, prosecution to appeal for death

Judge Daware said that he has come to the conclusion “after drawing a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and considering the background of the victim’s family in the case.”

The judge, while reading out the sentence to Pravin, who nodded from the dock, slapped a “reasonable” fine of Rs 15,000 and 5,000, respectively, for the two charges of murder and trespass, after observing that he (Pravin) was the “sole bread-winner of the family”.

Pravin’s wife Sarangi, who was seated near the witness box, was calm.

Prior to the sentencing, the prosecution and the defence put forward their arguments over the quantum of sentence. Arguing that it was a “pre-planned” and a “cold-blooded murder”, Special Public Prosecutor Ujwal Nikam said: “On April 12 and 13 last year, Pravin had transferred Rs five lakh and four lakh respectively from his account to Sarangi’s account. By April 20, he had also called back his son Kapil, who was holidaying in Aurangabad, and his brother-in-law. All these indicate that Pravin had meticulously planned Pramod’s murder.”

Nikam also argued that the accused did not deserve any leniency and said: “Perversity of the accused is such that he should be crushed with iron hands of law. The murder was committed in a brutal manner with total disregard to human life.” The defence refuted these arguments by pointing out that the prosecution has “failed” to establish the motive. “Why would Pravin kill his brother? That’s the million dollar question the prosecution has not been able to answer,” argued Harshad Ponda. “The prosecution has failed to establish the motive,” Ponda argued.

“There’s something that had happened which has to be seen objectively and subjectively,” he added.

Ponda then argued at length as to why this case is not fit for the harshest penalty and cited the Supreme Court judgments which have laid down certain points explaining what kind of cases can be dealt as rarest of the rare.

Ponda submitted that to classify the case, the “manner of commission of murder” should be looked into first, and secondly, “whether the victim is subjected to inhuman torture” should be considered.

“We will read the judgment after which we will seek an enhancement of the sentence from the Bombay High Court,” Nikam told reporters outside the court. He said the murder fell in the rarest of rare case category since the accused has killed the “concept of brotherhood.”

On Monday, 48-year-old Pravin, seven years younger to Pramod, was held guilty of murder and trespass into his brother’s house with an intention to commit an offence punishable with death. Pravin was charged with shooting Mahajan on April 22, 2006, in his flat at Worli. Judge Daware, while convicting Pravin, said he had considered the “cogent and reliable evidence” of eyewitness Rekha Mahajan (Mahajan’s widow) and domestic help Mahesh Wankhede. He also accepted Mahajan’s last words to his brother-in-law Gopinath Munde as his dying declaration. Munde had told the court that while Mahajan was being rushed to Hinduja Hospital, he said: “What crime have I committed that my brother Pravin pumped bullets into me?”

The oral evidence, the judge said, was “corroborated by other circumstantial consistent evidences” such as medical and ballistic proof.