IMPORTANT POINT
When accused appellants kidnapped 13 children on different occasions only to use them in their theft activities and killed children when they turned of no use, act of accused demonstrated depravity of mind of appellants and they were menace to society and death sentence was liable to be confirmed.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302 r/w 120-B, 364 r/w 120-B —Two appellants sisters, their mother (since dead) and husband of appellant No. 1, an approver used to commit thefts and would go to places of festivals for that purpose—They entered into a conspiracy to kidnap small children below five years and make use of them whenever necessary and dispose them of when they were no longer useful—During the period June 1990 to Oct. 1996 they kidnapped 13 children and killed nine of them—Trial Court found appellants guilty of commission of 6 murders and awarded death sentence—High Court upheld conviction in 5 murder cases and confirmed death sentence—Appeal—PW67 had given his house on rent to appellants where they stayed for 1½ years—Witness had seen one deceased young child with appellants in that house and he identified child in photograph taken from dead body—Child was killed by appellants after one appellant had been caught in a theft incident in a temple and mother of appellant keeping custody of child threw him on ground to distract public —Child suffered bleeding injury on head, people consoled appellants and matter was not reported to police—Since child was crying and appellants with other accused found child of no use, caused death of child by dashing his head on an iron bar—Dead body was thrown near heap of old rickshaws—Appellants were found guilty of murder of 5 children—Approver’s evidence was fully corroborated by other evidence—Murder committed by appellants stood proved by satisfactory evidence—No reason to interfere with order of conviction—No mitigating circumstance in favour of appellant except for fact that they were women—Nature of crime and systematic way in which each child was kidnapped and killed demonstrated depravity of mind of appellants—Appellants were menace to society—Death penalty was liable to be confirmed.
       Held : One of the earliest cases of kidnapping and murder committed by these appellants relates to the incident of kidnapping of one Santosh. The prosecution case is that in July, 1990 the appellants and their mother Anjanabai had gone to Kolhapur. Appellant Renuka met a female beggar with a child at the bus stand. She promised the beggar that she would give her a job. Renuka managed to kidnap the child without being noticed by his mother and took the child to Pune where the appellants were staying. They named the child as Santosh. In July, 1990 itself, the appellants went to Shirdi for the purpose of committing thefts. As they did not come back to Pune for 5-6 days, Anjanabai went in search of them. About 7 days thereafter, the police brought the appellants and conducted a search of their house at Pune. There were two children with the appellants at that time. They were Ashish and Santosh. Approver-Kiran Shinde bribed the police and he escaped from Maharashtra. Appellants and their mother Anjanabai were taken into custody, but later they were released from police custody. In March, 1991, Renuka gave birth to a child and he was named Kishore. In April, 1991, appellants, their mother and Kiran Shinde went to Kolhapur for committing thefts. They took a room in a "Dharamshala", kept their luggage there and went to Mahalaxmi temple in the evening. There, appellant-Seema tried to snatch the purse of a person. She was caught and beaten by him. Her mother Anjanabai then intervened. She threw Santosh on the ground who sustained a bleeding injury on his head. Many persons gathered around them and seeing the bleeding wound on the head of the child Santosh, people consoled them and the matter was not reported to the police. Appellant Reunka then suggested that they may commit some more thefts. They went to the bus stand and managed to commit theft of 2-3 purses. On their way back, the child Santosh started crying as he was bleeding. Anjanabai then told that the child was no longer useful as he was crying and there was a likelihood of their being caught by police. The further case of the prosecution is that Anjanabai pressed the mouth of Santosh and dashed his head on an iron bar whereby Santosh sustained more head injuries and died on the spot. The clothes worn by Anjanabai were washed at the water tap and now they wanted to dispose of the dead body of Santosh. They left the dead body near the heap of some old rickshaws and came back to Dharamshala. On the next day, the dead body of Santosh was found and the matter was reported to the Laxmipur police station. The police could not find out any trace of the murder and later they filed the final report.(Para 21)
       The evidence of PW 67 is very crucial in proving the prosecution case. PW 67 is a Constable in the State Reserve Police Force. His house is at Gondhalinagar, Pune. Though he constructed this house in 1987, he was not staying there. He knew approver Kiran Shinde and these appellants and their mother. He gave this house in 1990 to these appellants and they stayed there for about 1½ years. He used to go to this place for collecting rent and had seen Santosh at that place and when inquired about him, Anjanabai told that the boy was the son of the relative who was staying at Kolhapur. The photo taken from the dead body of Santosh was shown to the witness and he identified and the same was marked as Exhibit 235. When PW 67 inquired with the police, they told that these women were associated for committing theft of ornaments. Thereafter, he asked the approver Kiran Shinde to vacate the house and the witness came to know that these three women were in jail for about 9 to 10 months and at last he got back the possession of the house. The evidence of this witness alone is sufficient to prove that these appellants were responsible for the death of boy Santosh. There was also the supporting evidence of other witnesses and the prosecution satisfactorily proved the guilt of the accused persons and their conviction for murder of this boy Santosh is perfectly justified.(Para 22)
       The Sessions Judge has dealt with in detail each items of evidence and the High Court also re-appreciated the evidence in respect of each item of evidence. We do not propose to consider each case but we are satisfied that the evidence adduced by the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were responsible for series of kidnapping of children and murders and they have been rightly found guilty for these offences. The prosecution thus succeeded in proving that these appellants have committed a series of murders. The learned Counsel for the appellants strongly urged before us that the evidence of the approver should not have been accepted by the Court as it is a tainted evidence. It was argued that there is no satisfactory corroboration of the evidence of the approver and unless there is a corroboration, it should not have been acted upon. It is true that the evidence of the approver is always to be viewed with suspicion especially when it is seriously suspected that he is suppressing some material facts. Here the approvers evidence was not fully accepted by the High Court. High Court was of the view that he had suppressed some material facts. We find that the observation made by the High Court was justified. The tenor of the evidence given by the approver Kiran Shinde is to the effect that he was only a silent spectator but all these heinous crimes were committed by the appellants and their mother Anjana Bai. It is difficult to believe that these women alone had committed all these crimes unless there is strong support from the approver Kiran Shinde. When the Court suspected the evidence of the approver, the pardon given to him itself could be withdrawn and he could be tried along with the other accused. But unfortunately the provisions contained in the Criminal Procedure Code do not enable the Court to take such a strong action.(Paras 31 and 32)
       The two appellants kidnapped several children and committed their murder in the most dastardly manner. In some cases, the body could not be found and in some cases the dead body could be traced out. The High Court felt that these five cases of murders have been proved against these appellants. The murder committed by the appellants are proved by satisfactory evidence. The approvers evidence is fully corroborated by other items of evidence. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of conviction passed by the sessions court and confirmed by the High Court. The appellants have been awarded capital punishment for committing these murders and their sentence was confirmed by the High Court. Going by the details of the case, we find no mitigating circumstances in favour of the appellant, except for the fact that they are women. Further, the nature of the crime and the systematic way in which each child was kidnapped and killed amply demonstrates the depravity of the mind of the appellants. These appellants indulged in criminal activities for a very long period and continued it till they were caught by the police. They very cleverly executed their plans of kidnapping the children and the moment they were no longer useful, they killed them and threw the dead body at some deserted place. The appellants had been a menace to the society and the people in the locality were completely horrified and they could not send their children even to schools. The appellants had not been committing these crimes under any compulsion but they took it very casually and killed all these children, least bothering about their lives or agony of their parents. We have carefully considered the whole aspects of the case and are also alive to the new trends in the sentencing system in criminology. We do not think that these appellants are likely to be reformed. We confirm the conviction and also the death penalty imposed on them.(Paras 35, 36 and 37)
       (ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 306—Approver—Evidence of approver is always to be view with suspicion specially when it is seriously suspected that he was suppressing some material facts—When Court suspected evidence of approver, pardon given to him could be withdrawn and he could be tried with other accused—In absence of provision in Cr.P.C., Court itself had inherent powers to proceed against approver in case he was wilfully suppressing material facts or was giving false evidence.
       Held : It is true that the evidence of the approver is always to be viewed with suspicion especially when it is seriously suspected that he is suppressing some material facts. Here the approvers evidence was not fully accepted by the High Court. High Court was of the view that he had suppressed some material facts. We find that the observation made by the High Court was justified. The tenor of the evidence given by the approver Kiran Shinde is to the effect that he was only a silent spectator but all these heinous crimes were committed by the appellants and their mother Anjana Bai. It is difficult to believe that these women alone had committed all these crimes unless there is strong support from the approver Kiran Shinde. When the Court suspected the evidence of the approver, the pardon given to him itself could be withdrawn and he could be tried along with the other accused. But unfortunately the provisions contained in the Criminal Procedure Code do not enable the Court to take such a strong action.(Para 32)
       In the instant case, the approver Kiran Shinde was present when many of the murders had taken place and it is quite possible that he also must have been an active participant and the High Court was justified in saying that the approver had not given full details of the crimes. The approver was moving with the two appellants for a long period and despite the repeated criminal acts committed by them, the approver did not inform the police or any authorities. Some of the children kidnapped by the appellants were in the custody of the appellants and the approver, and later their bodies were found. In one case, the post mortem examination showed that the child was subjected to some unnatural offence. The approver himself had admitted that he had bribed the police many times and saved these appellants from the clutches of law. Despite all these startling revelations, the approver could not be proceeded against and the public prosecutor had not taken any step to proceed against the approver. We feel, under such circumstances the court itself has inherent powers to proceed against the approver in case he is wilfully suppressing material facts or is giving false evidence.(Para 34)

JUDGMENT

K.G. Balakrishnan, J.—This criminal appeal has been filed by the two appellants herein who have been found guilty by the High Court of Bombay for various offences. These appellants were charged for various crimes alleged to have been committed by them during the period June 1990 to October 1996. They were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolaphur and found guilty and sentenced to death. The High Court confirmed their conviction on various counts and the sentence imposed on them.

2. The appellants Renuka Bai @ Rinku @ Ratan and Seema @ Devki @ Devli are sisters. Their mother, Anjanabai, a co-accused died in 1997 and hence she could not be tried. Approver Kiran Shinde who had studied upto 7th standard and left the school in 1982, belonged to Pune. He obtained some training in the work of tailoring and was doing tailoring work in a shop belonging to one Suresh. In 1983 he came in contact with the first appellant Renuka Bai and in December 1989 he married Renuka at a temple near Shirdi. Renuka was previously married to somebody else and was having a child by name Aashish. These two appellants and their mother Anjanabai and the approver Kiran Shinde and child Aashish were residing as tenants in a house at Gonthalinagar in Pune. The appellants and their mother used to commit thefts. For that they would go to the places of festivals and whenever they got opportunity they used to snatch the gold chains and made a living out of the income derived from such thefts committed by them.

3. In 1990, the first appellant Renuka Bai along with her child Aashish went to a temple. There was a large gathering at the temple, Renuka Bai tried to snatch a purse from a person but she was caught in that process. On being caught, she raised a hue and cry and questioned the person as to why he had caught hold of her hand when she was having a child with her and could not have been involved in a crime. Many people gathered around her and seeing the mother and the child, they left the appellant Renuka Bai. She narrated this incident to her sister Seema and mother Anjanabai and told how she had managed to escape as she had the child with her. The police had caught both the appellants and their mother on several occasions and they used to bribe the police and escape from the clutches of law. The appellants and their mother decided that thereafter they would have a child with them at the time of committing the crime so that by making use of the child they can escape from the crowd. According to the prosecution, the appellants, their mother Anjanabai and approver Kiran Shinde entered into a conspiracy to kidnap small children below five years of age and make use of them whenever necessary and dispose them of when they are no longer useful. They thought that this was the only way to evade possible arrest whenever they were caught in the process of committing theft.

4. According to prosecution, these appellants alongwith their mother Anjana Bai and approver Kiran Shinde were instrumental in kidnapping 13 children and out of them they had killed 9 of them. All these crimes were allegedly committed during the period June 1990 to October 1996. The appellants have been convicted on various counts and the death penalty imposed on them by the Sessions Court was confirmed by the High Court.

5. The Sessions Judge meticulously considered the evidence of the prosecution and by a detailed judgment found these appellants guilty of majority of crimes charged against them. The High Court confirmed the finding in most of the cases. Though 9 cases of murder were alleged against the appellants, the Sessions Court found them guilty only of commission of 6 murders. When the matter came up in appeal before the High Court, it was held that the prosecution could succeed in proving only 5 cases of murder against these appellants. The trial Court convicted the appellants for murder in the case of death of Santosh, Anjali @ Pinki, Raja, Shraddha, Gauri and Pankaj. Howev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document