2019 Supreme(SC) 251

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, S. ABDUL NAZEER, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
ANKUSH MARUTI SHINDE AND OTHERS – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1008-1009 OF 2007
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – APPELLANT
VERSUS
AMBADAS LAXMAN SHINDE AND OTHERS – RESPONDENTS
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 881-882 OF 2009
AMBADAS LAXMAN SHINDE AND OTHERS – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – RESPONDENT
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 268-269 OF 2019
Decided On : 05-03-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
For conviction for rape and murder, standard of evidence should be of a very high quality and satisfy the higher burden of proof.
Convicted accused not being among the persons identified by witness cannot be punished, but at the same time those identified by the witness cannot be allowed to go scot free. Further investigation is called for.
Appellants falsely implicated by investigating agency and sentenced to death are entitled to compensation.
Officials responsible for false investigation must be taken to task.

Headnote:(a) Criminal jurisprudence – Conviction for murder of five persons including rape of one person – Conviction having serious consequences for accused – Three accused sentenced to death – Standard of evidence should be of a very high quality and satisfy the higher burden of proof. (Para 9)

       (b) Criminal trial – Appreciation of evidence – Rape and murder – Witnesses unable to describe accused to police due to poor light at the place and time of occurrence but identifying them in TI Parade and in the court – TI parade held after many days – No forensic evidence produced – No recovery – Evidence of eye witness PW8 full of major contradictions – Castes reasonable doubt on prosecution story and impartiality and truthfulness of investigation. (Para 9, 10)

       (2012) 9 SCC 771 – Relied upon

       (c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 173(8) – PW8 identifying four persons responsible for the crime – Appellants not among them – While they cannot be punished, the real culprits should not be allowed to go scot free – Held, further investigation qua those four persons, who were identified by PW8 on 7.6.2003 is called for. (Para 13)

       (d) Constitution of India – Article 20, 21 and 142 – Appellants suffering in custody as death convicts for 16 years due to defective investigation – No investigation against real culprits – Appellants falsely roped in – State of Maharashtra directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to each of the accused by way of compensation. (Para 14)

       (e) Criminal jurisprudence – Defective investigation and false implication of appellants – Real culprits not identified or booked – Chief Secretary, Home Department, State of Maharashtra directed to enquire into the matter and take departmental action against those erring officers/officials, if those officers/officials are still in service. (Para 15)

       (2014) 5 SCC 108 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       The Sessions Court convicted in all six accused - original accused nos. 1 to 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 302 read with 34 of the IPC, Section 376 (2)(g), Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, Sections 396, 397 and 398 of the IPC.

       The Sessions Court sentenced all the accused to death for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC. The learned Sessions Court also imposed separate punishments for other offences for which they were convicted. All the convicted accused filed Criminal Appeal before the High Court against the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Court. The Sessions Court made a reference to the High Court for confirmation of the death sentence.

       The High Court, while upholding the conviction and death sentence of original accused nos. 1, 2 & 4, altered the death sentence in respect of original accused nos. 3, 5 & 6 to life imprisonment along with fine. Accused nos. 1, 2 & 4 were also convicted for the offences punishable under Section 376(2) (g) of the IPC and they were sentenced to suffer 10 years rigorous imprisonment. The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence under section 376(2)(g) in respect of accused nos. 3, 5 & 6. The High Court confirmed the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, Section 397 read with Section 395 of the IPC and Section 396 of the IPC.

       A three Judge Bench allowed the review applications, and recalled the judgment and order not only qua accused nos. 3, 5 & 6, but qua other accused. While restoring the appeals which have been preferred by the original accused nos. 1, 2 & 4 and State of Maharashtra, permission was also granted to accused nos. 3, 5 & 6 to file appeals against the judgment of the High Court convicting them,

       Finding of the Court:

       The conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court cannot be sustained.

       Result: Criminal appeals preferred by the accused allowed. Appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra for enhancement of sentence qua A3, A5 and A6 dismissed.