Procedural irregularities and denial of opportunity to be heard can lead to the recall of a judgment and restoration of criminal appeals for fresh hearing, ensuring fairness and propriety in the legal process.

ORDER

1. On 22 March 2007, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court disposed of a reference which was made under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 by the 3 rd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik.

2. The High Court upheld the conviction of and the sentence of death imposed on Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4. While upholding the conviction of Accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6, the High Court sentenced them to imprisonment for life. All the six accused were convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. In addition, Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were convicted of the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(g) for which they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. The conviction of Accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6 under Section 376 (2)(g) was set aside by the High Court. All the Accused were convicted of offences under:

(i) Section 307 read with Section 34 for which they have been sentenced to suffer five years imprisonment; (ii) Section 397 read with Section 395 for which they have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years; and (iii) Section 396 for which they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years.

3. Criminal Appeals Nos. 1008-09 of 2007 were filed before this Court by Accused No. 1 (Ankush Maruti Shinde), Accused No. 2 (Rajya Appa Shinde) and Accused No. 4. (Raju Mhasu Shinde).

4. The State of Maharashtra filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 881-882 of 2009 for seeking enhancement of the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the High Court on Accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6.

5. By a judgment dated 30 April 2009, a two judge Bench of this Court dismissed the appeals filed by Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4. While allowing the appeals filed by the State, this Court sentenced Accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6 to suffer the sentence of death.

6. Review Petitions were filed by the accused. Review Petition Nos.34-35 of 2010 was filed by Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Review Petition Nos. 18-19 of 2011 was filed by Accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6. The petitions seeking review were dismissed.

7. Following the decision of the Constitution Bench in Mohd. Arif v Registrar, Supreme Court of India, 2014 (9) SCC 737 , criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed for reopening the review petitions. In terms of the judgment of the Constitution Bench, we permit the reopening of the review petitions. They have been listed for hearing before this Bench in open court.

8. Certain salient features about the proceedings, which took place before this Court in the course of the hearing need to be set out:

(i) On 3 August 2007, leave was granted in the Special Leave Petitions filed by Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Execution of the sentence of death was stayed during the pendency of the appeals;

(ii) On 21 November 2008, notice was issued in the appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra. The appeals by the State were tagged with the criminal appeals filed by the accused;

(iii) The notice issued by this Court on 21 November 2008 was served on the accused in jail on 6 December 2008;

(iv) The hearing of the appeals had commenced on 4 December 2008 even before service of notice was effected;

(v) The order sheet dated 4 December 2008 indicates that all the appeals were heard in part and were directed to be listed on 10 December 2008 "for continuation of arguments";

(vi) On 10 December 2008, the following order was passed:

"Since the respondents have not appeared inspite of service of notice, Mr Sushil Karanjakar, learned counsel, who is appearing in the connected appeals is appointed as Amicus-Curiae to assist in this case to represent the respondents because he is ascertained with the facts of the case.

Mr. Sushil Karanjakar, learned counsel resumed arguments at 11:20AM and concluded at 2.45PM. Thereafter, Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, learned counsel started his arguments and addressed the Court till 3.20PM.

Hearing concluded. Judgment reserved",

(vii) The appeals filed by Accused Nos. 1, 2