SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 864

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Suresh Thipmppa Shetty - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal appeal no. 1541 of 2010
with
Sadashiv Seena Salian - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra Through Home Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Bombay - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2346 of 2011
Decided on : 26-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Navre, Sr. Adv. Mr. P. R. Rajhans, Adv. Mr. Amarnath Gupta, Adv. Mr. Jayant Kumar, Adv. Mr. Janmejay Verma, Adv. Ms. Hardikaa, Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun, AOR Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Adv. Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Srilok Nath Rath, Adv. Ms. Reena Rao, Adv. Mr. Kashyap Kumar Dwivedi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Murder and criminal conspiracy – Liberty of a person should not ordinarily be interfered with unless there exist cogent grounds therefor--Conviction can only be sustained in absence of reasonable doubt.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 r/w Section 120-B – Murder and criminal conspiracy – Life sentence – Appellants were not present at spot where crime was committed – Main conspirators stand acquitted – Sufficient material is available on record which has come out during trial giving rise to reasonable doubt as to involvement of appellants in crime – Life and liberty are not matters to be trifled with – Conviction can only be sustained in absence of reasonable doubt – Presumption of innocence in favour of accused and insistence on prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt are not empty formalities – Rather, their origin is traceable to Articles 21 and 14 of Constitution of India – For certain offences, law seeks to place reverse onus on accused to prove his/her innocence, but that does not impact adversely innocent-till-proven-guilty rule for other criminal offences – Appeals allowed. (Paras 17, 18, 20 and 21)

Facts of the case:

Present appeals are directed against common Final Judgment and Order passed by a Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay, whereby High Court dismissed appeals filed by appellants herein and upheld conviction order(s) passed by Sessions Court under Section 302 r/w Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Findings of Court:

Appellants are discharged from liabilities of their bail bonds. If any fine(s) pursuant to orders of Sessions Court or High Court were deposited by/realised from either appellant, they shall be entitled to refund of the same.

Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. These appeals are directed against the common Final Judgment and Order dated 05.11.2009 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in Criminal Appeals No. 50 of 2003 (Accused No. 4/A4 – Suresh Thipmppa Shetty) and 522 of 2003 (Accused No. 2/A2 – Sadashiv Seena Salian) respectively, whereby the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants herein and upheld the conviction order(s) passed by the Sessions Court. The State’s appeal against the acquittal of 4 co-accused i.e., A1, A5, A6 and A7 (Criminal Appeal No. 496 of 2003) as also Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 2003 by the Accused No. 3/A3 (Ganesh alias Annu Shivaram Shetty, who later passed away), were dismissed by the Impugned Judgment.

THE FACTUAL PRISM:

3. Briefly put, relevant details of the story run thus:

3.1 The prosecution alleges that the original accused A1, A2 and A7 were in the Colaba Police Station lockup from 23.09.1994 to 29.09.1994. The allegation is that they entered into a criminal conspiracy between the period from 23.09.1994 to 12.05.1995 to abduct and murder Mahendra Pratap Singh (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”).

3.2 12.05.1995 became the fateful day. One Sharda Prasad Singh, a businessman, is stated to be in the petroleum business. His office was located at Express Highway, near the Regional Transport Office, Ghatkopar. He has five sons. They were carrying out the business jointly. One of the sons of the said Sharda Prasad Singh was the deceased. The prosecution states that A1 and A7, who are real brothers, running Saroj Petro Chemicals Limited as also a transport business, had a business rivalry with the deceased and thus, conspired to abduct and murder him. Their head office was at Chembur and they used to manufacture thinner and solvents at Thane.

3.3 PW2 was a rickshaw-driver. A2 booked his rickshaw for going to the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust. A2 and A3 came to Hotel Garden. They asked PW2 to take the rickshaw on the Highway. Thereafter, they changed direction and got down and selected a spot for the assassination of the deceased and returned to the hotel.

3.4 On 12.05.1995, PW1 as usual had been to his business. At about 6 PM, the deceased informed him that one person is expected from Bangalore with money and they would go to Navi Mumbai. Then, both in a Maruti 1000 vehicle, driven by the deceased reached Hotel Garden, Panvel at about 7.30 PM. They parked their vehicle at the parking lot. After enquiring with the receptionist, they went to the 1st Floor and entered Room No. 106, where A3 was inside. On enquiry by the deceased, A3 informed that as the air-conditioner was not working, Sethji (the person who the deceased had come to meet) had gone to Hotel Welcome. Thereafter, A3 tried to contact Sethji by the telephone/intercom but was unable to.

3.5 Then, A3 left the room to call Sethji. After about 5 minutes, he returned and informed that Sethji was expected at Hotel Garden itself. Thereafter, the as- sailant/shooter, who absconded, came and informed that Sethji had gone to Farmhouse and the deceased and others were called there. 4 persons got into the Maruti 1000, being (1) the deceased; (2) PW1; (3) assailant/shooter, and (4) A3, and proceeded to the Farmhouse. A3 and the shooter/assailant got the car, being driven by the deceased stopped at a location, stepped out and later A3 and the assailant/shooter again got back in the car and the shooter/assailant killed the deceased.

3.6 It is alleged that A2, on the side, had already booked a Maruti Van to proceed to Panvel from a travel agency. Further, that A4, A3 and A2 proceeded in Maruti Van driven by PW7 to Hotel Garden.

3.7 A4, it is alleged, had with 2 others visited the site of occurrenc


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top