Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 1769
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Central Bureau Of Investigation – Appellant
Versus
Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje Alias Chhota Rajan @ Nana Sheth @ Sir & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 4083 of 2025 (@ SLP(Crl.) No. 14663 of 2025 D. No. 5707 of 2025)
Decided On : 17-09-2025
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General (NP) Mr. Suryapraksh V. Raju, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh - Ii, Adv. Mr. Prantap Singh, Adv. Ms. Sansriti Pathak, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aakash Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rabin Majumder, AOR Mr. Varad Kilor, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
The High Court erred in suspending the sentence of a convicted gang leader for serious crimes without adequately assessing the nature of allegations and criminal history, underlining the limited scope of appellate review in such cases.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 120-B, 506(ii); Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 3, 25, 27; Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 - Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(4) - Appeal against suspension of sentence - The High Court allowed the application of the respondent-accused for suspension of sentence despite having been convicted for serious offences, including murder. (Paras 3.5, 10, 12)
(B) Burden of proof - In appeals against conviction, Appellate Courts must exercise narrow jurisdiction and avoid reappraising evidence to ensure that the convicted-appellant has a fair chance of success. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
Respondent-accused, a notorious gang leader, was convicted in serious crimes, including murder connected with an extortion syndicate, but the High Court suspended his sentence, which led to this appeal by the prosecution agency. (Paras 3.3, 3.5)
Findings of Court:
The High Court's order was found unsustainable as it failed to consider the severity of the charges and the respondent's criminal history. (Paras 10, 12)
Issues: Whether the High Court failed to appreciate the nature of charges and the respondent's criminal pattern when suspending the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the presumption of innocence is void after conviction and that only strong evidence of potential acquittal warrants suspension, reinforcing that serious crimes require careful judicial scrutiny. (Paras 6, 9)
Result: Appeal allowed; High Court's order set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of case and charges against respondent (Para 3) |
| 2. analysis of suspension of sentence and standards applied (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. critique of high court’s application of law (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. final judgment and order (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal on behalf of appellant-agency assails order dated 23rd October, 2024, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Interim Application No. 3073 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 661 of 2024, whereby the Division Bench has allowed the application, filed by the respondent no. 1 (“respondent-accused”), seeking suspension of sentence awarded by the MCOC Special Judge at Greater Mumbai (“Special Court”), vide order dated 30th May, 2024.
3. Brief facts, essential for the disposal of the present appeal, are as follows: -
3.1. On 4th May, 2001 Mohan Narayan Shetty (“complainant”) lodged a written complaint with Gamdevi Police Station. Pursuant thereto, FIR No. 188 of 2001 came to be registered against four named accused, including respondent-accused under Sections 3 02, 120-B, 506 (ii) of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (“IPC”) and Sections 3 , 25 and 27 of ARMS ACT , 1959. It was alleged, inter alia, that earlier that day at about 01:10 P.M., complainant’s employer Jaya Shetty (“deceased”), a hotelier had been shot dead by Ajay Suresh Mohite (accused no. 1) in the deceased’s Golden Crown Hotel.
3.2. Upon investigation, it was revealed that the deceased and his family members had been constantly receiving extortion calls from the members of the organized crime syndicate headed by respondent-accused. As the deceased had failed to meet the demand for extortion money, he had therefore been eliminated by the said gang.
3.3. Meanwhile on 25th September, 2001 chargesheet was submitted against the other co-accused persons and the trial proceeded in the absence of respondent-accused. The Special Court, vide order dated 6th April, 2004, convicted all the co-accused persons in MCOC Special Case No. 13 of 2001.
3.4. Subsequent thereto, on 6th November, 2015, the respondent-accused was arrested by the appellant- agency in Indonesia and he was deported to India. Vide notification dated 13th November, 2015, the Home Department transferred the investigation of murder of the deceased to the appellant-agency with the consent of respondent no. 2 (Government of Maharashtra). Upon submission of chargesheet on 28th February, 2019 the accused was tried by Special Court in MCOC Special Case No. 6 of 2019.
3.5. During trial, the prosecution examined 32 witnesses and one witness was examined by the defense. The Special Court, vide order dated 30th May, 2024, returned a finding of guilt against respondent-accused and sentenced him in the following manner: -
| Sr.No. | Sections | Status/Order |
| 1. | Sections 302 r/w 120B of IPC. | Convicted- Rigorous Imprison- ment (R.I.) for Life + Fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment (S.I.) for 1-year. |
| 2. | Sections 3 (1)(i), 3(2) and 3(4) of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOC Act) | Convicted- R.I. for Life + Fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for 1-year, for each. |
| 3. | Sections 3 , 25 and 27 of ARMS ACT . | Acquitted. |
3.6. Aggrieved by the order of conviction, the respondent- accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 661 of 2024 before the High Court. Subsequently, in the said appeal, accused- respondent filed an application under Section 3 89 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) seeking suspension of sentence as awarded (supra) by the Special Court.
3.7. The High Court, vide order dated 23rd October, 2024, has allowed the application filed by respondent-accused and suspended the sentence as awarded by Special Court during the pendency of the criminal appeal. Against that order, the appellant-agency is before us.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.
5.
