The confirmation case and all the above criminal appeals are being disposed of by common judgment, since they arise out of the Judgment and Order dated 8.6.2007, passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao in Sessions Case No. 15/2005, convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 302, 201 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and sentencing them as below :

The amount of fine ordered to be paid by all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 120B, 302 and 365 of IPC have been ordered to be paid as compensation to the family of the deceased namely, PW.54 Sarika and PW.57 Jaimini and other daughter of the Victim Dr. Shrikant Verenkar. All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

2. The charge against the accused was that on 17/1/2005 at 6.15 hours, at Mangor Hill, Vasco, all the accused after hatching a criminal conspiracy, intentionally or knowingly caused murder of Dr. Shrikant Verenkar, aged 60 years and, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 302, IPC. Secondly, all the accused abducted Dr. Verenkar with intention of causing the said Dr. Verenkar to be secretly and wrongfully confined and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 365 of IPC. Thirdly, all the accused knowingly or having reasons to believe that the offence, namely the offence under Section 302 of IPC has been committed, caused certain evidence, namely the dead body of said Dr. Verenkar to disappear and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC. Fourthly, all the accused agreed with each other to do an illegal act, namely to murder the said Dr. Shrikant Verenkar and in pursuance of the said agreement, committed the offence of murder, punishable with death or imprisonment for life, punishable under Section 120B of IPC. PW.1 Pratham Gadagkar (original accused no.5), who was charged along with other four accused for the aforesaid offences, was granted pardon by the learned Sessions Judge and was examined as prosecution witness.

3. Charge was framed on 24/8/2005. All the accused including PW1-Pratham (the approver) had pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, on the same day, order was passed by the learned Sessions Judge granting pardon to the accused no. 5, in terms of Section 307 of Cr.P.C.. The said order dated 24/8/2005 of pardon was challenged by accused no. 1 before this Court. This Court by order dated 22/12/2005 dismissed the said Criminal Revision Application No. 23 of 2005. The contention that the accused no. 5 had played fraud on the learned Sessions Judge in order to obtain tender of pardon, was found to be without any merits.

4. Confessional statement of accused no. 5 was recorded by Special Judicial Magistrate on 2/2/2005, 3/2/2005, 4/2/2005, 5/2/2005, 7/2/2005 and 8/2/2005. Since subsequently, accused no. 5 was granted pardon, the said confessional statement has to be treated as his previous statement.

5. The prosecution examined 78 witnesses to prove the charges against all the four accused. As stated above, the learned Sessions Judge, upon appreciation of evidence led by the prosecution, held all the four accused guilty of the aforesaid offences and convicted and sentenced them as above. The learned Sessions Judge has made the above reference for confirmation of death sentence against the accused no. 1. Aggrieved by the convictions and sentences imposed on the accused, all the four accused have preferred the above appeals.

6. On 25th July, 2011, Mr. A. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, submitted that the case of accused No.1 does not fall within the term “rarest of rare” as held by the Supreme Court in various decisions. He further submitted that the State would not press for confirmation of the death sentence, but State would insist on conviction of the accused.

7. We have heard Mr. A. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel, on behalf of the State as Special Public Prosecut