Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NITIN JAMDAR, SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.
Smt. Renuka @ Rinku @ Ratan Kiran Shinde & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The Union of India, Through the Principal Secretary of Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No. 3103 of 2014
Decided On : 18-01-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 72, 161- Prisons Act, 1894 - Section 59(18) and 59(28) - Maharashtra Prisons (Prisoners Sentenced to Death) Rules of 1971 - Rules 13, 14, and 15 – Writ petition - Petitioners are sentenced to death - After seven years, ten months and 15 days, their mercy petitions were rejected - Petitioners pray that delay in disposal of mercy petitions having resulted in infringement of Petitioners fundamental rights, death sentence be commuted to that of life imprisonment - Held, To summarize, position of law that unexplained and gross delay in disposal of mercy petitions may result in commuting death sentence was already holding field when mercy petitions by and on behalf of Petitioners were made - Despite this legal position, wholly due to casual approach of officers of Respondent-State, mercy petitions were not decided for seven years, ten months and 15 days - Though procedure for deciding mercy petitions mandates speed and expediency, State machinery showed indifference and laxity at each stage of processing files - That it took seven years only for movement of files for such a grave issue is unacceptable when electronic communications were available to be used. Argument of State that Petitioners should be executed even today overlooks that it is dereliction of its officers that is cause for commuting death sentence to that of life imprisonment - State represents interest of society in criminal justice system - Respondent-State not only has violated constitutional rights of Petitioners but also failed innocent victims of these heinous crimes - While court accede to Petitioners prayer that their death sentences be commuted to that of life imprisonment, we decline prayer of Petitioners that they should be directed to be released forthwith having completed 25 years of imprisonment - That is so because legal position is that sentence for imprisonment for life is for remainder of convict’s life unless Competent Authority remits remaining sentence - Crimes committed by Petitioners are heinous - Brutality shown by Petitioners in murdering innocent children is beyond words to condemn - While confirming death sentence, High Court found no mitigating circumstances, nor any material that Petitioners could be reformed or introduced in society as responsible citizens - Supreme Court dismissed their appeals observing that there are no circumstances in favour of Petitioners, and they were a menace to society - Therefore, if and when issue of remission of Petitioners sentence arises for consideration, court have no doubt that Competent Authority will consider gravity of offences, adverse observations of this Court and Supreme Court that Petitioners are beyond being reformed - Writ Petition stands disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Nitin Jamdar, J.
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final disposal.
2. The Petitioners are sentenced to death. After seven years, ten months and 15 days, their mercy petitions were rejected. Petitioners pray that the delay in disposal of the mercy petitions having resulted in infringement of Petitioners fundamental rights, the death sentence be commuted to that of life imprisonment.
3. The Petitioners, Renuka alias Rinku alias Ratan alias Kiran Shinde and Seema alias Devki Gavit, are sisters. Petitioners and their mother - Anjanabai, were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kolhapur in Sessions Cases Nos. 55 and 56 of 1997 for having kidnapped 13 children, attempting to kidnap one more child and committing murders of 9 of the 13 children kidnapped by them in a period starting from June 1990 to October 1996. The learned Sessions Judge convicted them on 28 June 2001, and the Petitioners were sentenced to death. Reference of Confirmation Case No.2 of 2001 was made, and Criminal Appeal No. 718 of 2001 was filed by the Petitioners in the High Court. Anjanabai expired while in custody. The Division Bench of this Court, by the judgment and order dated 8 September 2004, convicted the Petitioners for the following main offences. Criminal conspiracy of kidnapping children and using them for thefts. Kidnapping the children- Santosh, Bunty, Swati, Guddu, Meena, Raja, Shradha, Kranti, Gauri and Pankaj from lawful guardianship. The kidnapping of the children- Santosh, Bunty, Swati, Guddu, Meena, Rajan, Shradha, Gauri and Pankaj with intent to cause the child to be secretly and wrongfully confined. For the murder of the children- Santosh, Anjali, Shradha, Gauri and Pankaj, the Petitioners were accordingly convicted and sentenced to death. The Criminal Appeal No. 722 of 2005 filed by the Petitioners in the Supreme Court was dismissed on 31August 2006, and the Supreme Court confirmed the death sentence. The application of mercy petition made to the Governor of Maharashtra to invoke the power of pardon under Article 161 of the Constitution of India was rejected on 17 August 2013. The application to the President of India to invoke the power of pardon under Article 72 of the Constitution of India was rejected on 30 July 2014. Thereafter the present Writ Petition is filed.
4. The Respondents in this Petition are as follows. Respondent No.1 is the Union of India through the Principal Secretary of Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, referred to as ‘MHA’. Respondents No.2 and 3 are the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, referred to as the ‘Home Department’. Respondent No.4 is the Inspector General of Prisons, Pune, referred to as the ‘IG (Prisons)’. Respondent No. 5 is the Superintendent of Central Jail, Yerwada, Pune, referred to as the ‘Superintendent’.
5. By this Writ Petition filed on 19 August 2014, the Petitioners contend that the inordinate delay in deciding the mercy petitions under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India violates the Petitioners' fundamental rights and the death sentence of Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2 should be commuted to imprisonment for life. The State of Maharashtra and the Union of India have filed affidavits in replies.
6. The Petition was urgently moved on 19 August 2014, the day the Petitioners were to be executed. The Public Prosecutor made a statement on telephonic instructions of the Superintendent of Jail that the execution would not be carried out. The Petition was kept on board on the next date. On 20 August 2014, the Petition was heard. The learned Public Prosecutor made a statement on behalf of the State on instructions from Mr. Deepak Jadiye, Section Officer, Home Department, that during the pendency of the Petition, the death sentence will not be executed. The Petition has came up for hearing.
7. We have heard Mr. Aniket Vagal, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Mr. Sandesh
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
