IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
V.K. JADHAV, SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
Shailendrasingh Shivmurtisingh Thakur – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2014, Criminal Appeal No. 480 of 2014 with Criminal Application No. 657 of 2015, Criminal Appeal No. 503 of 2013
Decided on : 08-04-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 380, 396, 397, 452, 408, 412, 201, 120-B - Bombay Police Act - Section 135 - Arms Act - Section 4, 25 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313, 235 (2) - Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 114, (a) - Hands And Legs Tied - Committed Cold Blooded Murder - Sharad Gundecha, who is residing in neighborhood of uncle Ramesh informed him on mobile phone that there was something wrong in bungalow of uncle Ramesh - Watchman of said bungalow had come to his house having his hands and legs tied and informant should come there early - One person came to gate of bungalow and asked him to give message to deceased Ramesh that Subhash has come to see him - PW4 thus opened gate and asked said person to wait till he informs about same to deceased - Thus person came inside - At that time, 4 to 5 persons were standing by side of road in front of gate - PW4 when turned to make a call to deceased, at that time, those persons covered his face with cloth and tied his hands, legs and mouth and then took him from gate of bungalow upto latrine behind watchman room and tied him to one electric pole - One person amongst them stopped near him - After some time he had heard cries of deceased - PW4 was lying at same place in tied condition – Held, Learned APP submits that respondent no.3-original accused no.3 is mastermind behind crime and he has well executed crime in a calculated manner with help of other accused persons and committed cold blooded murder of helpless and hapless couple - Learned APP submits that respondent no.3-original accused no.3 Saket deserves no sympathy – Court have elaborately discussed in our judgment as to role played by respondent no.3-original accused no.3 - He was on day duty as watchman on said Basant bungalow - He was knowing well activities of deceased Ramesh Munot and deceased Chitra Munot - P.W.4 was night watchman on said bungalow at relevant time and during day time, he had witnessed all activities of present respondent no.3-original accused no.3 - Other accused persons had come to him and accordingly, he executed plan in a very calculated manner – Court have also observed in Court judgment that this is a rarest of rare case - In Court considered opinion, respondent no.3-original accused no.3 deserves no sympathy - Accordingly Court hereby sentence respondent no.3-original accused no.3 Shivkumar Ramsundar Saket to suffer death penalty for offence punishable under Section 396 of IPC as well as under Section 396 r.w. 120-B of IPC - Appeal dismissed - Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
V. K. JADHAV, J.
1. Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2014 preferred by original accused nos. 2 to 6 and Criminal Appeal No. 480 of 2014 preferred by original accused no.1 are directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar dated 21.10.2013 in Sessions Case No. 51 of 2008.
Criminal Appeal No. 503 of 2013 is also directed against the same judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, for enhancement of the sentence with a specific prayer that death sentence may be awarded to all the accused persons.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the prosecution case are as follows:
a. The informant Sunil Shantilal Munot resides in Rushikesh bungalow near Keshar Gulab Mangal Karayalaya on Sahakar Sabhagruha Road, Ahmednagar. He has four uncles namely (1) Dr. Ashok, (2) Ramesh (since deceased), (3) Mohan and (4) Amrutlal. They are having two factories name and styled as K.G. Foam and Monish Spoke at Pune and three factories namely, Sumesh Industries at Kedgaon, Classic Factory at M.I.D.C., Ahmednagar and Sushant Industries, behind A.D.C.C. Bank, Ahmednagar. Informant Sunil runs the said business of factories along with his said uncles. Uncle deceased Ramesh Munot and aunt deceased Chitra w/o Ramesh Munot were residing in Basant bungalow at Manik Nagar, Chandan Estate, Ahmednagar with their two sons namely, Sagar and Sumit. Informant Sunil, his father Shantilal, uncle Ramesh and cousin Sumit were looking after the affairs of industry situated at Ahmednagar.
b. On 02.12.2007, the informant had conversation with uncle Ramesh up to 8.15 p.m. on his mobile from time to time. Thereafter, they had no talk with each other. On 03.12.2007, at 6.30 a.m., Sharad Gundecha, who is residing in the neighborhood of uncle Ramesh, informed him on mobile phone that there was something wrong in the bungalow of uncle Ramesh. The watchman of the said bungalow had come to his house having his hands and legs tied and the informant should come there early. Accordingly, informant Sunil went to the said bungalow. PW4 Sumitkumar Tiwari was standing at the gate of the said bungalow.
c. On making inquiry with PW4 Sumitkumar Tiwari, he told that at about 9.30 to 10.00 p.m., one person came to the gate of the bungalow and asked him to give message to deceased Ramesh that Subhash has come to see him. PW4 Sumitkumar Tiwari thus opened the gate and asked the said person to wait till he informs about the same to deceased Ramesh. Thus the person came inside. At that time, 4 to 5 persons were standing by the side of road in front of the gate. PW4 Sumitkumar Tiwari when turned to make a call to deceased Ramesh, at that time, those persons covered his face with cloth and tied his hands, legs and mouth and then took him from the gate of the bungalow upto the latrine behind the watchman room and tied him to one electric pole. One person amongst them stopped near him. After some time he had heard the cries of deceased Chitra (wife of deceased Ramesh). PW4 Sumitkumar Tiwari was lying at the same place in tied condition.
In the dawn time, anyhow PW4 Tiwari went upto the bungalow of neighbour Sharad Gundecha and informed him the above incident. Informant Sunil had inspected the bungalow. There were blood stains everywhere in the bungalow. His uncle Ramesh was lying dead in the pool of blood near west side wall of the living room. There were injuries on right side of his forehead, on both sides of chest and adhesive tape was fixed on his mouth. His daily use wrist watch was found missing. In the bed room, his aunt Chitra was found tied to a wooden chair, having adhesive tape fixed on her mouth and her both hands were tied by a telephone wire and a cloth piece. She was dead. There was bleeding injury on her throat. Her wrist watch was also found missing. Informant Sunil has also seen that two cupboa
A. Deivendran v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1998 SC 2821
Alisher v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1974 SC 1830)
Anshad and others v. State of Karnataka
Baiju v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Birbal Choudhary v. State of Bihar
B.A. Umesh v. Registrar General
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [1980 (2) SCC 684]
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
Dayanidhi Bisoi v. State of Orissa (2003) 9 SCC 310
Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal
Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana (2009) 15 SCC 635
Jagmohan Sing v. State of U.P. [(1973) 1 SCC 20]
Kamta Tiwari v. State of M.P. (1996) 6 SCC 250
Khushwinder Singh v. State of Punjab
Limbaji and others v. State of Maharashtra
Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur and another v. State of Maharashtra
Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) MANU/SC/0575/2017 : (2017) 6 SCC 1
Mohd. Mannan v. State of Bihar (2011) 5 SCC 317
Machhi Singh and Others v. State of Punjab
Mohan Anna Chavan v. State of Maharashtra (2008) 11 SCC 113.
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 4 SCC 37
Ravji alias Ram Chandra v. State of Rajasthan (1996) 2 SCC 175
Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra
Shivaji @ Dadya Shankar Alhat v. State of Maharashtra 2008 (15) SCC 269
Shivaji v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2009 SC 56
State of U.P. v. Bhoora AIR 1998 SC 254 : 1997 (9) Supreme 319
Shivappa v. State of Mysore [1970 (1) SCC 487]
Sanwath Khan and Another v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1956 SC 54 : 1956 CrLJ 150
Surja Ram v. State of Rajasthan (1996) 6 SCC 271
State of U.P. v. Sattan (2009) 4 SCC 736
Saibanna v. State of Karnataka (2005) 4 SCC 165
Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand (2004) 2 SCC 338
State of U.P. v. Bhoora and others
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra
Dacoity with murder – Simply on recovery of stolen articles, no inference can be drawn that person in possession of stolen articles is guilty of offence of murder and dacoity.
In appeals against acquittal, the court will not disturb the trial court's findings unless they are perverse or lack basis in evidence, maintaining a high threshold for interference.
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the circumstances are consistent with the guilt of the accused and that they exclude every other ....
Confessions made voluntarily and without pressure under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. are admissible as evidence.
The court held the convictions for murder under Sections 302 and 149 IPC were upheld, asserting that while the prosecution's evidence was lacking in parts, the credible testimony established involvem....
The conviction of the appellants for murder and conspiracy was upheld based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a common intention to kill for financial gain through witchcraft.
Conviction requires overt acts attributed to accused; acquittals followed evidentiary insufficiencies while some convictions were altered from section 149 to 34 due to lack of proof of unlawful assem....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.