Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 722 of 2005
PETITIONER:
Renuka Bai alias Rinku alias Ratan & Anr.
RESPONDENT:
State of Maharashtra
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/08/2006
BENCH:
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN & G.P. MATHUR
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
This criminal appeal has been filed by the two appellants
herein who have been found guilty by the High Court of
Bombay for various offences. These appellants were charged
for various crimes alleged to have been committed by them
during the period June 1990 to October 1996. They were tried
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolaphur and found guilty
and sentenced to death. The High Court confirmed their
conviction on various counts and the sentence imposed on
them.
The appellants Renuka Bai @ Rinku @ Ratan and Seema
@ Devki @ Devli are sisters. Their mother, Anjanabai, a co-
accused died in 1997 and hence she could not be tried.
Approver Kiran Shinde who had studied upto 7th standard and
left the school in 1982, belonged to Pune. He obtained some
training in the work of tailoring and was doing tailoring work
in a shop belonging to one Suresh. In 1983 he came in
contact with the first appellant Renuka Bai and in December
1989 he married Renuka at a temple near Shirdi. Renuka was
previously married to somebody else and was having a child
by name Aashish. These two appellants and their mother
Anjanabai and the approver Kiran Shinde and child Aashish
were residing as tenants in a house at Gonthalinagar in Pune.
The appellants and their mother used to commit thefts. For
that they would go to the places of festivals and whenever they
got opportunity they used to snatch the gold chains and made
a living out of the income derived from such thefts committed
by them.
In 1990, the first appellant Renuka Bai along with her
child Aashish went to a temple. There was a large gathering at
the temple, Renuka Bai tried to snatch a purse from a person
but she was caught in that process. On being caught, she
raised a hue and cry and questioned the person as to why he
had caught hold of her hand when she was having a child with
her and could not have been involved in a crime. Many people
gathered around her and seeing the mother and the child, they
left the appellant Renuka Bai. She narrated this incident to
her sister Seema and mother Anjanabai and told how she had
managed to escape as she had the child with her. The police
had caught both the appellants and their mother on several
occasions and they used to bribe the police and escape from
the clutches of law. The appellants and their mother decided
that thereafter they would have a child with them at the time
of committing the crime so that by making use of the child
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9
they can escape from the crowd. According to the prosecution,
the appellants, their mother Anjanabai and approver Kiran
Shinde entered into a conspiracy to kidnap small children
below five years of age and make use of them whenever
necessary and dispose them of when they are no longer useful.
They thought that this was the only way to evade possible
arrest whenever they were caught in the process of committing
theft.
According to prosecution, these appellants alongwith
their mother Anjana Bai and approver Kiran Shinde were
instrumental in kidnapping 13 children and out of them they
had killed 9 of them. All these crimes were allegedly
committed during the period June 1990 to October 1996. The
appellants have been convicted on various counts and the
death penalty imposed on them by the Sessions Court was
confirmed by the High Court.
The Sessions Judge meticulously considered the evidence
of the prosecution and by a detailed judgment found these
appellants guilty of majority of crimes charged against them.
The High Court confirmed the finding in most of the cases.
Though 9 cases of murder were alleged against the appellants,
the Sessions Court found them guilty only of commission of 6
murders. When the matter came up in appeal before the High
Court, it was held that the prosecution could succeed in
proving only 5 cases of murder against these appellants. The
trial Court convicted the appellants for murder in the case of
death of Santosh, Anjali @ Pinki, Raja, Shraddha, Gauri and
Pankaj. However, the High Court held that in the case of
murder of Raja, the evidence was not satisfactory. Appellants
in all these cases pleaded not guilty and alleged that they had
been falsely implicated in these cases.
The gist of allegations against them is that these two
appellants, along with their mother Anjana Bai, with the help
of the approver in this case, namely, Kiran Shinde, had
kidnapped 13 children and caused the death of 9 out of them.
They also had attempted to kidnap yet another child but their
attempt failed. Anjana Bai, the mother of the present
appellants died in 1997. For the offences punishable under
Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC, the appellants have
been awarded capital punishment.
Brief summary of the successive criminal acts of
kidnapping and murder committed by the appellants is thus.
These appellants were found guilty of kidnapping one
child, namely, Santosh who was aged about 1-= years in July
1990. They killed Santosh, and disposed of the dead body
near the State Transport Stand at Kolhapur. For this offence,
they have been found guilty and sentenced to death.
The appellants have also been found guilty of kidnapping
one child named, Naresh, aged 9 months, in 1991 from Thane
ST Stand. The appellants were alleged to have left the child
near a temple at Nasik and later made a claim before the
Court for the custody of that child based on false grounds.
The appellants were found guilty of the offence punishable
under Section 364 read with Section 120B IPC; Section 323
and sentenced to undergo 3 years imprisonment for the main
offence.
In another case in 1993, these appellants kidnapped a
child named Bunty aged about one year, and a girl named,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9
Swati, aged about two years from the Kalyan Railway Station,
Mumbai. There was also an allegation that these appellants
kidnapped Guddu aged 2 = years and a girl named, Meena,
aged 3 years, in 1993, from V.T. Station, Mumbai. The
appellants along with their mother, Anjanabai, ,killed Bunti
and Guddu and disposed of their dead bodies. For kidnapping
Guddu and Meena, they were found guilty, but as regards the
murder of Guddu, the prosecution could not prove the offence
under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC and they were
acquitted of the charge.
The next case for which these appellants had been
charged was the kidnapping of a child, namely, Anjali @ Pinky,
aged about two years from Kalika Mandir at Nasik on
18.X.1994 and killed her and disposed of the dead body with
the help of the approver, Kiran Shinde. The appellants have
been found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302
read with Section 120B IPC and for this offence they have
been imposed with capital punishment.
It is further alleged that in March 1995, the appellants
along with their mother Anjanabai and approver, Kiran
Shinde, kidnapped a male child by name, Swapnil @ Raja from
the S.T. Stand at Kolhapur. They killed the child in the second
week of March, 1995 and threw the dead body of the child
near Khandala Ghat and for this offence, the appellants have
been found guilty and sentenced to death.
Another criminal case charged against them is that
these appellants kidnapped one girl, namely, Shraddha @ Rani
@ Bhagyashree aged about one year nine months from
Mahalaxmi Temple, Kolhapur, and thereafter killed the child
while the appellants were traveling in a taxi from Pune to
Surat and disposed of the dead body of the child. For these
criminal acts, the appellants have been found guilty of the
offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120
B and other allied offences and for the main offence, they have
been sentenced to death penalty.
In the next case also, the appellants have been found
guilty of kidnapping one child named Kranti, aged nine years
and later killed the child and disposed of the dead body in a
sugarcane field at a place called Narsoba. For this offence
also, appellants have been found guilty and sentenced to
death.
Another allegation against the appellants relates to
making an attempt to kidnap a child namely, Devli from a
primary school at Nasik. Though the Sessions Court found
the appellants guilty of kidnapping, the High Court found
that the case of kidnapping of a child was wrongly entered
against the appellants.
In the chain of crimes committed by these appellants,
they were again found guilty of offence punishable under
Section 302 read with Section 120 B IPC for kidnapping and
murdering one Gauri @ Bhavna aged 1-= years. This child
was kidnapped from Ganga Ghat vegetable market in Nasik.
The child was killed in Kolhapur and the appellants disposed
of his dead body in the women’s lavatory of a cinema theatre.
For this offence, the appellants have been found guilty and
sentenced to death.
In the last of the series of criminal offences charged
against them, the appellants were found guilty of kidnapping
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9
one male child, namely, Pankaj aged four years on 27.7.1996
from Vithal Mandir, Wadala, Mumbai. The appellants later
killed the child in September 1996 in a house at Pune and
disposed of the dead body of the child in a gunny bag. For
this offence, the appellants have been found guilty on various
counts.
In the appeal preferred by the appellants, the Division
Bench of the High Court confirmed their conviction on almost
all the counts and confirmed the death penalty imposed on
these appellants.
We shall briefly consider the evidence adduced by the
prosecution in these five cases and whether any error or
illegality had been committed in the case of conviction of these
appellants for these offences charged against them.
Kiran Shinde turned approver on 17-10-1997 and he was
first examined on 17.9.1998 before the Magistrate.
One of the earliest cases of kidnapping and murder
committed by these appellants relates to the incident of
kidnapping of one Santosh. The prosecution case is that in
July, 1990 the appellants and their mother Anjanabai had
gone to Kolhapur. Appellant Renuka met a female beggar with
a child at the bus stand. She promised the beggar that she
would give her a job. Renuka managed to kidnap the child
without being noticed by his mother and took the child to
Pune where the appellants were staying. They named the
child as Santosh. In July, 1990 itself, the appellants went to
Shirdi for the purpose of committing thefts. As they did not
come back to Pune for 5-6 days, Anjanabai went in search of
them. About 7 days thereafter, the police brought the
appellants and conducted a search of their house at Pune.
There were two children with the appellants at that time. They
were Ashish and Santosh. Approver-Kiran Shinde bribed the
police and he escaped from Maharashtra. Appellants and
their mother Anjanabai were taken into custody, but later they
were released from police custody. In March, 1991, Renuka
gave birth to a child and he was named ’Kishore’. In April,
1991, appellants, their mother and Kiran Shinde went to
Kolhapur for committing thefts. They took a room in a
"Dharamshala" , kept their luggage there and went to
Mahalaxmi temple in the evening. There, appellant-Seema
tried to snatch the purse of a person. She was caught and
beaten by him. Her mother Anjanabai then intervened. She
threw Santosh on the ground who sustained a bleeding injury
on his head. Many persons gathered around them and
seeing the bleeding wound on the head of the child Santosh,
people consoled them and the matter was not reported to the
police. Appellant Reunka then suggested that they may
commit some more thefts. They went to the bus stand and
managed to commit theft of 2-3 purses. On their way back,
the child Santosh started crying as he was bleeding.
Anjanabai then told that the child was no longer useful as he
was crying and there was a likelihood of their being caught by
police. The further case of the prosecution is that Anjanabai
pressed the mouth of Santosh and dashed his head on an
iron bar whereby Santosh sustained more head injuries and
died on the spot. The clothes worn by Anjanabai were
washed at the water tap and now they wanted to dispose of
the dead body of Santosh. They left the dead body near the
heap of some old rickshaws and came back to Dharamshala.
On the next day, the dead body of Santosh was found and the
matter was reported to the Laxmipur police station. The
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9
police could not find out any trace of the murder and later
they filed the final report.
In order to prove the case of murder of Santosh, PW 53,
PW 54, PW 56, PW 58, PW 63 to PW 65, PW 67 to PW 69, PW
124, PW 125, PW 127 and PW 132, PW 137 and PW 155 were
examined. PW 132 Dr. Chandrashekhar Chanokar of CPR
Hospital who conducted the post-mortem case was of the
opinion that the cause of death of the boy was shock due to
the fracture of the base of his skull with intra cerebral
hemorrhage. PW 56 is a Peon who was present at the time
when the dead body of Santosh was recovered from a place
near the Vikram High School, Kolhapur. He deposed that
there was bleeding from the ear and injury on the head of the
deceased. The evidence of PW 67 is very crucial in proving the
prosecution case. PW 67 is a Constable in the State Reserve
Police Force. His house is at Gondhalinagar, Pune. Though
he constructed this house in 1987, he was not staying there.
He knew approver Kiran Shinde and these appellants and
their mother. He gave this house in 1990 to these appellants
and they stayed there for about 1-= years. He used to go to
this place for collecting rent and had seen Santosh at that
place and when inquired about him, Anjanabai told that the
boy was the son of the relative who was staying at Kolhapur.
The photo taken from the dead body of Santosh was shown to
the witness and he identified and the same was marked as
Exhibit 235. When PW 67 inquired with the police, they told
that these women were associated for committing theft of
ornaments. Thereafter, he asked the approver Kiran Shinde to
vacate the house and the witness came to know that these
three women were in jail for about 9 to 10 months and at last
he got back the possession of the house. The evidence of this
witness alone is sufficient to prove that these appellants were
responsible for the death of boy Santosh. There was also the
supporting evidence of other witnesses and the prosecution
satisfactorily proved the guilt of the accused persons and their
conviction for murder of this boy Santosh is perfectly justified.
The appellants were found guilty of kidnapping 1 = year
old child by name Naresh @ Kalpesh @ Aniket. PW 90, PW 91,
PW 92, PW 96, PW 106, PW 107 were examined to prove the
kidnapping of child Naresh. The approver Kiran Shinde stated
that in the year 1992, they were residing at Indubai Chawl
and as they were in need of money, they decided to go to Pune.
They reached the bus stand at Thane. There, they met a
beggar who was with a child about 8 to 9 months. Appellant
Renuka started talking with the beggar and got the child in
her arms. Appellant Renuka gave her some money and asked
her to get milk for the child. When the mother of the child
went out of the bus stand to get milk, the appellant slipped
away with the child and left the bus stand in an auto
rickshaw. The appellants took this child to Nasik to attend
’Kumbh’ mela. Whenever the child cried deceased Anjana Bai
used to beat him. Anjana Bai then advised the appellants to
leave the child at a temple and the child was left at a temple.
When the child started crying, a lady police constable came
and took the child. The appellants then left that place.
Appellant Renuka was so fond of this child that she wanted to
retrieve this child. She came to know that the child was in an
orphanage by name "Adhar Ashram" at Nasik. Deceased
Anjana Bai filed application to this orphanage to get this child
by stating that he was her child but she was not successful.
They had also resorted to some litigation for getting this child
back. Kidnapping of the child is proved by these items of
evidence.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9
The appellants were found guilty of murder of the child
Bunty. This child was picked up by the appellants in April
1993 from Kalyan Railway Station, Bombay and the child was
killed in May 1993. The appellants had also kidnapped
children Swati aged 2 = years, and Guddu aged 2 = years.
Swati was abandoned and Guddu was allegedly killed in May
1993. But the prosecution could not produce any satisfactory
evidence of the murder of Guddu. To prove these cases, series
of witnesses were examined by the prosecution.
The appellants were found guilty of having caused the
death of Anjali @ Pinki. She was a child of 2 = years of age
and was kidnapped on 18.10 1994 from Kalika Mandir at
Nasik. As regards the kidnap of Anjali @ Pinki, the approver
Kiran Shinde stated that in the year 1994, he stayed at Pune
and the appellants and their mother came to him and
alongwith them, there was a girl aged 3 years and she was
called Pinki. Approver made inquiries and he was told that
they had gone to Kalika Mandir at Nasik and from there, they
got Pinki. He further stated that Pinki was continuously
crying and the neighbouring women asked the appellants as to
who she was and the first appellant replied that her mother
had been admitted in the hospital and hence the child was
brought to them. As Pinki was continuously crying it became
a nuisance to the appellant and her mother Anjana Bai was
very much annoyed by this girl and she pushed this girl
forcibly and the girl fell in front of the latrine and the first
appellant held her legs together and after sometime the
movements of Pinki stopped and she died. They kept the body
in a bag and brought the bag near Saswad Road and threw it
in a compound where there were lot of bushes.
The evidence of the approver is fully corroborated by the
other items of evidence. PW 10 Sujata is the mother of Anjali
@ Pinki. She gave a complaint to the police stating that she
had gone to the Kalika Mandir on 18.10.1994 along with her
husband and daughters Shweta and Anjali. The daughter
Anjali was with her husband. PW 10 Sujata had gone to have
a Puja. When the articles of Puja was being handed over to
them, daughter Anjali was sitting on the floor. When they
came back, the girl was not seen. They made fanatic search
but the child could not be found. After the body was
recovered, she identified certain photographs of the child.
PW 62 is the father of Anjali. He deposed that from
18.10.1994 onwards, Anjali was missing when they had gone
to the Kalika Mandir at Nasik and on 1.11.1996, he lodged
FIR. He had also identified the photographs Exhibit 87/1,
87/2, 87/3 and Exhibits 90 and 91.
There is also evidence to show that deceased Anjali was
found in the company of appellants. PW 12 is the owner of a
lodge at Nasik and he deposed that on 11.10.1994, three
women alongwith two to three children came there to have a
room in the lodge. They told that they would like to stay there
for 8 to 10 days. Though he was reluctant to give them a room
but as they had children alongwith them, he ultimately gave
them room no. 6 which they took in the name of ’Sima Patil-
Gavit’ and these three women stayed in the lodge for 8 days.
On one day PW 12 heard the cries of a child and he made
enquiries and he was told that the girl was a child of the
maternal aunt of one of them who was having a stall in the fair
at the temple and the child was crying so they had brought
her alongwtih them. Again after 20-25 minutes, there was a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9
crying sound and PW 12 and his mother asked them to vacate
the rooms. PW 12 identified the first appellant and one of the
women who had stayed in the lodge. She also identified
exhibit 87/1 and 87/2 photographs of the girl and deposed
that the very same girl was with the three women when they
were staying in the lodge.
There is also the evidence of PW 46 Kantabai Borkar who
identified the photographs of Anjali @ Pinki. This witness was
the neighbour of the accused and deposed that the deceased
Anjali @ Pinki was with them. So there is also evidence of PW
22 Rajendra Sankpal who saw the dead body of Anjali near his
nursery, and reported the same to the police. PW 25 Narsinh
Kendgale recovered the dead body and prepared the
Panchnama. PW 131 Dr. Lakshmikant Bade conducted the
post-morterm on the dead body of Anjali. In the post morterm
report, it was reported that there were series of injuries in the
body of deceased Anjali @ Pinki. There were series of
abrasions and the doctor deposed that injury no. 2 namely
contusion of upper and lower lips and the laceration of
mucosa of upper and lower lips in incisol area indicated that
the mouth of the victim was pressed and that injuries no.
2,7,9,11 and 12 might have happened due to fall or being
thrown from the staircase.
The entire evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly
establishes that the approver’s evidence was fully corroborated
by other items of evidence and death of Anjali @ Pinki was
caused by the appellants.
The Sessions Judge has dealt with in detail each items of
evidence and the High Court also re-appreciated the evidence
in respect of each item of evidence. We do not propose to
consider each case but we are satisfied that the evidence
adduced by the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt
that the appellants were responsible for series of kidnapping of
children and murders and they have been rightly found guilty
for these offences.
The prosecution thus succeeded in proving that these
appellants have committed a series of murders. The learned
Counsel for the appellants strongly urged before us that the
evidence of the approver should not have been accepted by the
Court as it is a tainted evidence. It was argued that there is no
satisfactory corroboration of the evidence of the approver and
unless there is a corroboration, it should not have been acted
upon. It is true that the evidence of the approver is always to
be viewed with suspicion especially when it is seriously
suspected that he is suppressing some material facts. Here
the approver’s evidence was not fully accepted by the High
Court. High Court was of the view that he had suppressed
some material facts. We find that the observation made by the
High Court was justified. The tenor of the evidence given by
the approver Kiran Shinde is to the effect that he was only a
silent spectator but all these heinous crimes were committed
by the appellants and their mother Anjana Bai. It is difficult
to believe that these women alone had committed all these
crimes unless there is strong support from the approver Kiran
Shinde. When the Court suspected the evidence of the
approver, the pardon given to him itself could be withdrawn
and he could be tried along with the other accused. But
unfortunately the provisions contained in the Criminal
Procedure Code do not enable the Court to take such a strong
action.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9
The approver was given pardon under Section 306 of the
Cr.P.C. and thereafter he was examined as a witness for
prosecution under Section 308 of the Cr.P.C. The procedure
prescribes that if the approver is wilfully concealing anything
essential or is giving false evidence or had not complied with
the conditions on which the tender of pardon was made, the
approver can be tried for the offence in respect of which he
had been given pardon. In order to prosecute the approver,
the public prosecutor has to give a certificate and he should
express his opinion that the approver has either wilfully
concealed anything essential or has given false evidence or has
not complied with the conditions on which pardon has been
made. The proviso to Section 308 also says that such person
shall not be tried for the offence for giving false evidence
except with the sanction of the High Court and the approver
also would be entitled to plead that he had complied with the
condition upon which such tender of pardon was made and
that he had not given any false evidence or willfully
suppressed anything. Thus, the Code of Criminal Procedure
prescribes a procedure for prosecuting the approver who had
given false evidence or wilfully suppressed anything.
In the instant case, the approver Kiran Shinde was
present when many of the murders had taken place and it is
quite possible that he also must have been an active
participant and the High Court was justified in saying that
the approver had not given full details of the crimes. The
approver was moving with the two appellants for a long period
and despite the repeated criminal acts committed by them,
the approver did not inform the police or any authorities.
Some of the children kidnapped by the appellants were in the
custody of the appellants and the approver, and later their
bodies were found. In one case, the post mortem examination
showed that the child was subjected to some unnatural
offence. The approver himself had admitted that he had bribed
the police many times and saved these appellants from the
clutches of law. Despite all these startling revelations, the
approver could not be proceeded against and the public
prosecutor had not taken any step to proceed against the
approver. We feel, under such circumstances the court itself
has inherent powers to proceed against the approver in case
he is wilfully suppressing material facts or is giving false
evidence.
The two appellants kidnapped several children and
committed their murder in the most dastardly manner. In
some cases, the body could not be found and in some cases
the dead body could be traced out. The High Court felt that
these five cases of murders have been proved against these
appellants. The murder committed by the appellants are
proved by satisfactory evidence. The approver’s evidence is
fully corroborated by other items of evidence. We do not find
any reason to interfere with the order of conviction passed by
the sessions court and confirmed by the High Court.
The appellants have been awarded capital punishment
for committing these murders and their sentence was
confirmed by the High Court. Going by the details of the case,
we find no mitigating circumstances in favour of the appellant,
except for the fact that they are women. Further, the nature of
the crime and the systematic way in which each child was
kidnapped and killed amply demonstrates the depravity of the
mind of the appellants. These appellants indulged in criminal
activities for a very long period and continued it till they were
caught by the police. They very cleverly executed their plans
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9
of kidnapping the children and the moment they were no
longer useful, they killed them and threw the dead body at
some deserted place. The appellants had been a menace to
the society and the people in the locality were completely
horrified and they could not send their children even to
schools. The appellants had not been committing these
crimes under any compulsion but they took it very casually
and killed all these children, least bothering about their lives
or agony of their parents.
We have carefully considered the whole aspects of the
case and are also alive to the new trends in the sentencing
system in criminology. We do not think that these appellants
are likely to be reformed. We confirm the conviction and also
the death penalty imposed on them. The stay of execution of
the capital punishment imposed on these appellants shall
stand vacated and the authorities are directed to take such
further steps as are necessary to carry out the execution of
capital punishment imposed on these appellants.