AMBADAS LAXMAN SHINDE vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

1    REPORTABLE                 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (CRL) NOS. 18­19 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 881­882 OF 2009 AMBADAS LAXMAN SHINDE AND ORS                         .....PETITIONERS        Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                      .....RESPONDENT WITH REVIEW PETITION (CRL) NOS. 34­35 OF 2010 in CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1008­1009 OF 2007 AND WITH CRL. MP. NOS. 7008­09 OF 2016 in  REVIEW PETITION (CRL) NOS. 34­35 OF 2010 in CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1008­1009 OF 2007 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by   O R D E R  SHASHI SAREEN Date: 2018.11.19 10:15:19 IST Reason: 2 1 On 22 March 2007, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court disposed of a reference which was made under Section 366 of the rd Code   of   Criminal   Procedure   1973   by   the   3   Ad­hoc   Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik.  2 The High Court upheld the conviction of and the sentence of death   imposed   on   Accused   Nos.   1,   2   and   4.   While   upholding   the   conviction of Accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6, the High Court sentenced them to imprisonment for life. All the six accused were convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. In addition, Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were convicted of the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(g) for which they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. The conviction of Accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6 under Section 376 (2)(g)   was   set   aside   by   the   High   Court.   All   the   Accused   were convicted of offences under:  (i)   Section   307   read   with   Section   34   for   which   they   have   been sentenced to suffer five years imprisonment;  (ii) Section 397 read with Section 395 for which they have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years; and (iii) Section 396 for which they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment   for ten years.  3 Criminal Appeals Nos. 1008­09 of 2007 were filed before this Court by Accused No. 1(Ankush Maruti Shinde), Accused No. 2 (Rajya Appa Shinde) and Accused No. 4 (Raju Mhasu Shinde). 3 4 The State of Maharashtra filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 881­882 of 2009 for seeking enhancement of the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the High Court on Accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6.  5 By a judgment dated 30 April 2009, a two judge Bench of this Court dismissed the appeals filed by Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4. While allowing   the   appeals   filed   by   the   State,   this   Court   sentenced Accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6 to suffer the sentence of death.  6 Review Petitions were filed by the accused. Review Petition Nos.34­35 of 2010 were filed by Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Review Petition Nos. 18­19 of 2011 were filed by Accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6. The petitions seeking review were dismissed. 7 Following the decision of the Constitution Bench in Mohd. Arif 1 v   Registrar,   Supreme   Court   of   India ,   criminal   miscellaneous petitions have been filed for reopening the review petitions. In terms   of   the   judgment   of   the   Constitution   Bench,   we   permit   the reopening   of   the   review   petitions.   They   have   been   listed   for hearing before this Bench in open court.  8 Certain   salient   features   about   the   proceedings   which   took place before this Court in the course of the hearing need to be set out: (i) On   3   August   2007,   leave   was   granted   in   the   Special   Leave 1 2014 (9) SCC 737 4 Petitions filed by Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Execution of the sentence of death was stayed during the pendency of the appeals; (ii) On 21 November 2008, notice was issued in the appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra. The appeals by the State were tagged with the criminal appeals filed by the accused; (iii)The notice issued by this Court on 21 November 2008 was served on the accused in jail on 6 December 2008;  (iv)The hearing of the appeals had commenced on 4 December 2008 even before service of notice was effected; (v) The order sheet dated 4 December 2008 indicates that all the appeals were heard in part and were directed to be listed on 10 December 2008 “for continuation of arguments”;  (vi) On 10 December 2008, the following order was passed : 

(vii) The   appeals   filed   by   Accused   Nos.   1,   2   and   4   were 5 dismissed.   The   appeals   filed   by   the   State   were   allowed.   The sentence of death was imposed on Accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6;  (viii)The   three   accused   –   Accused   Nos.   3,   5   and   6   were   not represented by Counsel; (ix)The Court appointed  Amicus Curiae  on 10 December 2008. Counsel was heard on the same day and judgment was reserved; and (x) Eventually, by the judgment of this Court, Accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6 were sentenced to death and the appeals of the State of Maharashtra were allowed. The appeals filed by Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were dismissed.  9 From the above narration of facts, it is evident that Accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6 had no opportunity to be heard by the Bench, before the appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra for enhancement of sentence were decided. They have been deprived of an opportunity of engaging counsel and of urging such submissions as they may have been advised to urge in defence to the appeals filed by the State for enhancement.  10 In   the   circumstances,   we   are   clearly   of   the   view   that   the judgment and order of this Court dated 30 April 2009 awarding the death sentence to Accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6 must be recalled. We order accordingly. 11 We are then left with the issue of Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4. The   judgment   of   this   Court   dated   30   April   2009   dismissed   their 6 appeals, while confirming the sentence of death imposed by the High Court. In view of our conclusion that the judgment imposing the sentence of death on Accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6 must be recalled, both fairness and propriety require that the judgment should similarly be recalled as regards Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4. In coming to this conclusion, we take note of the fact that the judgment of this Court dated 30 April 2009 records that :  “these   appeals   are   interlinked   and   are disposed   of   by   this   common   judgment” (Emphasis supplied) The   evidence   is   common   and   the   offences   relate   to   the   same incident.   Hence,   it   is   both   appropriate   and   proper   that   the judgment dated 30 April 2009 should be recalled in its entirety, in relation to all the six accused.    12 We accordingly order and direct that : (i) The   orders   passed   by   this   Court   dismissing   the   Review Petitions   are   recalled.   The   Review   Petitions   are,   in consequence, allowed;  (ii) The judgment dated 30 April 2009 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1008­ 09   of   2007   and   Criminal   Appeal   Nos.   881­882   of   2009   is recalled. The criminal appeals are restored to the file of this Court and shall be placed before the appropriate Bench for hearing afresh; (iii) Permission is granted to Accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6 to file appeals   against   the   judgment   of   the   High   Court   convicting them, if so advised; and (iv) Execution of the sentence of death imposed by the High Court 7 on Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 shall stand suspended pending the disposal of the appeals.   (v) The   Registry   shall   call   for   the   records,   if   not   already called.   (vi) Crl.MP Nos 7008­7009/2016 are disposed of accordingly.               ...............................J      [KURIAN JOSEPH]   .................................J       [A M KHANWILKAR] .................................J                      [Dr DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD] New Delhi; October 31, 2018. 8 ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.3 SECTION II-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS R.P.(Crl.) No. 18-19/2011 In Crl.A. No. 881-882/2009 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30-04-2009 in Crl.A. No. No. 882/2009 30-04-2009 in Crl.A. No. No. 881/2009 passed by the Supreme Court Of India) AMBADAS LAXMAN SHINDE & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s) (TO GO BEFORE THREE HONBLE JUDGES [ DEATH CASE ]) WITH R.P.(Crl.) No. 34-35/2010 In Crl.A. No. 1008-1009/2007 (II-A) (FOR [Re-opening of the Review Petition] ON IA 7008-7009/2016) Date : 31-10-2018 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD For Petitioner(s) Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudry, Adv. Mr. Siddharth, Adv. Mr. S.Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. K.Paarivendhan, Adv. Ms. Payushi Roy, Adv. Mr. Willian Vinoth Kumar, Adv. Mr. Raja Rajan, Adv. Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR Mr. Rahul Kaushik, AOR Mrs. Geetha Kovilan, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR Ms. Suverna, Adv. Mr. Anoop Kandraj, Adv. Ms. Deepa Kulkarni, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The   orders   passed   by   this   Court   dismissing   the   Review Petitions are recalled. The Review Petitions are, in consequence, 9 allowed;  i) The judgment dated 30 April 2009 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1008­09 of 2007 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 881­882 of 2009 is recalled. The criminal appeals are restored to the file of this Court and shall be placed before the appropriate Bench for hearing afresh; ii) Permission is granted to Accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6 to file   appeals   against   the   judgment   of   the   High   Court convicting them, if so advised; and iii) Execution of the sentence of death imposed by the High Court   on   Accused   Nos.   1,   2   and   4   shall   stand   suspended pending the disposal of the appeals.   iv) The Registry shall call for the records, if not already called.   v) Crl.MP Nos 7008­7009/2016 are disposed of accordingly.  (SHASHI SAREEN)                                 (RENU DIWAN) AR CUM PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Signed reportable order is placed on the file)