Bombay HC Replaces Keenan Santos Murder Convict’s Natural-Life Term With 20 Years Without Statutory Remission, While Acquitting 2 Co-Accused of Murder

On 20 October 2011, after an altercation outside a restaurant in Mumbai, four accused left the scene and returned armed.

Accused No. 1 stabbed Keenan Santos, who died shortly after reaching hospital; accused No. 2 stabbed Ruben Fernandez, who died later.

The prosecution also alleged that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had molested PW-1 before the altercation.

The Sessions Court convicted all four accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, among other offences, and sentenced them to imprisonment for the remainder of their lives.

Section 302 IPC punishes murder; Section 34 imposes joint liability where a criminal act is done in furtherance of a common intention shared by the participants.

Common intention may be inferred from the circumstances and conduct, but must be established beyond reasonable doubt; mere presence or participation in a separate assault does not, without more, establish a shared intention to murder

Exception 4 to Section 300 applies only where the homicide is committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion, without undue advantage or cruel or unusual conduct, and in a fight involving the person killed; all its ingredients must be satisfied (Kikar Singh v. State of Rajasthan; Surain Singh v. State of Punjab)

An FIR need not contain every detail of the occurrence, and delay in recording a witness’s statement is not by itself fatal if adequately explained and the evidence is otherwise reliable

A trial court may impose life imprisonment but cannot impose a special-category sentence requiring imprisonment for the remainder of natural life; the High Court may impose a term exceeding 14 years without statutory remission, subject to constitutional powers of remission (Naval Kishore v. State of Punjab; Union of India v. V. Sriharan)

The Court accepted PW-1’s account of the molestation, corroborated by PW-18 and by other evidence concerning the girls’ immediate reaction and the contemporaneous station-diary entry.

It held that the omission from the FIR and the delay in recording PW-1’s statement did not discredit the evidence in the circumstances

The Court rejected Exception 4 for accused No. 1: the accused had left after the initial confrontation, threatened to return, and came back armed after an interval, demonstrating premeditation and a deliberate armed attack rather than a sudden fight

As to accused Nos. 3 and 4, the eyewitness accounts differed on whether they assaulted either deceased; the evidence established their assault on PW-17 and Benjamin, but did not establish that they shared the intention to murder.

Their convictions for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 therefore could not stand, although their convictions under Section 323 were maintained

The Court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose imprisonment for the remainder of natural life, but considered a 20-year term without statutory remission appropriate for accused No. 1

Accused No. 1’s conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was maintained, but his sentence was altered to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years without statutory remission.

Accused Nos. 3 and 4 were acquitted of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC; their remaining sentences were confirmed.

The Court disposed of the pending interim applications