The Supreme Court docket bench of Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Vishwanathan held that the trial choose in addition to the Bombay Excessive Court docket bench accurately understood the fabric on document and got here to the conclusion that the appellant was responsible. (doc)
The courtroom upheld the defendant’s guilt and commuted the sentence to loss of life
The Supreme Court docket just lately quashed the loss of life sentence imposed by a safety guard for the 2007 murders of his employer and his spouse throughout a prank bid.
The prosecution claimed that Saket labored as a guard on the bungalow of businessman Ramesh Munot (60) in Ahmednagar. On the day of the incident, Munot’s son and daughter-in-law went to Chandrapur to attend a marriage. On December 3, 2007, Saket and 5 of his accomplices carried out a theft at Munot’s bungalow. They stabbed to loss of life Ramesh Munot and his spouse Chitra.
The Ahmednagar Periods Court docket on October 21, 2013 sentenced the six accused to life imprisonment.
SC’s findings
The Supreme Court docket bench of Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Vishwanathan held that the trial choose in addition to the Bombay Excessive Court docket bench accurately understood the fabric on document and got here to the conclusion that the appellant was responsible.
“As far as the loss of life penalty is imposed on the appellant Shivkumar Ramsundar Saket (accused No. 3), we’re of the view that the sentence of loss of life imposed by the Excessive Court docket is unjustified,” the bench mentioned.
The courtroom famous that the presiding choose, after contemplating the knowledge on document, got here to the thought-about conclusion that the case didn’t fall into the class of “uncommon of uncommon circumstances”.
“Subsequently, until the findings recorded by the trial choose are thought-about to be perverse or not possible, the Excessive Court docket mustn’t intervene therewith,” the bench mentioned.
The bench added that in any case, the function performed by the appellant Shivkumar Ramsundar Saket (accused no. 3) can’t be remoted to condemn him to loss of life.
“In view of the matter, whereas upholding the guilt of the appellant Shivkumar Ramsundar Saket (accused no. 3), we’re inclined to partially permit the enchantment of the appellant Shivkumar Ramsundar Saket (accused no. 3),” the bench mentioned.
Counsel for Saket submitted that the proof of PW 4-Sumitkumar Shrishamji Tiwari was filled with contradictions. She mentioned that the one adversarial circumstances towards the appellant Saket (accused No. 3) have been the testimony of Tiwari and PW 28-Sau Suraj Sharad Gundecha and the restoration of a girls watch.
She mentioned the investigating officer’s proof confirmed that Tiwari had considerably improved his model and subsequently his testimony couldn’t be relied upon. She additional mentioned that the recycling of girls’s watches may even not be a case of connecting Saket because the watches are generally accessible out there.
In any occasion, the Excessive Court docket was not justified in imposing the loss of life penalty on appellant Sackett. She additional famous that even assuming Sackett performed a task within the crime, his function nonetheless can’t be separated from that of the opposite defendants to condemn him to loss of life.
On the listening to, state attorneys mentioned prosecutors had established a sequence of circumstances that led to no conclusion apart from the defendant’s guilt. He famous that the Excessive Court docket choose had dominated out all confirmed circumstances. Subsequently, there isn’t any cause for interference within the current enchantment.
Thakur’s lawyer mentioned the proof of officer No. 4 Sumitkumar Shrishamji Tiwari didn’t assist the prosecution’s case. He claimed that identification parades have been an entire farce and that such identification parades alone weren’t allowed to convict individuals.
The courtroom upheld the defendant’s responsible verdict and commuted the loss of life sentence.
Nonetheless, the courtroom rejected the prison enchantment of one other defendant who was sentenced to life imprisonment. In view of the loss of life of the appellant Rajeshsingh Hariharsingh Thakur on September 24, 2023, the courtroom held that his enchantment was abated.
