Shivkumar Ramsundar Saket vs The State Of Maharashtra

2024 INSC 759 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 806-807 OF 2023

SHIVKUMAR RAMSUNDAR SAKET …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 986 OF 2023

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2943 OF 2023

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. We have heard Ms. Sadhana Jadhav, learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the appellant in Criminal Appeal

Nos.806-807 of 2023 and Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari,

learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad Criminal Appeal No. 986 of 2023.

Date: 2024.10.05 14:38:49 IST Reason:

1

2. We have also heard Mr. Shrirang B. Varma along with

Mr. Varad Kilor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent-State of Maharashtra.

3. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, learned counsel appearing for

the respondent submits that he has been informed by the jail

authorities that appellant-Rajeshsingh Hariharsingh Thakur

in Criminal Appeal No. 2943 of 2023 has died on 24.09.2023.

In support of the same, he handed over a document received

from the jail authorities, which is taken on record.

4. Ms. Jadhav submits that the evidence of PW.4-

Sumitkumar Shrishamji Tiwari is full of contradictions. She

submits that the only circumstance which is against the

appellant-Shivkumar Ramsundar Saket (Accused No.3) is the

testimony of PW.4-Sumitkumar Shrishamji Tiwari and

PW.28-Sau. Suraj Sharad Gundecha and the recovery of a

ladies watch.

5. Ms. Jadhav further submits that in the evidence of

Investigating Officer it is proved that PW.4-Sumitkumar

Shrishamji Tiwari had substantially improved his version and

as such his testimony could not be believed. She further

2 submits that the recovery of ladies watch would also not be a

circumstance to connect the appellant-Shivkumar

Ramsundar Saket (Accused No.3), inasmuch as the said

watch is commonly found in the market.

6. Ms. Jadhav, in the alternative, submits that in any case

the learned High Court was not justified in imposing death

penalty upon appellant-Shivkumar Ramsundar Saket. She

further submits that even assuming that appellant-

Shivkumar Ramsundar Saket had a role to play in the crime

still his role could not be segregated from the other accused

so as to award him the penalty of death sentence.

7. Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for appellant-Balendrasingh Shivmurtisingh

Thakur (Accused No.6) in Criminal Appeal No. 986 of 2023

submits that the evidence of PW.4-Sumitkumar Shrishamji

Tiwari does not support the prosecution case. He submits

that the identification parade is totally farcical and the

conviction only on the basis of such an identification parade

would not be permissible.

3

8. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, on the contrary, submits that

the prosecution has established a chain of circumstances

which leads to no other conclusion than the guilt of the

accused. He submits that the learned Judges of the High

Court have culled out the entire chain of circumstances,

which are proved. It is, therefore, submitted that no

interference is warranted in the present appeals.

9. We have scrutinized the material on record.

10. We find that the learned Trial Judge as well as the

learned Judges of the High Court have correctly appreciated

the material on record and come to a conclusion that the

appellants are guilty of committing the crime.

11. We notice no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned

judgment and order of the learned Trial Judge as well as the

learned High Court insofar as the aspect of conviction is

concerned.

12. However, insofar as the award of capital punishment

imposed upon appellant-Shivkumar Ramsundar Saket

(Accused No.3) is concerned, we find that the High Court was

not justified in imposing it. The learned Trial Judge upon

4 consideration of the material placed on record had come to a

considered conclusion that the present case does not fit in

the category of ‘rarest of rare cases’. Therefore, unless the

finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge was found to be

perverse or impossible, the High Court ought not to have

interfered with the same. In any case, the role played by

appellant-Shivkumar Ramsundar Saket (Accused No. 3) is

similar with all the other accused and the case of appellant-

Shivkumar Ramsundar Saket (Accused No.3) could not have

been segregated to impose death penalty upon him. In that

view of the matter, while sustaining the conviction of

appellant-Shivkumar Ramsundar Saket (Accused No.3), we

are inclined to partly allow the appeal insofar as appellant-

Shivkumar Ramsundar Saket (Accused No.3) is concerned.

13. In the result, we pass the following order:

(i) Criminal Appeal No. 986 of 2023 is dismissed;

(ii) Criminal Appeal Nos.806-807 of 2023 are partly

allowed. The sentence of death imposed by the High

Court upon appellant-Shivkumar Ramsundar Saket

(Accused No.3) is set aside and the sentence which is

5 awarded by the Trial Court is restored; and

(iii) In view of the death of appellant-Rajeshsingh

Hariharsingh Thakur, Criminal Appeal No.2943 of

2023 is disposed of as abated.

14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

..............................J. (B.R. GAVAI)

............................................J. (PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)

..............................J. (K.V. VISWANATHAN)

NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 26, 2024.

6