Accused's Case Shouldn't Have Been Segregated From Co-Accused As His Role Was Similar: Supreme Court Sets Aside Death Penalty
The Supreme Court set aside the capital punishment awarded to an accused who was convicted in a 2007 murder case, while observing that the accused’s role was similar to the co-accused and his case should not have been segregated to impose death penalty upon him
In 2022, the Bombay High Court convicted the accused under Section 396 of the IPC, awarding him death penalty for his role in a "pre-planned, calculated, cold blooded murder" and dacoity. He was one of five convicted, but while the Division Bench upheld life sentences for the others, it enhanced his punishment to capital punishment on the State's appeal due to the “gruesome, brutal, and diabolic” nature of the murder.
A Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan held, “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 appellantShivkumar 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 appellantShivkumar Ramsundar Saket (Accused No.3) is concerned.”
Senior Advocate Sadhana Jadhav represented the appellant, while Senior Advocates Sudhanshu S. Choudhari and Puneet Jain appeared for the respondent.
The accused submitted that even assuming that he had a role to play in the crime, his role still could not be segregated from the co-accused so as to award him the penalty of death sentence.
The State on the other hand submitted that the prosecution had established a chain of circumstances which led to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused. It was submitted that the High Court had culled out the entire chain of circumstances, which were proved. It was, therefore, submitted that no interference was warranted in the decision.
The Supreme Court stated that both the trial court as well as the High Court correctly appreciated the material on record and came to a conclusion that the accused were guilty of committing the crime.
However, the Court held that the High Court was not justified in imposing the death sentence on the accused when the other co-accused were sentenced to life sentences.
“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,” the Bench held.
The Court remarked, "The learned Trial Judge upon 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."
Consequently, the Court held, “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 awarded by the Trial Court is restored.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Shivkumar Ramsundar Saket v. The State Of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 759)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Sadhana Jadhav; AOR Amit Agrawal; Advocates Bhavesh Seth, Saba Shaikh, Sakshi Jain and Ramesh Kumar Sahu
Respondent: Senior Advocates Sudhanshu S. Choudhari and Puneet Jain; AOR Vatsalya Vigya, Christi Jain and Aaditya Aniruddha Pande; Advocates Gautami Yadav, Pranjal Chapalgaonkar, Mann Arora, Akriti Sharma, Harsh Jain, Om Sudhir Vidyarthi, Chhaya Kirti, Shrirang B. Varma, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Varad Kilor, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Preet S. Phanse and Adarsh Dubey
