Holding

The Supreme Court recalled the judgment of 30 April 2009 in its entirety because the accused were denied a fair hearing, violating natural justice, and the appeals are interlinked.

Summary

Six accused were convicted for murder and related offences; three (1,2,4) received death sentences while the other three (3,5,6) were sentenced to life imprisonment. The State appealed for enhancement of the sentences of 3,5,6, and the Supreme Court bench dismissed the appeals of 1,2,4 and imposed death on 3,5,6. Review petitions filed by all accused were initially dismissed, but were reopened after the Constitution Bench decision in Mohd. Arif. The Court found that notice to 3,5,6 was served after the hearing had begun, they were not represented by counsel, and an amicus curiae was appointed and heard on the same day, depriving them of a fair opportunity to be heard before the State's appeal was decided. Consequently, the judgment of 30 April 2009 awarding death to 3,5,6 was recalled, and because the appeals were interlinked, the entire judgment concerning all six accused was set aside. The review petitions were allowed, the appeals restored for fresh hearing, and the execution of death sentences on 1,2,4 was suspended.

Issues considered

Whether the Supreme Court judgment awarding death sentences to accused No.3, 5 and 6 (and consequently to No.1, 2 and 4) should be recalled on the ground of violation of the right to be heard and other procedural irregularities.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 366
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 307, s. 34, s. 376(2)(g), s. 395, s. 396, s. 397

Subjects

review petitiondeath penaltynatural justiceright to be heardprocedural fairnesscriminal appealamicus curiaeinterlinked appealsrecall of judgmentsuspension of execution

Judgment

1188 [2018] 13
SUPREME COURT S.C.R. 1188
REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.

A AMBADAS LAXMAN SHINDE AND ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Review Petition (Crl.) Nos. 18-19 of 2011)
B In
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 881-882 of 2009)
OCTOBER 31, 2018
[KURIAN JOSEPH, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
C DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Sentence/Sentencing: Accused no.1, 2 and 4 were convicted
for murder and rape and awarded death sentence while accused 3,
5 and 6 were convicted for murder and awarded life imprisonment
– Appeal by accused no.1, 2 and 4 challenging conviction while
D State filed appeal for enhancement of sentence of life imprisonment
on accused 3, 5 and 6 – Two judge bench of this court dismissed
appeals of accused no.1, 2 and 4 and allowed State’s appeal and
passed death sentence against accused 3, 5 and 6 – Review petitions
by accused, dismissed – Reopening of review petitions permitted in
view of Constitution Bench decision in Mohd. Arif case– Held:
E Hearing of appeals had commenced even before service of notice
was effected on the accused – Accused no.3, 5 and 6 were not
represented by counsel – The court appointed amicus curiae and
he was heard on the same day and judgment was reserved – Thus,
accused no.3, 5 and 6 had no opportunity to be heard by the bench
F before the appeals filed by State for enhancement of sentence was
decided – They were 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 –
Judgment awarding death sentence to accused no.3, 5 and 6 must
be recalled – Similarly judgment as regards accused no.1, 2 and 4
G is also recalled as the appeals are interlinked and disposed of by
common judgment and in view of fact that evidence was common
and offence related to the same incident – Thus, judgment is recalled
in its entirety in relation to all the six accused – Penal Code, 1860 –
s.302.
H
1188
AMBADAS LAXMAN SHINDE AND ORS. v. THE STATE OF 1189
MAHARASHTRA

Mohd. Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India (2014) A
9 SCC 737 : [2014] 11 SCR 1009 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 11 SCR 1009 referred to Para 7
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition B
(Criminal) Nos. 18-19 of 2011 [arising out of Judgment and Order dated
30.04.2009 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 881-882 of 2009].
With
R.P.(Crl.) Nos.34-35 of 2010 in Criminal Appeal Nos.1008-1009
of 2007,Crl. MP Nos.7008-09 of 2016 in R.P.(Crl.) Nos.34-35 of 2010 C
in Criminal Appeal Nos.1008-1009 of 2007.
T. Harish Kumar, Rahul Kaushik, Mrs. Geetha Kovilan, Advs.
for the Petitioner.
Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Ms. Suverna, Anoop
D
Kandraj, Ms. Deepa Kulkarni, Advs. for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was passed :
ORDER
1. On 22 March 2007, a Division Bench of the Bombay High
Court disposed of a reference which was made under Section 366 of E
the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 by the 3rd Ad-hoc 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 F
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 G
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
H
1190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.

A 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.
B
3. Criminal Appeals Nos. 1008-09 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).
4. The State of Maharashtra filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 881-882
of 2009 for seeking enhancement of the sentence of life imprisonment
C
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.
D
6. Review Petitions were filed by the accused. Review Petition
Nos.34-35 of 2010 were filed by Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Review
Petition Nos. 18-19 of 2011 were filed by Accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6. The
petitions seeking review were dismissed.
E 7. Following the decision of the Constitution Bench in Mohd.
Arif v Registrar, Supreme Court of India1, 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.
F
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
Petitions filed by Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Execution of the sentence of
G 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
1
H 2014 (9) SCC 737
AMBADAS LAXMAN SHINDE AND ORS. v. THE STATE OF 1191
MAHARASHTRA

served on the accused in jail on 6 December 2008; A
(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”; B

(vi) On 10 December 2008, the following order was passed :
“Since the respondents have not appeared inspite of service of
notice, Mr Sushil Karanjakar, learned counsel, who is appearing
in the connected appeals is appointed as Amicus-Curiae to assist C
in this case to represent the respondents because he is ascertained
with the facts of the case.
Mr. Sushil Karanjakar, learned counsel resumed arguments at
11.20AM and concluded at 2.45PM. Thereafter, Mr. Ravindra
Keshavrao Adsure, learned counsel started his arguments and D
addressed the Court till 3.20PM.
Hearing concluded. Judgment reserved”.
(vii) The appeals filed by Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were dismissed.
The appeals filed by the State were allowed. The sentence of death was
imposed on Accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6; E
(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
F
(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 G
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.
H
1192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.

A 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.
B The judgment of this Court dated 30 April 2009 dismissed their 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
C 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.
D 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;
E
(ii) The judgment dated 30 April 2009 in Criminal Appeal Nos.
1008-09 of 2007 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 881-882 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
F
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
on Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 shall stand suspended pending the disposal
of the appeals.
G
(v) The Registry shall call for the records, if not already called.
(vi) Crl.MP Nos 7008-7009/2016 are disposed of accordingly.

Devika Gujral Review Petitions allowed with directions.
H