SUDAM ALIAS RAHUL KUMAR KANIRAM JADHAV V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

By – Mudit Mohan Sharma

In The Supreme Court Of India

NAME OF THE CASESUDAM ALIAS RAHUL KUMAR KANIRAM JADHAV V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA  
CITATIONCriminal Appeal Nos. 185-186 of 2011  
DATE OF THE CASE1 OCT, 2019
APPELLANTSUDAM ALIAS RAHUL KUMAR KANIRAM JADHAV
RESPONDENTSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA  
JUDGE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.     and  J. Chelameswar
STATUTES/ CONSTITUTION  INVOLVEDINDIAN PENAL CODE
IMPORTANT SECTION /ARTICLESIPC Section 201 & Section 302

ABSTRACT

On the morning of 21.08.2007, the bodies of four children were discovered floating among the village lake (known as Juna Pani talaq) among the village of Rupla Naik Tanda, District Nanded, Maharashtra. A child aged six years alongside a daughter aged 10 years were found tied along, and a daughter aged 10 months alongside a child of 2 to four years, were found tied individually. The body of an associate degree unidentified lady with a mangalsutra on her neck was additionally afterwards discovered below a close-by boulder by the police. The deceased persons were eventually known as Anita, the female offspring of 1 Maroti Madavi, {the 2|the 2} kids born to her from her initial husband and therefore the two kids born to her from the Petitioner.

The Petitioner was found by the police on 24.08.2007, however is speculated to have absconded afterwards, and was inactive solely on 22.09.2007. The investigation disclosed that the deceased Anita had been living with the Petitioner as his spouse and had returned to understand concerning his wedding with PW-6 Muktabai. The deceased was critical of this relationship, which led to a significant dispute amongst the 3 of them. The Petitioner allegedly divorced PW-6, and united to pay her a total of Rs. 15,000/-, that the deceased Anita secure in grips. Thereafter, PW-6 befall her village, and therefore the suitor., the reduce Anita and her four kids approach to the vill of Juna Pani, where, as an outcome of the assist connection together with his splice woman, the suitor perished her and so the four kids by strangulating them.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The brief facts concerning this case are as follows:  On the morning of 21.08.2007, the bodies of 4 youngsters were discovered floating within the village pool (known as Juna Pani talav) within the village of Rupla Naik Tanda, District Nanded, Maharashtra. A youngster aged six years in conjunction with a daughter aged 10 years were found tied along, and a daughter aged 10 months in conjunction with a youngster of 2 to four years, were found tied individually. The body of an unidentified lady with a mangalsutra on her neck was conjointly afterwards discovered below a close-by boulder by the police.

The deceased persons were eventually known as Anita, the girl of 1 Maroti Madavi, {the 2|the 2} youngsters born to her from her 1st husband and therefore the two youngsters born to her from the Petitioner. The Petitioner was found by the police on 24.08.2007, however is purported to have absconded afterwards, and was in remission solely on 22.09.2007.  The investigation discovered that the deceased Anita had been living with the Petitioner as his spouse and had return to grasp regarding his wedding with PW-6 Muktabai. The deceased was critical of this relationship, which led to a significant dispute amongst the 3 of them.

The Petitioner allegedly divorced PW-6 and agrees to pay her a total of Rs. 15,000/-, that the deceased Anita secure in grips. Thereafter, PW-6 visited her village, and therefore the Petitioner, the deceased Anita, and her four youngsters came to the village of Juna Pani, where, due to the strained relationship along with his spouse, the Petitioner murdered her and therefore the four youngsters by strangulating them. The principal proof place forth by the prosecution against the Petitioner includes the motive of the defendant, the proof place forth by PW-8 Prahlad that the deceased was last seen with the Petitioner, that of PW-6 Muktabai and PW-9 Ishwar with relation to the extra-judicial confessions created to them by the Petitioner.

FACT OF THE CASE

The principal proof place forth by the prosecution against the Petitioner includes the motive of the defendant, the proof place forth by PW-8 Prahlad that the deceased was last seen with the Petitioner, that of PW-6 Muktabai and PW-9 Ishwar with relevance to the extra-judicial confessions created to them by the Petitioner. The court condemned the Petitioner for the offenses declared above on the idea of the last seen circumstance as a kick out to by PW-8; the motive of the defendant as kick out to by PW-5, the mother of the deceased Anita; the extra-judicial confession created by the Petitioner to PW-9 Ishwar; the fact that the Petitioner had absconded once the commission of the offence; and his failure to clarify the circumstances resulting in the bloody deaths of the deceased.

The higher court, as well as the sentence of death, holding that the case at hand falls into the class of h court confirmed the conviction and sentence as awarded by the rarest of rare cases warranting penalization with death. This Court, in appeal, confirmed constantly. Review Petition (Cri.) No. D19901 of 2012 filed by the Petitioner against the higher than judgment and order of this Court was pink-slipped by circulation vide order dated 26.07.2012.

A criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by the Petitioner seeking reopening of this review petition, putting reliance on the choice of this Court in Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq vs. Registrar, Supreme Court of Bharat, (2014) nine SCC 737, that command that in light of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, review petitions arising out of appeals wherever the death sentence had been Affirmed were needed to be detected orally by a 3-Judge Bench, and specifically allowable the reopening of review petitions all told cases wherever review petitions had been pink-slipped by circulation. This Court after recalled the order dated 26.07.2012 passed in Review Petition No. D19901/2012 and allowable the re-hearing of such petition in open Court. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, Ms Nitya Ramak.

ISSUE RAISED BEFORE THE COURT

This Court endorses the verdict under Section 201, IPC and the death verdict under Section 302, IPC foisted upon the suitor.

ARGUMENT FROM THE APPELLANT SIDE

A child aged six years beside a female descendant aged 10 years were found tied along, and a female descendant aged 10 months beside a child of 2 to four years, were found tied individually. The body of an Associate in Nursing unidentified lady with a mangalsutra on her neck was additionally later discovered below a close-by boulder by the police. The deceased persons were eventually known as Anita, the girl of 1 Maroti Madavi, {the 2|the 2} youngsters born to her from her 1st husband and therefore the two youngsters born to her from the Petitioner.

The Petitioner was found by the police on 24.08.2007, however is purported to have absconded later, and was in remission solely on 22.09.2007.  3. The investigation discovered that the deceased Anita had been living with the Petitioner as his married woman and had returned to understand regarding his wedding with PW-6 Muktabai. The deceased was in opposition to this relationship, which led to a significant dispute amongst the 3 of them. The Petitioner allegedly divorced PW-6 and agrees to pay her a total of Rs. 15,000/-, that the deceased Anita secure in-tuned.

Thereafter, PW-6 visited her village, and therefore the Petitioner, the deceased Anita, and her four youngsters came to the village of Juna Pani, where, owing to the strained relationship along with his married person, the Petitioner dead her and therefore the four youngsters by strangulating them. The principal proof place forth by the prosecution against the Petitioner includes the motive of the defendant, the proof place forth by PW-8 Prahlad that the deceased was last seen with the Petitioner, which of PW-6 Muktabai and PW-9 Ishwar with relation to the extra-judicial confessions created to them by the Petitioner.

ARGUMENT FROM THE RESPONDENT SIDE

The Respondent, i.e. the State of Maharashtra, Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, on the opposite hand, argued in favor of the judgments rendered by the Courts. especially, he stressed that although a part of the testimony of PW-6 had been misread by the Courts, her proof against the Petitioner remained undismayed on alternative aspects, like motive, since she had kicked out that the Petitioner had admitted to her that he had been harassing Anita.

He conjointly highlighted that as per the Post Mortem Report (Exh. P-43) of the deceased Anita, as spoken to by the examining doctor PW-4, the evidence of her death was physiological state because of strangling, and PW-4 had specifically denied the chance of self-strangulation.  8.1 On the side of sentencing, he argued that in light of the menacing display to society, although the corporal punishment was to be commuted, a minimum necessary sentence of thirty years should be obligatory upon the Petitioner. 

we’ve got perused the record of the case once hearing the learned Counsel on either facet.  At the commencement, it’s necessary to notice that the whole case of the prosecution is constructed upon indirect evidence. As already mentioned above, this Court, in appeal, thoroughbred the findings of the Courts below relating to the conviction of the Petitioner. For the explanations already noted on top of, we tend to cannot turn over into the submissions of either party that pertain to the appreciation of proof afresh. However, we tend to regard it acceptable to in brief talk to the proof on record, i.e. the circumstance of the Petitioner being last seen with the deceased as a kick out by PW-8, the additional judicial confessions created to PWs six and nine, and also the motive of the Petitioner.

RELATED PROVISIONS

The Court upheld the sentence beneath Section 201

knowing or having reason to believe that an offense has been committed, causes any proof of the commission of that offense to disappear, with the intention of screening the wrongdoer from the legal penalty, or therewith intention offers any info respecting the offense that he is aware of or believes to be false.

IPC AND THEREFORE THE DEATH SENTENCE BELOW SECTION 302

The unlawful killing of a personality’s being with an evil intention by another soul is understood as murder. Legal Provisions of Section 302 of Indian penal code, 1860. Section 302 is one of the foremost vital sections of the Indian legal code. The section provides a penalty for the offense of Murder. Section 302 states that Whoever commits murder shall be censured with death or imprisonment for all times, and shall even be at risk of fine.”In alternative words, the Indian penal code prescribes solely 2 types of penalty, death sentence, and imprisonment for all times, out of that one shall be obligatory on the suspect if found guilty of the crime and shall even be chargeable for fines if the court, therefore, deems necessary. 

ARTICLE 137

 Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court Subject to the provisions of any law created by Parliament or any rules created beneath Article 145, the Supreme Court shall have the power to review any judgment pronounced or order created by it.

JUDGEMENT

Crucially, this Court, in appeal, additionally relied upon the deposition of PW-6 with relevance the extra-judicial confession created to her, since she boots out in her examination-in-chief that the Petitioner had confessed to her over a telecommunication decision that he had died the deceased. However, the Court omitted to understand that PW-6 had admitted in her interrogation that the Petitioner had not to her that he had died the deceased, that really was a reason for the court to not consider her testimony. Thus, we discover substance within the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that this Court committed a slip-up apparent on the face of the record in putting reliance upon the additional judicial confession allegedly created by the Petitioner before PW-6, by noting that such proof had been relied upon by the Courts below, once really it had been justifiedly rejected by the court.

This Court, in appeal, thoroughbred the findings of the Courts below concerning the conviction of the Petitioner. For the explanations already noted higher than, we tend to cannot turn over into the submissions of either party that pertain to the appreciation of proof afresh. However, we tend to take for it applicable to shortly seek advice from the proof on record, i.e. the circumstance of the Petitioner being last seen with the deceased as boot out by PW-8, the additional judicial confessions created to PWs 6 and nine, and therefore the motive of the Petitioner.

The “last seen” circumstance is spoken to by PW-8 Prahlad, who boot out that on 19.08.2007, once he was at his house, the Petitioner beside his married woman and 4 kids came to his house and asked for water, and added that although he requested the Petitioner to remain back, the Petitioner left along with his family. “The Court additionally relied on Ramesh vs. the State of Rajasthan (supra) and Ram Deo Prasad vs. State of the province, (2013) 7 SCC 725, that follow Bariyar (supra) during this respect, and remarked Sushil Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2014) 4 SCC 317, Kalu Khan vs. the State of Rajasthan, (2015) sixteen SCC 492 and Sebastian @ Chevithiyan vs. the State of Kerala, (2010) 1 SCC 58, wherever an analogous position has been adopted”.

In Md. Mannan (supra), this Court thoroughbred the proposition that the standard of proof could be a relevant circumstance within the sentencing analysis, bearing on the subsequent observations of this Court in Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar vs. the State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498: At this stage, Bachan Singh [(1980) 2 SCC 684: 1980 SCC (Cri) 580] informs the content of the sentencing hearing. The court should play a proactive role to record all relevant info at this stage. A number of the data concerning crime is culled out from the section before the sentencing hearing. This info would come with aspects concerning the character, motive, and impact of crime, guiltiness of convict, etc.

Quality of proof adduced is additionally a relevant issue. as an example, the extent of reliance on evidence or kid witness plays a crucial role within the sentencing analysis. However, what’s painfully lacking, in most capital sentencing cases, is info concerning the characteristics and socio-economic background of the wrongdoer. This issue was additionally raised within the 48th Report of the Law Commission. In light of the higher than discussion, we discover it applicable to determine, within the exercise of our review jurisdiction, whether or not there’s an inexpensive likelihood that this Court, in appeal, on the strength of the proof on record because it stands, while not the errors apparent on the face of the record, would have over that the balance of intensifying and mitigating circumstances lies in favour of protective the Petitioner’s life.

“Such likelihood would be comfortable to line aside from the sentence of death thoroughbred by this Court, in light of the doctrine of prudence, that extremely solely reflects the dictum of this Court in Bachan Singh (supra) that the Court should confine mind whereas granting the penalty of death that the choice choice” i.e. imposition of imprisonment, should be unquestionably foreclosed. we tend to build it clear that we tend to don’t want to come in into an appreciation of the irritating and mitigating circumstances relied upon by the Courts till this stage to award the death sentence to the Petitioner. However, before continuing additional, we might prefer to shortly return the sentencing assessment already done by this Court in charm. whereas inbound at the conclusion that the moment case fell into the class of the rarest of rare.

CONCLUSION 

Now we proceed to contemplate whether or not the case in hand falls within the class of rare of the rarest case. The appellant had chosen to kill the girl with whom he lived as husband and woman, a lady who was in deep love with him and willing to pay Rs.15,000/- to PW.6, Muktabai, to save lots of the link. Appellant had not solely killed the {two|the 2} youngsters of the deceased who were born from the primary husband however additionally killed his own two youngsters. He projected himself to be single and altered his name to dupe a lady and really succeeded in marrying her.

However, once the reality came to light, he killed 5 persons. the way within which the crime has been committed clearly shows it to be measured and purposeful. It appears that every one of the four youngsters and also the girl was brought close to the pool in a planned manner, strangulated to death, and dead bodies of the kids thrown within the pool to hide the crime. He not solely killed Anita however crushed her head to avoid identification. Killing four youngsters, ligature the dead bodies in bundles of 2 every, and throwing them within the pool wouldn’t are doable, had the appellant not meticulously planned the murders.

It shows that the crime has been committed in an exceedingly beastly, extraordinarily brutal, barbaric, and grotesque manner. it’s resulted in intense and extreme ire of the community and aghast the collective conscience of the society. we tend the square measure of the opinion that the appellant may be a menace to the society who can not be reformed. Lesser penalization in our opinion shall be fraught with danger because it might expose the society to peril yet again at the hands of the appellant. we tend the square measure of the opinion that the case in hand falls within the class of the rarest of the rare cases and also the court failed to err in grant the death sentence and also the court confirming identical. within the result, we tend to don’t realize any advantage in these appeals and also the same square measure pink-slipped consequently.

REFRENCES