The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant judgment in the case of Shivkumar Ramsundar Saket v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal Nos. 806-807 of 2023, and related appeals). This case revolved around a brutal crime involving multiple accused, leading to convictions and sentences, including the imposition of the death penalty by the High Court on one of the accused, Shivkumar Ramsundar Saket (Accused No. 3).
Background of the Case:
Shivkumar Ramsundar Saket and his co-accused were convicted by the Trial Court for their involvement in a serious crime. While the Trial Court found them guilty, it did not consider the case to fall under the “rarest of rare” category, thus not imposing the death penalty on any of the accused, including Shivkumar. However, upon appeal, the High Court of Maharashtra disagreed and sentenced Shivkumar to death. This enhancement of the sentence by the High Court was a key issue under scrutiny in the Supreme Court’s judgment.
Legal Issues:
The legal question before the Supreme Court focused on whether the High Court was justified in imposing the death penalty on Shivkumar Ramsundar Saket, despite the Trial Court’s determination that the case did not fit into the “rarest of rare” category that warrants capital punishment.
1. Contradictions in Testimony: The defence, led by Senior Advocate Ms. Sadhana Jadhav, argued that the evidence presented by key witnesses, such as PW.4 (Sumitkumar Shrishamji Tiwari) and PW.28 (Sau. Suraj Sharad Gundecha), was filled with contradictions. The defence further contended that the recovery of a lady’s watch, which was used as a crucial piece of evidence, could not conclusively connect the accused to the crime as the item was commonly available in the market.
2. Death Penalty: The main focus of the appellant’s argument was the High Court’s decision to enhance the punishment to the death penalty. Ms. Jadhav argued that even if the appellant’s involvement in the crime was accepted, his role could not be segregated from the other accused, all of whom did not receive the death penalty. She asserted that the Trial Court’s decision to not impose the death penalty was well-founded, and the High Court had no valid grounds to reverse that.
Supreme Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, delivered a detailed analysis of the evidence and the legal principles governing the imposition of the death penalty.
1. Conviction Upheld: The Court upheld the conviction of Shivkumar Ramsundar Saket, finding that both the Trial Court and the High Court had correctly appreciated the evidence on record. There was no reason to interfere with the findings regarding the appellant’s guilt.
2. Death Penalty Set Aside: However, the Court found merit in the argument that the High Court had erred in imposing the death penalty. The Court noted that the Trial Court had carefully considered the material and had rightly concluded that the case did not fall into the category of “rarest of rare” that would justify a capital sentence. In its ruling, the Supreme Court held that unless the Trial Court’s decision was found to be “perverse or impossible,” the High Court ought not to have interfered with the decision not to impose the death penalty.
The Supreme Court also emphasized that the role of Shivkumar could not be segregated from the other accused to justify imposing the death penalty solely on him. Therefore, it set aside the High Court’s imposition of capital punishment and restored the original sentence awarded by the Trial Court.
Key Observations by the Court:
– “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.”
– “The case does not fit in the category of ‘rarest of rare cases’.”
In its final order, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by co-accused Balendrasingh Shivmurtisingh Thakur and noted that the appeal related to Rajeshsingh Hariharsingh Thakur had abated due to his death during the proceedings. The sentence of death imposed on Shivkumar Ramsundar Saket was set aside, restoring the sentence originally imposed by the Trial Court. The Court concluded its judgment by disposing of any pending applications.
Case Details:
Appellant: Shivkumar Ramsundar Saket and others
Respondent: State of Maharashtra
Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Counsel for Appellants: Ms. Sadhana Jadhav, Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Mr. Varad Kilor
