Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently set aside death penalty awarded to a security guard for murder of his employer couple during a dacoity bid in 2007. The SC, however, upheld his conviction and five other accused.

The prosecution claimed Saket worked as a guard at the bungalow of trader Ramesh Munot (60) at Ahmednagar. On the day of incident, Munot's son and daughter-in-law had gone to Chandrapur to attend a wedding. Saket, with his five accomplices, conducted a dacoity at Munot's bungalow on December 3, 2007. They tied another guard Sumit Tiwari to a pole. They killed Ramesh Munot and his wife Chitra by stabbing.

The Ahmednagar sessions court sentenced the six accused to life imprisonment on October 21, 2013. In April, 2022, the High Court had upheld the conviction of the accused, but enhanced Saket’s sentence to death penalty.

The bench of Justices B R Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and K V Vishwanathan found the Trial Judge as well as the Judges of the Bombay High Court have correctly appreciated the material on record and come to a conclusion that the appellants are guilty of committing the crime.

"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 bench said.

The court noted the 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’. 

"Therefore, unless the finding recorded by the Trial Judge was found to be perverse or impossible, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the same," the bench said.

In any case, the role played by appellant-Shivkumar Ramsundar Saket (Accused No 3) could not have been segregated to impose death penalty upon him, the bench added.

"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," the bench said.

The counsel for Saket contended the evidence of PW 4- Sumitkumar Shrishamji Tiwari is full of contradictions. She said that the only circumstance which is against the appellant Saket (Accused No 3) is the testimony of Tiwari and PW 28-Sau Suraj Sharad Gundecha and the recovery of a women’s watch.

She said in the evidence of Investigating Officer it is proved that Tiwari had substantially improved his version and as such his testimony could not be believed. She further said the recovery of ladies watch would also not be a circumstance to connect Saket, in as much as the said watch is commonly found in the market.

In any case, the High Court was not justified in imposing death penalty upon appellant Saket. She further submitted that even assuming that 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.

During the hearing, the state counsel said the prosecution has established a chain of circumstances which leads to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused. He submitted that the judges of the High Court have culled out the entire chain of circumstances, which are proved. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the present appeals.

The counsel for Thakur submitted that the evidence of PW 4-Sumitkumar Shrishamji Tiwari does not support the prosecution case. He claimed that the identification parade is totally farcical and the conviction only on the basis of such an identification parade would not be permissible.

The court upheld the conviction of the accused and modified the sentence of death penalty.

The court, however, dismissed the criminal appeal by another accused who was awarded life term in the case. In view of the death of appellant, Rajeshsingh Hariharsingh Thakur, on September 24, 2023, the court disposed his appeal as abated.