AMBADAS LAXMAN SHINDE AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2018] 13 S.C.R. 1188 · Decided: 31-10-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1188
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13  S.C.R.
AMBADAS LAXMAN SHINDE AND ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Review Petition (Crl.) Nos. 18-19 of 2011)
In
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 881-882 of 2009)
OCTOBER 31, 2018
[KURIAN JOSEPH, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
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
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:
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
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
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.
[2018] 13  S.C.R. 1188
1188
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1189
Mohd. Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India (2014)
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
(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
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
Kandraj, Ms. Deepa Kulkarni, Advs. for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was passed :
O R D E R
1. On 22 March 2007, a Division Bench of the Bombay High
Court disposed of a reference which was made under Section 366 of
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
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
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
AMBADAS LAXMAN SHINDE AND ORS. v. THE STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1190
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13  S.C.R.
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.
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
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 th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.