RENUKA BAI @ RINKU @ RATAN AND ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 643 · Decided: 31-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN

Judgment (excerpt)

RENUKA BAI @ RINKU @ RA TAN AND ANR. 
A 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
AUGUST 31, 2006 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: 
' 
Ss. 302 read with s.120:B and s.363-Accused committing series of 
offences of kidnapping and murdering children-Convicted by trial court . C 
and sentenced to death-Conviction and sentence affirmed by High Court-
He/d, evidence adduced by prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt 
that accused-appellants were responsible for series of kidnapping and murders 
of children-As regards the sentence, there are no mitigating circumstances 
in favour of appellants-The nature of the crime and the systematic way in 
which each child was kidnapped and killed demonstrates the depravity of D 
the mind of appellants-They had been a menace to society and are not 
lfkelv to be reformed-Conviction and death penalty imposed on them 
C~l'jirmed-Sentencing. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
Ss. 306 and 308-Pardon given to approver-Approver not giving fi1/I 
details of the crime-Public Prosecutor did not take steps to proceed against 
approver-Held, in such circumstances Court itself has inherent power to 
proceed against approver. 
Evidence-Approver's evidence~Evidentiary value of 
The appellant-sisters and their mother used to commit thefts and snatch 
gold chains etc. for their living. They found it convenient to escape from the 
crowd and the police if they had a small child with them at the time of 
E 
F 
· commission of crime. Therefore, all the three along with appellant-R's 
husband, who later turned approver, entered into a conspiracy to kidnap G 
children below five years of age, make use of them at the time of committing 
theft and dispose them of when they were no longer useful. During the period 
June, 1990 to October, 1996 they kidnapped 13 children a.nd killed 9 of them. 
The mother of.the appellants died in the year 1997. The trial court found the 
appellants guilty of 6 murders and· awarded them capital punishment under 
643 
· 
H 
644 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A s.302 read with s.201 IPC. On appeal, the High Court held that prosecution 
could succeed in proving only 5 cases of murder against the appellants; and 
confirmed the conviction and the death penalty. Aggrieved, the two sisters filed 
the present appeal. 
It was contended for the appellants that the evidence of the approver 
B should not have been accepted as it was tainted evidence and there was no 
satisfactory corroboration of the same. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The entire evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly 
C establishes that the approver's evidence was fully corroborated i>y other items 
of evidence and death of the kidnapped children was caused by the appellants. 
The Sessions Judge has dealt with in detail each item of evidence and the 
High Court also re-appreciated each item of evidence. The evidence adduced 
by the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were 
D responsible for series of kidnapping and murders of children and they have 
been rightly found guilty for these offences. The prosecution thus succeeded 
in proving that these appellants have committed series of murders.1654-C-E( 
1.2. It is true that the evidence of the approver is always to be viewed 
with suspicion especially when it is seriously suspected that he is suppresWtg 
E some material facts. Here the approver's evidence was not fully accepted by 
the High Court. High Court was of the view that he had suppressed some 
material facts. The observation made by the High Court was justified. The 
tenor of the evidence given by the approver is to the effect that he was only a 
silent spectator and all these heinous crimes were committed by the appellants 
and their mother. It is difficult to believe that these women alone had 
F committed all the crimes unless there is strong support from the approver. 
(654-F-G( 
1.3. The approver was given pardon under Section 306 of the Cr.P.C. 
and thereafter he was examined as a witness for prosecution under Section 
G 308 of the Cr.P.C. The Code prescribes a procedure for prosecuting the 
approver who gave false evidence or wilfully suppressed anything. (655-A-D( 
1.4. In the instant case, the a11prover was present when many of the 
murders had taken place and it is quite possible that he also must have been 
an active participant and the High Court was justified in saying that the 
H approve~ had not given full details of the cr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.