SUDAM @ RAHUL KANIRAM JADHAV versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2019] 14 S.C.R. 943 · Decided: 01-10-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
943
SUDAM @ RAHUL KANIRAM JADHAV
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Review Petition (Crl.) Nos.401-402 of 2012)
In
(Criminal Appeal Nos.185-186 of 2011)
OCTOBER 01, 2019
[N.V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Review Jurisdiction: Scope of review in criminal proceedings
– Held: In criminal proceedings, the scope of review jurisdiction of
Supreme Court is guided by Art.137 of the Constitution as well as
Or.XL r.10 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, which permit the Court
to correct miscarriage of justice caused by an error apparent on
the face of the record – Supreme Court cannot re-appreciate evidence
in its entirety in the exercise of its review jurisdiction.
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 – Circumstantial evidence –
Conviction by courts below and upheld by Supreme Court – Review
petition – Held: There is no ground for interference with any finding
of the Courts with respect to the appreciation of the testimony relating
to the “last seen” circumstance, the extra judicial confession and
the motive of the petitioner – Chain of circumstances established
the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.
Sentence/Sentencing: Death sentence – Sentencing in case
of circumstantial evidence – Though it may be a relevant
consideration in sentencing that the evidence in a given case is
circumstantial in nature, there is no bar on the award of the death
sentence in cases based upon such evidence – In such a situation,
it is upto the Court to determine whether the accused may be
sentenced to death upon the strength of circumstantial evidence,
given the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case, while
assessing all the relevant aggravating circumstances of the crime
and mitigating circumstances of the accused.
 [2019] 14 S.C.R. 943
     943
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
944
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
Sentence/Sentencing: Death sentence – Commutation of
sentence, prayed – Held: While arriving at the conclusion that the
instant case fell into the category of the rarest of rare cases, the
Court took into account the premeditated nature of the crime, and
its brutal and barbaric nature, observing that the same was sufficient
to shock the collective conscience of the society – The Court also
opined that the Petitioner was a menace to society and could not be
reformed, and that lesser punishment would expose society to peril
at his hands – However, the nature of the circumstantial evidence in
this case amounts to a mitigating circumstance significant enough
to tilt the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in
the Petitioner’s favour – Moreover, it is also possible that the incorrect
observations pertaining to deceased’s facial injuries further led
the Court to conclude in favour of imposing the death sentence on
the Petitioner – Thus, there was a reasonable probability that this
Court would have set aside the sentence of death in appeal, since
the only surviving evidence against the Petitioner pertained to his
motive to commit the crime, the circumstance of “last seen” and a
solitary extra-judicial confession – In other words, it cannot be
said that the punishment of life imprisonment is unquestionably
foreclosed in the instant case, in spite of the gravity and barbarity
of the offence – The award of the death penalty in the instant case,
based on the evidence on record is not  upheld – A sentence of life
imprisonment simpliciter would, however, be inadequate, given the
gruesome nature of the offence, and the menace posed to society at
large by the Petitioner, as evinced by the conduct of the Petitioner
in jail – The conduct of the Petitioner in jail was unsatisfactory,
and that he was becoming aggressive and indulging in illegal
activities in prison, intentionally abusing prisoners and prison staff
and provoking fights with other prisoners – It is appropriate to
impose a restriction on the Petitioner’s right to remission – Petitioner
shall, therefore, remain in prison for the remainder of his life.
Partly allowing the Review Petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.  It is well-settled that review proceedings cannot
be treated as an appeal in disguise. Particularly, in criminal
proceedings, the scope of review jurisdiction of this Court is
guided by Article 137 of the Indian Constitution as well as Order
XL Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, which permit the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
945
Court to correct miscarriage of justice caused by an error apparent
on the face of the record. This Court cannot re-appr

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