THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus RITESH, S/O VASUDEO WANJARI

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 438 · Decided: 15-03-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
V. 
RITESH, S/O VASUDEO WANJARI 
MARCH 15, 2001 
B 
[KT THOMAS, AND RP. SETHI, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Proceduff, 1973-Section 439-Bail-Re.ipondent 
'l\' 
criminally conspi1~d and allegedly m111rle1ed his beloved-Trial Cou11 refused 
to grunt bail as it.found his complicity in the conspiracy-High Cow1 granted 
C 
bail 1vithou! giving the p1vsecution an uppo11unity to lead evidence-On 
appeal Held, High Cow1 not justifie(I in finding at the initial stage that 
allegation of conspiracy 1vas not <!stablished, parlicular/y 1vhen rhe respondent 
had gone to the place r~f occurrence-Respondent should have got a verdict 
o,{ his innocence or involvenzrnf in the o_f!Pnce f1vm the cou111vhen the final 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
charge-sheet H'OS filed as no exceplional g1nunds \Vere made ou1 to depa1t 
fmm the established pmcedure-01rler of High Corm set aside-Pnwl Code, 
i860-Secticms302, 109, 364, 397, 20l 1wdwith34-ScheduledCastesand 
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atmcities) Act-Section 3( I )(xi). 
Respondent had alkgedly conspired along with some other persons 
to murder his beloved, who belonged to a Scheduled Caste. The task of 
murdering the decea,ed was accomplished after two unsuccessful attempl,. 
Respondent filed a hail application after he was arrested for the offences 
under Sections 302, 109, 364, 397, 201 read "ith Section 34 I.P.C. and 
Section 3(i)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention 
of Atrocities) Act. Trial Court found his complicity in the criminal con-
spiracy established and refused hail. High Court allowed the Revision 
Petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and granted bail finding that the allega-
tion of conspiracy was not established. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Despite observing that the case was based on circumstan-
tial evidence, the High Court did not afford the prosecution an opportu-
nity to lead evidence for establishing the existence of conspiracy and 
wrongly held that it was difficult to infer the existence of a conspiracy 
particularly when the respondent had gone to the place of the occurrence. 
The factum that he went there was relied upon hy the prosecution as one of 
438 
~ 
-,.l 
- .... , 
STATE v. RITESH [SETHI, J.] 
439 
the circumstances connecting the accused with the commission of the 
crime particularly when it was alleged that from there he used to have 
telephonic talks with the other accused persons about the alleged con-
spiracy. In the absence of "exact talks'', the High Court was not ju•1ified in 
finding at the initial stage that the allegation of conspiracy was not estab-
lished. [ 440-G-H] 
2. Once the final charge-sheet has been filed in the trial court, the 
High Court, under the normal circumstances, should have permitted the 
respondent to get a verdict of his innocence or involvement from that 
Court. No exceptional ground was made out to depart from a usual estab-
lished procedure. [441-B] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 297 
of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.8.2000 of the Bombay High 
Court in Cr!. Application No. 926 of 2000. 
S.S. Shinde and S. V. Deshpande for the Appellant. 
M.R. Daga, P.S. Sontakke and T.S. Arora for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SETHI, J. Leave granted. 
The respondent was an·ested in connection with Crime No.129/99 
registered by the Police Station, Goregaon for the offences punishable under 
Sections 302, 109, 120B, 364, 397, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian 
Penal Code and under Section 3(i)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduied 
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He has been granted bail pending trial 
vide the order impugned in this appeal on the ground that there was no 
material on record to establish the involvement of the respondent in the 
commission of the crime and that the accused was not aware of the criminal 
conspiracy, in execution of which, the deceased Shubhangi was killed. 
According to the prosecution, the respondent had a love affair with the 
deceased Shubhangi. The deceased was insisting for marriage to which the 
respondent and his mother were not agreeable as the deceased belonged to 
Scheduled Caste and the respondent belonged to Teli community which is 
considered as higher caste. The respondent is alleged to have hatched a 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
440 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
conspiracy to get rid of Shubhangi by eliminating her. In furthera
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.