| Citation | Criminal Appeal no. 1478 of 2005 with Criminal Appeal no. 452 of 2006 |
| Date of judgement | 13th May, 2009 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case type | Criminal |
| Appellant | Santosh Kumar Satisbhushan |
| Respondent | State of Maharashtra |
| Bench | Justice S.B. Sinha and Justice Cyriac Joseph |
| Referred | SECTION 30 OF IE ACT1, SECTION 3022/3633/3874 OF IPC, SECTION 1645/3076/306 OF CrPC.7 |
FACTS OF THE CASE
The accused planned to abduct either Abhijeet Kothari or Karthikraj. The unfortunate later was abducted and sadly he is also the deceased.
The case starts from the accused 1, 2, 3 and PW-1 Kumar Gaurav who were in Bombay searching for prospects of a career. Unable to find a legitimate source of income, they resorted to criminal means. They decided to abduct a rich person and demand a huge amount of money from them, as every mind of a kidnapper works. The kidnapper, or rather a better word abductor after abducting Karthikraj demanded 10 lakh ransom from his family. The deceased, Karthikraj was a simple clerk working in Central Railway at Pune. Since he was the son of Ramraj, who was a manager at NABARD, he was a very easy target for the kidnappers. The accused continuously harassed the family by continuous calls and non-stop threatens to his father Ramraj.
Santosh raj, the deceased’s younger brother who was living with his father was contacted by the kidnapper asking for the ransom which if not paid within the next 24 hours would result in the death of Karthikraj, who was disclosed to have been in the accused’s custody. Somehow, Karthikraj’s family managed to extend the time till next morning to arrange for the money. Ramraj contacted his friend Bhandange (PW-2) for arrangement of money, who tried his best at doing it and tracing out Karthikraj’s location but failed in his attempts. A FIR was filed at Bhandange’s Pune office and advised to lodge the same at the police station along with Karthikraj’s photograph. A FIR was lodged and was handed over to the crime branch. Santosh raj informed API Lotlikar that he had received yet another call from the kidnapper that he wanted him to come to Bombay with 10 lakhs and a mobile phone. To this, API Loltikar saw a golden opportunity of planting a trap for the kidnappers. Thereafter, PW-1 Kumar Gaurav, accused no 2 and 3 were arrested. Accused 1, Santosh Kumar Satish Bhushan was arrested at Andheri Railway Station.
The issue comes into light were Kumar Gaurav (PW-1) who expressed his repentance and desire to make a confession. He had been granted pardon already. His statement was recorded according to which he says that accused 2 and 2 and he himself were in search of better career prospects in Mumbai. Kumar Gaurav being the mastermind of the whole plot. Hatched a conspiracy to kidnap of the two i.e., Abhijeet Kothari who was the son of a doctor and Karthikraj whose father was a manager at NABARD. It was decided amongst them that in case things go south, they would kill the victim, and cut his body into parts, dispose them into plastic bags. To these facts, all of them consented. At this point of time, they were in the accommodations of the appellant.
Accused no. 1 Santosh Kumar and Kumar Gaurav (PW1) prepared a list of things they required for the disturbing crime they were about to commit. On this list were a few things like blades, sickles, ropes, polyethylene bags, sim cards to contact the family members and Dettol.
Next, accused 1 showed them a place where they would be able to dispose of the body and later shifter to Amrapali society which was the place where they wanted the action to take
place. With dry results in contacting Abhijeet Kothari, needless to say, Karthikraj was the unfortunate one who was invited to their flat saying that it’s a party.
Santosh Kumar (Accused 1) jabbed a sickle to Karthikraj’s throat, and on tying his hands and legs, was dragged to the toilet and was assaulted physically which went on for two hours, followed by contacting the family of the victim and demanding the ransom of 10 lakhs if they ever wanted to see the victim alive again. Going in further with the disturbing details, accused 1 Santosh Kumar and PW1 Kumar Gaurav decided that it would be dangerous to keep him alive anymore since they apprehended that they would get caught. To kill him, the appellant, and accused 2 tied a rope around his head and pulled it from both ends, killing him. His dead body being dragged to the toilet and his head was decapitated by accused 1, and separated his hands and kept everything in polythene bags. A2 was asked to separate the hands which he did and kept them in polythene bags too with the help of PW1.
After cleaning up the flat, they deserted the place and again called up the family demanding for the money, not revealing the fact that they victim was already murdered. Ultimately it was their horrible greed which led them to their arrest.
ISSUES
1. If the Sessions Judge acted wrongly in permitting pardon to Kumar Gaurav 2. Whether the case at hand qualifies as a “rarest of rare cases” that allows the lower courts to impose the death penalty.
ARGUMENTS
The prosecution relies on PW1’s testimony and the following circumstantial evidence relied upon by the court. Since these contradict the accused’s guilt, the complainant is entitled to an acquittal. In each case, the quality of the facts presented by the prosecution was such that the death penalty could not be imposed, and in particular the trial court erroneously held that there was no alleviating circumstance that the Court had committed a grave misconduct: They wrote their verdict and conviction based largely on PW1’s evidence, even though PW1 recanted his confession.
JUDGEMENT-
• The Honourable Court stated that because the age of the faulted was a critical figure for the high Court in not imposing discipline on blamed Nos. 2 and 3, the same
standard had to be applied to the case of the engaging party as well, who was two years more prepared and still a young man in age. Nos. 2 and 3 were equally responsible for the wrongdoing as the engaged party. In spite of the fact that it is true, that it was he who reportedly presented the idea of capturing, it must not be overlooked that the stated organisation was because it was executed when all the individuals gave their consent thereto.
• The Supreme Court ruled that amnesty must be granted at the fundamental stage for each individual case. The power of the hearing judge to admit and show all expectations under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 9shall be null and void. Therefore, the hearing judge’s order granting pardon to the authority is valid and lawful.
• The Hon’ble court ruled that there were no special grounds for imposing the death penalty and sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment. In this case, although we believe the mitigating factors above are sufficient to place him in the “rare” class, both previous appeals by state petitioners have been dismissed.
• The Honourable Court also stated that -This is not a case in which the death penalty should be imposed. Therefore, the Applicant will be sentenced to life imprisonment rather than the death penalty. Both appellant and state appeals are dismissed.
CONCLUSION
After considering all the arguments and references, the court determines that the orchestration of the permit absolve was legal and significant. However, the court also stated that this case is not sufficiently exceptional to be referred to as the “rarest of uncommon cases” and found that there is no particularity in the cases that were brought before it.
REFERENCES
https://lawfoyer.in/santosh-kumar-satishbhushan-bariyar-v-state-of-maharashtra/ https://www.casemine.com/
This case analysis is written by Ananaya Shee of Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies, Bangalore, intern at Legal Vidhiya.
