SANTOSH KUMAR SATISBHUSHAN BARIYAR V STATE OF  MAHARASHTRA

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/ 

https://www.scconline.com/

This case analysis is written by Ananaya Shee of Narsee Monjee Institute of Management  Studies, Bangalore, intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Admin