Ambadas Laxman Shinde & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra
Background
Six men were convicted of gang rape and murder; the trial court's sentences were partly modified by the Bombay High Court, and in 2009 a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court dismissed the convicts' appeals while also allowing the State's appeal to enhance three of the sentences to death. Their first review petitions were dismissed. Later, following a Constitution Bench ruling in a separate case (Mohd. Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India) that allowed reopening of review petitions in death sentence matters in open court, these convicts sought reopening of their review petitions. On scrutinizing the record, the Court found that the three convicts facing the State's enhancement appeal had never been given a real opportunity to be heard before their sentences were enhanced to death: notice was served on them only on 6 December 2008, hearing had already begun 4 December 2008, and when the case resumed on 10 December 2008 the respondents were unrepresented and the matter was decided the same day after an amicus curiae was hastily appointed.
Decision Breakdown
The Court held that denying the convicts (Accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6) a genuine opportunity to engage counsel and argue against enhancement of their sentence to death was a serious breach of fair hearing, so the 2009 judgment and order imposing death sentences on them had to be recalled. Because the original 2009 judgment had explicitly treated all the connected appeals (including those of Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4) as decided by one common judgment based on common evidence, fairness required recalling the entire 2009 judgment as to all six accused, not just three. The Court therefore recalled its earlier orders dismissing the review petitions, restored all the criminal appeals to be heard afresh by an appropriate Bench, permitted the three death-sentenced accused to file fresh appeals against the High Court's conviction if they wished, and suspended execution of the death sentence pending the fresh hearing.
Lesson Learnt
Even in the gravest criminal cases, a court's final decision can be undone later if it is shown that a party, especially one facing execution, was never properly heard; the right to a fair hearing is treated as fundamental enough to justify recalling a Supreme Court judgment years after it was passed.