LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Shivkumar Ramsundar Saket vs The State of Maharashtra

Not available · 2024 INSC 759Decided 26 Sept 2024
Not available

Background

This common judgment disposed of three connected criminal appeals arising from the same murder case: Criminal Appeal Nos. 806-807 of 2023 (by Shivkumar Ramsundar Saket, Accused No. 3, who had been sentenced to death by the Bombay High Court), Criminal Appeal No. 986 of 2023 (by co-accused Balendrasingh Shivmurtisingh Thakur, Accused No. 6), and Criminal Appeal No. 2943 of 2023 (by another co-accused, Rajeshsingh Hariharsingh Thakur, who died during the pendency of the appeal). The appellants challenged their convictions primarily on the ground that key witness testimony was inconsistent and an identification parade was unreliable, and Saket separately challenged the death sentence imposed on him.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found that the trial court and High Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and upheld the convictions of all appellants, dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 986 of 2023 on that basis. However, on sentencing, the Court held that the High Court was wrong to enhance Saket's sentence to death when the Trial Court had already concluded, after weighing the evidence, that the case did not meet the "rarest of rare" threshold: a High Court should not disturb such a finding unless it is perverse or impossible, which was not shown here. The Court also noted Saket's role in the crime was similar to that of the other co-accused, so singling him out for the death penalty was unjustified. It therefore restored the Trial Court's original (lesser) sentence for Saket while upholding his conviction, and disposed of the third appeal as abated due to the appellant's death.

Lesson Learnt

A death sentence cannot be reinstated by a higher court simply because it disagrees with the trial court's assessment. Where the trial judge, after weighing the facts, found the case did not qualify as "rarest of rare," an appellate court must show that finding was perverse or impossible before it can impose the death penalty, and cannot single out one accused for a harsher sentence when their role mirrors the co-accused.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case