Date of the Judgment: 31 October 2018
Citation: Not Available
Judges: Kurian Joseph J., A.M. Khanwilkar J., Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud J.
Can a review petition be reopened in a death penalty case after it has been dismissed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, allowing the reopening of review petitions in a case involving multiple accused sentenced to death. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring a fair hearing, especially in cases where the ultimate penalty is at stake. The three-judge bench, composed of Justices Kurian Joseph, A.M. Khanwilkar, and Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, delivered this order.
Case Background
Initially, the Bombay High Court, on 22 March 2007, upheld the conviction and death sentences of Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4, while sentencing Accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6 to life imprisonment. All six were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder. Additionally, Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4 were convicted under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC for rape.
Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 then appealed to the Supreme Court of India, while the State of Maharashtra appealed for enhancement of the sentence of Accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6. On 30 April 2009, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and allowed the State’s appeal, sentencing Accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6 to death. Subsequently, review petitions filed by all the accused were also dismissed.
Following a Constitution Bench decision in *Mohd. Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India* [2014 (9) SCC 737], the accused filed criminal miscellaneous petitions seeking the reopening of their review petitions.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 22 March 2007 | Bombay High Court upheld death sentences for Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4; life imprisonment for Accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6. |
| 3 August 2007 | Supreme Court granted leave in the Special Leave Petitions filed by Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and stayed the execution of death sentence. |
| 21 November 2008 | Supreme Court issued notice in the appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra. |
| 6 December 2008 | Notice issued by the Supreme Court was served on the accused in jail. |
| 4 December 2008 | Hearing of the appeals commenced in the Supreme Court. |
| 10 December 2008 | Supreme Court appointed Mr. Sushil Karanjakar as Amicus Curiae; arguments concluded, and judgment was reserved. |
| 30 April 2009 | Supreme Court dismissed appeals of Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4; sentenced Accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6 to death. |
| 2010-2011 | Review Petitions filed by all accused were dismissed. |
| 2014 | Constitution Bench decision in *Mohd. Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India* [2014 (9) SCC 737]. |
| 31 October 2018 | Supreme Court recalls the dismissal of the review petitions, reopens the appeals. |
Course of Proceedings
The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction and death sentence for Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4, while sentencing Accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6 to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the appeals of Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4 and enhanced the sentence of Accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6 to death. The review petitions were also dismissed. However, following the *Mohd. Arif* judgment, the Supreme Court agreed to reopen the review petitions.
Notably, the Supreme Court observed that Accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6 were not represented by counsel when their sentences were enhanced to death. The Court also noted that an amicus curiae was appointed and heard on the same day the judgment was reserved.
Legal Framework
The case involves the following key legal provisions:
-
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
“302. Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” -
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
“34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.” -
Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with punishment for rape.
“376. Punishment for rape.—(1) … (2) Whoever commits rape shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine, if—… (g) a person commits rape during communal or sectarian violence.”
The Supreme Court’s decision to reopen the review petitions is rooted in the principle of ensuring a fair hearing, especially in cases involving the death penalty. The Court’s actions are also influenced by the precedent set in *Mohd. Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India*, which emphasizes the need for a thorough review process in death penalty cases.
Arguments
The primary argument for reopening the review petitions was based on the fact that Accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6 were not adequately represented by counsel when the Supreme Court enhanced their sentences to death. The accused argued that this lack of representation deprived them of a fair opportunity to defend themselves against the State’s appeal for enhancement.
The accused also relied on the judgment of the Constitution Bench in *Mohd. Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India*, which emphasized the importance of a thorough review process in death penalty cases.
The State did not make any counter arguments in the present order.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission |
|---|---|
| Accused’s Submission for Reopening Review Petitions |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in this order. However, the core issue addressed was:
- Whether the review petitions in a death penalty case should be reopened, particularly when the accused were not adequately represented during the hearing where their sentences were enhanced to death?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the review petitions should be reopened? | Yes, the review petitions were reopened. | The Court noted that Accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6 were not represented by counsel when their sentences were enhanced to death, violating their right to a fair hearing. The Court also relied on the precedent set in *Mohd. Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India*. |
Authorities
The following authority was considered by the Supreme Court:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| *Mohd. Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India* [2014 (9) SCC 737] | Supreme Court of India | This case was relied upon to emphasize the need for a thorough review process in death penalty cases, particularly when the accused were not adequately represented. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Accused’s submission that they were not adequately represented during the hearing where their sentences were enhanced to death. | The Court accepted this submission as a valid ground for reopening the review petitions. |
| Authority | How it was viewed by the Court |
|---|---|
| *Mohd. Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India* [2014 (9) SCC 737] | The Court relied on this authority to emphasize the importance of a thorough review process in death penalty cases, particularly when the accused were not adequately represented. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision to reopen the review petitions was primarily driven by the principle of fairness and the need to ensure that all accused have a fair opportunity to be heard, especially in cases involving the death penalty. The Court was particularly concerned that Accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6 were not represented by counsel when their sentences were enhanced to death.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Lack of Legal Representation for Accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6 | 60% |
| Need for a Fair Hearing | 30% |
| Precedent from *Mohd. Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India* | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The Court emphasized that the appeals were interlinked and that the evidence was common for all the accused. Therefore, it was deemed appropriate to recall the entire judgment of 30 April 2009, in relation to all six accused.
The Court stated, “From the above narration of facts, it is evident that Accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6 had no opportunity to be heard by the Bench, before the appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra for enhancement of sentence were decided.”
The Court further noted, “They have been deprived of an opportunity of engaging counsel and of urging such submissions as they may have been advised to urge in defence to the appeals filed by the State for enhancement.”
The Court also observed, “In coming to this conclusion, we take note of the fact that the judgment of this Court dated 30 April 2009 records that: ‘these appeals are interlinked and are disposed of by this common judgment’”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Review petitions in death penalty cases can be reopened if there is a demonstrable lack of adequate legal representation.
- ✓ The Supreme Court prioritizes fair hearings, especially in cases where the death penalty is involved.
- ✓ The principle of interconnectedness of appeals was emphasized, leading to the reopening of the case for all accused.
Directions
The Supreme Court issued the following directions:
- The orders dismissing the review petitions are recalled, and the review petitions are allowed.
- The judgment dated 30 April 2009 is recalled. The criminal appeals are restored to the file of the Court and shall be placed before the appropriate Bench for a fresh hearing.
- Permission is granted to Accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6 to file appeals against the judgment of the High Court.
- The execution of the death sentence imposed on Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4 is suspended pending the disposal of the appeals.
- The Registry shall call for the records, if not already called.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that review petitions in death penalty cases can be reopened when there has been a lack of adequate legal representation for the accused, especially when their sentences have been enhanced. This decision reinforces the importance of ensuring a fair hearing and aligns with the principles established in *Mohd. Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India*. This case also highlights that if the appeals are interlinked, the court can recall the entire judgment to ensure fairness to all the accused.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to reopen the review petitions in the case of *Ambadas Laxman Shinde & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra* underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring fair and just outcomes, particularly in cases involving the death penalty. By recognizing the lack of adequate legal representation for some of the accused, the Court reaffirmed the importance of due process and the right to be heard. This decision sets a significant precedent for future cases, emphasizing that review petitions can be reopened when fundamental principles of justice have been compromised.