Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Dilip Alias Kalya Kisanrao Wagh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 26 February, 2021
Bench: N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant, Aniruddha Bose
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 234237/ 2021
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) NO. 880883 of 2021]
Dilip @ Kalya Kisanrao Wagh Etc. .....APPELLANTS
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra .....RESPONDENT
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 238/2021
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 884 of 2021]
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. These appeals lay challenge to the decision dated 1 st October, 2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, upholding the conviction and consequential sentences of the appellants under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999 (MCOCA) and Section 397, 120B IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the appellants along with their coaccused are members of organised crime syndicate. They committed a daylight robbery in Khandelwal Jewellery Shop at Amravati on 31.08.2010 and looted various gold items after terrorising the employees with deadly weapons and Signature Not Verified also caused injuries to the persons present in the shop. The Special Judge, Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2021.03.01 17:12:56 IST Reason: MCOCA at Amravati analysed the entire evidence consisting of statements of 1 the owner of the shop and his employees who witnessed the occurrence, CCTV footage, hard disc of the computer and Test Identification Parade and accepting such overwhelming evidence, the appellants and their coaccused were held guilty and sentenced in following terms: “1) As per section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. accused no. 2 Janardhan Waghmare, accused no. 3 Rafique Sk, acccused no. 4 Anil Mohankar, accused no. 5 Dilip Wagh, accused no. 6 Omprakash Bhatkar and accused no. 11 Tanaji Bhosale alias Tanaji Bhole are hereby convicted of the offence punishable under section 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of MCOC Act and also of offence punishable under sections 397, 120B of I.P.C.
2. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 11 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of twelve years and fine of Rs.5,00,000/ each for offence punishable under section 3(1)(ii) of MCOC Act in default to undergo S.I. for two years each. (As offence under section 397 of I.P.C. and 3(4) of MCOC Act is included in section 3(1)(ii) of MCOC Act, they are not separately sentenced for those offences.)
3. Accused nos. 4 to 6 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years and fine of Rs.5,00,000/ each for offence punishable under section 3(1)(ii) of MCOC Act in default to undergo S.I. for two years each. (As offence under section 397 of I.P.C. and 3(4) of MCOC Act is included in section 3(1)(ii) of MCOC Act, they are not separately sentenced for those offences.)
4. Accused nos. 2 to 6 and 11 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years and fine of Rs.5,00,000/ each for offence punishable under section 3(2) of MCOC Act in default to undergo S.I. for two years each. (As offence under section 120B of I.P.C. is included in section 3(2) of MCOC Act, they are not separately sentenced for that offence).
5. Accused nos. 2 and 6 are convicted of offence punishable under sections 3 and 4 read with section 25 of Arms Act and each of them are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.5,000/ in default to undergo S.I. for two months each.
6. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
7. Accused no. 8 Nasreenbano Rafique Sk. is hereby convicted of offence punishable under section 3(5) of MCOC Act (inclusive of Section 412 of I.P.C.) and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and shall pay fine of Rs. Two Lakh in 2 default to undergo S.I. of nine months.
8. Accused no. 10 Anjali Janardhan Waghare is hereby convicted of offence punishable under section 3(5) of MCOC Act (inclusive of Section 412 of I.P.C.) and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and shall pay fine of Rs.Two Lakh in default to undergo S.I. of nine months.
9. Accused no. 1 Dilip Korde and accused no. 7 Shivaji Bhosale are acquitted of the offence punishable under section 3(5) of MCOC Act and of offence punishable under section 414 of I.P.C.
10. Accused no. 9 Sk. Salim is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 3(5) of MCOC Act and also of offence punishable under section 412 of I.P.C.”
4. The appellants challenged their conviction and sentences before the High Court but their appeals were dismissed except that the appeal of accused No. 10 (Sau Anjali @ Aarti) was partly allowed.
5. The aggrieved appellants approached this Court and upon hearing their learned senior counsel at length, this Court vide order dated 28 th January, 2021 found no merit to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court. However, a limited notice was issued to the State of Maharashtra on the question of default sentence for nonpayment of fine.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the aforementioned limited issue. It may be seen from the operative part of the judgment of the Special Judge (MCOCA) that a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs each for offence(s) punishable under Section 3(1)(ii) or Section 3(2) of MCOCA was imposed on the appellants, and in default thereto, they were directed to undergo additional sentence for two years each. True it is that MCOCA, upon conviction, mandatorily contemplates imposition of minimum fine of Rs. 5 3 lakhs on each count. That being so, we do not find any error in the levy of fine of Rs. 5 lakhs under the provisions of MCOCA, referred to above. We are nevertheless of the considered view that the imposition of default sentence of two years is disproportionately higher and deserves to be suitably reduced. Taking into consideration the overall sentence period and other attending facts and circumstances of the case, we allow these appeals in part; modify the impugned judgments of the Special Judge (MCOCA) and of the High Court to the limited extent that in the event of nonpayment of fine of Rs. 5 lakhs on each count under the MCOCA, the appellants shall be liable to undergo default sentences of six months each in place of two years, as awarded by the Courts below.
7. The appeals or pending applications, if any, stand disposed of in above terms.
…………………………….. J.
(N.V. RAMANA) ……………………………… J.
(SURYA KANT) ……..………………………. J.
(ANIRUDDHA BOSE)
NEW DELHI
DATED : 26022021
4
ITEM NO.16 Court 2 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).880-883/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01-10-2018 in CRLA Nos.480, 481, 581, 595/2014, CRLA No.595/2014 and CRLA No.188/2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur) DILIP @ KALYA KISANRAO WAGH ETC. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s) WITH SLP(Crl) No.884/2021 (II-A) Date : 26-02-2021 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE For Petitioner(s) Mrs. Mahalakshmi, Adv.
Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, AOR Mr. Keshav Choudhary, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv. Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeals or pending applications, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the signed order.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (RAJ RANI NEGI)
DEPUTY REGISTRAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
5