{"id":239649,"date":"2006-08-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-08-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renuka-bai-alias-rinku-alias-ratan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2006"},"modified":"2018-07-10T22:59:50","modified_gmt":"2018-07-10T17:29:50","slug":"renuka-bai-alias-rinku-alias-ratan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renuka-bai-alias-rinku-alias-ratan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2006","title":{"rendered":"Renuka Bai Alias Rinku Alias Ratan … vs State Of Maharashtra on 31 August, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Renuka Bai Alias Rinku Alias Ratan … vs State Of Maharashtra on 31 August, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: K Balakrishnan<\/div>\n
Bench: K.G. Balakrishnan, G.P. Mathur<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  722 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nRenuka Bai alias Rinku alias Ratan & Anr.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Maharashtra\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 31\/08\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nK.G. BALAKRISHNAN & G.P. MATHUR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis criminal appeal has been filed by the two appellants
\nherein who have been found guilty by the High Court of
\nBombay for various offences.  These appellants were charged
\nfor various crimes alleged to have been committed by them
\nduring the period June 1990 to October 1996. They were tried
\nby the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolaphur and found guilty
\nand sentenced to death.   The High Court confirmed their
\nconviction on various counts and the sentence imposed on
\nthem.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellants Renuka Bai @ Rinku @ Ratan and Seema
\n@ Devki @ Devli are sisters.  Their mother, Anjanabai, a  co-
\naccused died in 1997 and hence she could not be tried.
\nApprover Kiran Shinde who had studied upto 7th standard and
\nleft the school in 1982, belonged to Pune.  He obtained some
\ntraining in the work of tailoring and was doing tailoring work
\nin a shop belonging to one Suresh.  In 1983 he came in
\ncontact with the first appellant Renuka Bai and in December
\n1989 he married Renuka at a temple near Shirdi.  Renuka was
\npreviously married to somebody else and was having a child
\nby name Aashish.  These two appellants and their mother
\nAnjanabai and the approver Kiran Shinde and child Aashish
\nwere residing as tenants in a house at Gonthalinagar in Pune.
\nThe appellants and their mother used to commit thefts.  For
\nthat they would go to the places of festivals and whenever they
\ngot opportunity they used to snatch the gold chains and made
\na living out of the income derived from such thefts committed
\nby them.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn 1990, the first appellant Renuka Bai along with her
\nchild Aashish went to a temple.  There was a large gathering at
\nthe temple, Renuka Bai tried to snatch a purse from a person
\nbut she was caught in that process.  On being caught, she
\nraised a hue and cry and questioned the person as to why he
\nhad caught hold of her hand when she was having a child with
\nher and could not have been involved in a crime.  Many people
\ngathered around her and seeing the mother and the child, they
\nleft the appellant Renuka Bai.  She narrated this incident to
\nher sister Seema and mother Anjanabai and told how she had
\nmanaged to escape as she had the child with her.  The police
\nhad caught both the appellants and their mother on several
\noccasions and they used to bribe the police and escape from
\nthe clutches of law.  The appellants and their mother decided
\nthat thereafter they would have a child with them at the time
\nof committing the crime so that  by making use of the child
\nthey can escape from the crowd.  According to the prosecution,
\nthe appellants, their mother Anjanabai and approver Kiran
\nShinde entered into a conspiracy to kidnap small children
\nbelow five years of age and make use of them whenever
\nnecessary and dispose them of when they are no longer useful.
\nThey thought that this was the only way to evade possible
\narrest whenever they were caught in the process of committing
\ntheft.\n<\/p>\n
\tAccording to prosecution, these appellants alongwith
\ntheir mother Anjana Bai and approver Kiran Shinde were
\ninstrumental in kidnapping 13 children and out of them they
\nhad killed 9 of them.  All these crimes were allegedly
\ncommitted during the period June 1990 to October 1996.  The
\nappellants have been convicted on various counts and the
\ndeath penalty imposed on them by the Sessions Court was
\nconfirmed by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Sessions Judge meticulously considered the evidence
\nof the prosecution and by a detailed judgment found these
\nappellants guilty of majority of crimes charged against them.
\nThe High Court confirmed the finding in most of the cases.
\nThough 9 cases of murder were alleged against the appellants,
\nthe Sessions Court found them guilty only of commission of 6
\nmurders.  When the matter came up in appeal before the High
\nCourt, it was held that the prosecution could succeed in
\nproving only 5 cases of murder against these appellants.  The
\ntrial Court convicted the appellants for murder in the case of
\ndeath of Santosh, Anjali  @ Pinki, Raja, Shraddha, Gauri and
\nPankaj.  However, the High Court held that in the case of
\nmurder of Raja, the evidence was not satisfactory.  Appellants
\nin all these cases pleaded not guilty and alleged that they had
\nbeen falsely implicated in these cases.\n<\/p>\n
The gist of allegations against them is that these two
\nappellants, along with their mother Anjana Bai, with the help
\nof the approver in this case, namely, Kiran Shinde, had
\nkidnapped 13 children and caused the death of 9 out of them.
\nThey also had attempted to kidnap yet another child but their
\nattempt failed.  Anjana Bai, the mother of the present
\nappellants died in 1997.  For the offences punishable under
\nSection 302 read with Section 120B IPC, the appellants have
\nbeen awarded capital punishment.\n<\/p>\n
\tBrief summary of the successive criminal acts of
\nkidnapping and murder committed by the appellants is thus.\n<\/p>\n
\tThese appellants were found guilty of kidnapping one
\nchild, namely, Santosh who was aged about 1-= years in July
\n1990.  They killed Santosh, and disposed of the dead body
\nnear the State Transport Stand at Kolhapur.  For this offence,
\nthey have been found guilty and sentenced to  death.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellants have also been found guilty of kidnapping
\none child named, Naresh, aged 9 months, in 1991 from Thane
\nST Stand.  The appellants were alleged to have left the child
\nnear a temple at Nasik and later made a claim before the
\nCourt for the custody of that child based on false  grounds.
\nThe appellants were found guilty of the offence punishable
\nunder Section 364 read with Section 120B IPC; Section 323
\nand sentenced to undergo 3 years imprisonment for the main
\noffence.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn another case in 1993,  these appellants kidnapped a
\nchild named Bunty aged about one year, and a girl named,
\nSwati, aged about two years from the Kalyan Railway Station,
\nMumbai.  There was also an allegation that these appellants
\nkidnapped Guddu aged 2 = years and a girl named, Meena,
\naged 3 years, in 1993, from V.T. Station, Mumbai.  The
\nappellants along with their mother, Anjanabai, ,killed Bunti
\nand Guddu and disposed of their dead bodies.  For kidnapping
\nGuddu and Meena, they were found guilty, but as regards the
\nmurder of Guddu, the prosecution could not prove the offence
\nunder Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC and they were
\nacquitted of the charge.\n<\/p>\n
The next case for which these appellants had been
\ncharged was the kidnapping of a child, namely, Anjali @ Pinky,
\naged about two years from Kalika Mandir at Nasik on\n<\/p>\n
18.X.1994 and killed her and disposed of the dead body with
\nthe help of the approver, Kiran Shinde.  The appellants have
\nbeen found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302
\nread with Section 120B IPC and for this offence they have
\nbeen imposed with capital punishment.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is further alleged that in March 1995, the appellants
\nalong with their mother Anjanabai and approver, Kiran
\nShinde, kidnapped a male child by name, Swapnil @ Raja from
\nthe S.T. Stand at Kolhapur. They killed the child in the second
\nweek of March, 1995 and threw the dead body of the child
\nnear Khandala Ghat and for this offence, the appellants have
\nbeen found guilty and sentenced to death.\n<\/p>\n
\tAnother criminal case charged against them is  that
\nthese appellants kidnapped one girl, namely, Shraddha @ Rani
\n@ Bhagyashree aged about one year nine months from
\nMahalaxmi Temple, Kolhapur, and thereafter killed the child
\nwhile the appellants were traveling in a taxi from Pune to
\nSurat and disposed of the dead body of the child.  For these
\ncriminal acts, the appellants have been found guilty of the
\noffences  punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120
\nB and other allied offences and for the main offence, they have
\nbeen sentenced to death penalty.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the next case also, the appellants have  been found
\nguilty of kidnapping one child named Kranti, aged nine years
\nand later killed the child and disposed of the dead body in a
\nsugarcane field at a place called Narsoba.  For this offence
\nalso, appellants have been found guilty and sentenced to
\ndeath.\n<\/p>\n
\tAnother allegation against the appellants relates to
\nmaking an attempt to kidnap a child namely, Devli from a
\nprimary school at Nasik.  Though the Sessions Court found
\nthe appellants guilty of kidnapping,   the High Court found
\nthat the case  of kidnapping of a child was wrongly entered
\nagainst the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn  the chain of crimes committed by these appellants,
\nthey were again found guilty of offence punishable under
\nSection 302 read with Section 120 B IPC for kidnapping and
\nmurdering one Gauri @ Bhavna aged 1-= years.  This child
\nwas kidnapped from Ganga Ghat vegetable market in Nasik.
\nThe child was killed in Kolhapur and the appellants  disposed
\nof his dead body in the women’s  lavatory of  a cinema theatre.
\nFor this offence, the appellants have been found guilty and
\nsentenced to death.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the last of the series of criminal offences charged
\nagainst them, the appellants were found guilty of kidnapping
\none male child, namely, Pankaj aged four years on 27.7.1996
\nfrom Vithal Mandir, Wadala, Mumbai.   The appellants later
\nkilled the child in September 1996 in a house at Pune and
\ndisposed of the dead body of the child in a gunny bag.  For
\nthis offence, the appellants  have been found guilty on various
\ncounts.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the appeal preferred by the appellants, the Division
\nBench of the High Court confirmed their conviction on almost
\nall the counts and confirmed the death penalty imposed on
\nthese appellants.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe shall briefly consider the evidence adduced by the
\nprosecution in these five cases and whether any error or
\nillegality had been committed in the case of conviction of these
\nappellants for these offences charged against them.\n<\/p>\n
\tKiran Shinde turned approver on 17-10-1997 and he was
\nfirst examined on 17.9.1998 before the Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
\tOne of the earliest cases of kidnapping and murder
\ncommitted by these appellants relates to the incident of
\nkidnapping of one Santosh.   The prosecution case is that in
\nJuly, 1990 the appellants and their mother Anjanabai had
\ngone to Kolhapur.  Appellant Renuka met a female beggar with
\na child at the bus stand.  She promised the beggar that she
\nwould give her a job.  Renuka managed to kidnap the child
\nwithout being noticed by his mother and took the child to
\nPune where the appellants were staying.  They named the
\nchild as Santosh.   In July, 1990 itself, the appellants went to
\nShirdi for the purpose of committing thefts.   As they did not
\ncome back to Pune for 5-6 days,  Anjanabai went in search of
\nthem.  About 7 days thereafter, the police brought the
\nappellants  and conducted a search of their house at Pune.
\nThere were two children with the appellants at that time.  They
\nwere Ashish and Santosh.   Approver-Kiran Shinde bribed the
\npolice and  he escaped from Maharashtra.   Appellants and
\ntheir mother Anjanabai were taken into custody, but later they
\nwere released from  police  custody.  In March, 1991, Renuka
\ngave birth to a child and he was named ‘Kishore’.  In April,
\n1991, appellants, their mother and Kiran Shinde went to
\nKolhapur for committing thefts.   They took a room in a
\n“Dharamshala” , kept their luggage there and went to
\nMahalaxmi temple in the evening.   There, appellant-Seema
\ntried to snatch the purse of a person.   She was caught and
\nbeaten by him.   Her mother Anjanabai then intervened.   She
\nthrew Santosh on the ground who sustained a bleeding injury
\non his head.    Many persons gathered  around them and
\nseeing the bleeding wound on the head of the  child Santosh,
\npeople consoled them and the matter was not reported to  the
\npolice.    Appellant Reunka then suggested that they may
\ncommit some more thefts.  They went to the bus stand and
\nmanaged to commit theft of  2-3 purses.    On their way back,
\nthe child Santosh started crying  as he was bleeding.
\nAnjanabai then told that the child was no longer useful as he
\nwas crying and there was a  likelihood of their being caught by
\npolice.   The further case of the prosecution is that Anjanabai
\npressed the mouth of  Santosh and dashed his head  on an
\niron bar whereby   Santosh sustained more head injuries  and
\ndied on the spot.    The clothes worn by  Anjanabai were
\nwashed at the water tap and now they wanted to dispose of
\nthe dead body of Santosh.   They left the dead body near the
\nheap of some old rickshaws and came back to Dharamshala.
\nOn the next day, the dead body of Santosh was found and the
\nmatter was reported to the  Laxmipur police station.   The
\npolice could not find out any trace of the murder and later
\nthey filed the final report.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn order to prove the case of murder of Santosh, PW 53,
\nPW 54, PW 56, PW 58, PW 63 to PW 65, PW 67 to PW 69, PW
\n124, PW 125, PW 127 and PW 132, PW 137 and PW 155 were
\nexamined.  PW 132 Dr. Chandrashekhar Chanokar of CPR
\nHospital who conducted the post-mortem case  was of the
\nopinion that the cause of death of the boy was shock due to
\nthe fracture of the base of his skull with intra cerebral
\nhemorrhage.  PW 56 is a Peon who was present at the time
\nwhen the dead body of Santosh was recovered from a place
\nnear the Vikram High School, Kolhapur.  He deposed that
\nthere was bleeding from the ear and injury on the head of the
\ndeceased.  The evidence of PW 67 is very crucial in proving the
\nprosecution case.  PW 67 is a Constable in the State Reserve
\nPolice Force.  His house is at Gondhalinagar, Pune.  Though
\nhe constructed this house in 1987, he was not staying there.
\nHe knew approver Kiran Shinde and these appellants and
\ntheir mother.  He gave this house in 1990 to these appellants
\nand they stayed there for about 1-= years.  He used to go to
\nthis place for collecting rent and had seen Santosh at that
\nplace and when inquired about him, Anjanabai told that the
\nboy was the son of the relative who was staying at Kolhapur.
\nThe photo taken from the dead body of Santosh was shown to
\nthe witness and he identified and the same was marked as
\nExhibit 235.  When PW 67 inquired with the police, they told
\nthat these women were associated for committing theft of
\nornaments.  Thereafter, he asked the approver Kiran Shinde to
\nvacate the house and the witness came to know that these
\nthree women were in jail for about 9 to 10 months and at last
\nhe got back the possession of the house.  The evidence of this
\nwitness alone is sufficient to prove that these appellants were
\nresponsible for the death of boy Santosh.  There was also the
\nsupporting evidence of other witnesses and the prosecution
\nsatisfactorily proved the guilt of the accused persons and their
\nconviction for murder of this boy Santosh is perfectly justified.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellants were found guilty of kidnapping 1 = year
\nold child by name Naresh @ Kalpesh @ Aniket.  PW 90, PW 91,
\nPW 92, PW 96, PW 106, PW 107 were examined to prove the
\nkidnapping of child Naresh.  The approver Kiran Shinde stated
\nthat in the year 1992, they were residing at Indubai Chawl
\nand as they were in need of money, they decided to go to Pune.
\nThey reached the bus stand at Thane.  There, they met a
\nbeggar who was with a child about 8 to 9 months.  Appellant
\nRenuka started talking with the beggar and got the child in
\nher arms.  Appellant Renuka gave her some money and asked
\nher to get milk for the child.  When the mother of the child
\nwent out of the bus stand to get milk, the appellant slipped
\naway with the child and left the bus stand in an auto
\nrickshaw.  The appellants took this child to Nasik to attend
\n‘Kumbh’ mela.  Whenever the child cried  deceased Anjana Bai
\nused to beat him.  Anjana Bai then advised the appellants to
\nleave the child at a temple and the child was left at a temple.
\nWhen the child started crying, a lady police constable came
\nand took the child.  The appellants then left that place.
\nAppellant Renuka was so fond of this child that she wanted to
\nretrieve this child.  She came to know that the child was in an
\norphanage by name “Adhar Ashram” at Nasik.  Deceased
\nAnjana Bai filed application to this orphanage to get this child
\nby stating that he was her child but she was not successful.
\nThey had also resorted to some litigation for getting this child
\nback.  Kidnapping of the child is proved by these items of
\nevidence.\n<\/p>\n
The appellants were found guilty of murder of the child
\nBunty.  This child was picked up by the appellants in April
\n1993 from Kalyan Railway Station, Bombay and the child was
\nkilled in May 1993.  The appellants had also kidnapped
\nchildren Swati aged 2 = years, and Guddu aged 2 = years.
\nSwati was abandoned and Guddu was allegedly killed in May
\n1993.  But the prosecution could not produce any satisfactory
\nevidence of the murder of Guddu.  To prove these cases, series
\nof witnesses were examined by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
The appellants were found guilty of having caused the
\ndeath of Anjali @ Pinki.  She was a child of 2 = years of age
\nand was kidnapped on 18.10 1994 from Kalika Mandir at
\nNasik.  As regards the kidnap of Anjali @ Pinki, the approver
\nKiran Shinde stated that in the year 1994, he stayed at Pune
\nand the appellants and their mother came to him and
\nalongwith them, there was a girl aged 3 years and she was
\ncalled Pinki.  Approver made inquiries and he was told that
\nthey had gone to Kalika Mandir at Nasik and from there, they
\ngot Pinki.  He further stated that Pinki was continuously
\ncrying and the neighbouring women asked the appellants as to
\nwho she was and the first appellant replied that her mother
\nhad been admitted in the hospital and hence the child was
\nbrought to them.  As Pinki was continuously crying it became
\na nuisance to the appellant and her mother Anjana Bai was
\nvery much annoyed by this girl and she pushed this girl
\nforcibly and the girl fell in front of the latrine and the first
\nappellant held her legs together and after sometime the
\nmovements of Pinki stopped and she died.  They kept the body
\nin a bag and brought the bag near Saswad Road and threw it
\nin a compound where there were lot of bushes.\n<\/p>\n
The evidence of the approver is fully corroborated by the
\nother items of evidence.  PW 10 Sujata is the mother of Anjali
\n@ Pinki.  She gave a complaint to the police stating that she
\nhad gone to the Kalika Mandir on 18.10.1994 along with her
\nhusband and daughters Shweta and Anjali.  The daughter
\nAnjali was with her husband.  PW 10 Sujata had gone to have
\na Puja.  When the articles of Puja was being handed over to
\nthem, daughter Anjali was sitting on the floor.  When they
\ncame back, the girl was not seen.  They made fanatic search
\nbut the child could not be found.  After the body was
\nrecovered, she identified certain photographs of the child.\n<\/p>\n
PW 62 is the father of Anjali.  He deposed that from
\n18.10.1994 onwards, Anjali was missing when they had gone
\nto the Kalika Mandir at Nasik and on 1.11.1996, he lodged
\nFIR.  He had also identified the photographs Exhibit 87\/1,
\n87\/2, 87\/3 and Exhibits 90 and 91.\n<\/p>\n
There is also evidence to show that deceased Anjali was
\nfound in the company of appellants.  PW 12 is the owner of a
\nlodge at Nasik and he deposed that on 11.10.1994, three
\nwomen alongwith two to three children came there to have a
\nroom in the lodge.  They told that they would like to stay there
\nfor 8 to 10 days.  Though he was reluctant to give them a room
\nbut as they had children alongwith them, he ultimately gave
\nthem room no. 6 which they took in the name of ‘Sima Patil-
\nGavit’ and these three women stayed in the lodge for 8 days.
\nOn one day PW 12 heard the cries of a child and he made
\nenquiries and he was told that the girl was a child of the
\nmaternal aunt of one of them who was having a stall in the fair
\nat the temple and the child was crying so they had brought
\nher alongwtih them.  Again after 20-25 minutes, there was a
\ncrying sound and PW 12 and his mother asked them to vacate
\nthe rooms.  PW 12 identified the first appellant and one of the
\nwomen who had stayed in the lodge.  She also identified
\nexhibit 87\/1 and 87\/2 photographs of the girl and deposed
\nthat the very same girl was with the three women when they
\nwere staying in the lodge.\n<\/p>\n
There is also the evidence of PW 46 Kantabai Borkar who
\nidentified the photographs of Anjali @ Pinki.  This witness was
\nthe neighbour of the accused and deposed that the deceased
\nAnjali @ Pinki was with them.  So there is also evidence of PW
\n22 Rajendra Sankpal who saw the dead body of Anjali near his
\nnursery, and reported the same to the police.  PW 25 Narsinh
\nKendgale recovered the dead body and prepared the
\nPanchnama.  PW 131 Dr. Lakshmikant Bade conducted the
\npost-morterm on the dead body of Anjali.  In the post morterm
\nreport, it was reported that there were series of injuries in the
\nbody of deceased Anjali @ Pinki.  There were series of
\nabrasions and the doctor deposed that injury no. 2 namely
\ncontusion of upper and lower lips and the laceration of
\nmucosa of upper and lower lips in incisol area indicated that
\nthe mouth of the victim was pressed and that injuries no.
\n2,7,9,11 and 12 might have happened due to fall or being
\nthrown from the staircase.\n<\/p>\n
The entire evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly
\nestablishes that the approver’s evidence was fully corroborated
\nby other items of evidence and death of Anjali @ Pinki was
\ncaused by the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
The Sessions Judge has dealt with in detail each items of
\nevidence and the High Court also re-appreciated the evidence
\nin respect of each item of evidence.  We do not propose to
\nconsider each case but we are satisfied that the evidence
\nadduced by the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt
\nthat the appellants were responsible for series of kidnapping of
\nchildren and murders and they have been rightly found guilty
\nfor these offences.\n<\/p>\n
The prosecution thus succeeded in proving that these
\nappellants have committed a series of murders.  The learned
\nCounsel for the appellants strongly urged before us that the
\nevidence of the approver should not have been accepted by the
\nCourt as it is a tainted evidence. It was argued that there is no
\nsatisfactory corroboration of the evidence of the approver and
\nunless there is a corroboration,  it should not have been acted
\nupon.  It is true that the evidence of the approver is always to
\nbe viewed with suspicion especially when it is seriously
\nsuspected that he is suppressing some material facts.  Here
\nthe approver’s evidence was not fully accepted by the High
\nCourt.  High Court was of the view that he had suppressed
\nsome material facts.  We find that the observation made by the
\nHigh Court was justified.  The tenor  of the evidence given by
\nthe approver Kiran Shinde is to the effect that he was only a
\nsilent spectator but all these heinous crimes were committed
\nby the appellants and their mother Anjana Bai.  It is difficult
\nto believe that these women alone had committed all these
\ncrimes unless there is strong support from the approver Kiran
\nShinde.  When the Court suspected the evidence of the
\napprover, the pardon given to him itself could be withdrawn
\nand he could be tried along with the other accused.  But
\nunfortunately the provisions contained in the Criminal
\nProcedure Code do not enable the Court to take such a strong
\naction.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe approver was given pardon under Section 306 of the
\nCr.P.C.  and thereafter he was examined as a witness for
\nprosecution under Section 308 of the Cr.P.C.  The procedure
\nprescribes that if the approver is wilfully concealing anything
\nessential  or is giving false evidence or had not complied with
\nthe conditions  on which the tender of pardon was made, the
\napprover can be tried for the offence in respect of which he
\nhad been given pardon.   In order to prosecute the approver,
\nthe public prosecutor  has to give a certificate and he should
\nexpress his opinion that the approver has either wilfully
\nconcealed anything essential or has given false evidence or has
\nnot complied with the conditions on which pardon  has been
\nmade.  The proviso  to Section 308 also says that such person
\nshall not be tried for the offence for giving  false evidence
\nexcept  with the sanction of the High Court and the approver
\nalso would be entitled  to plead that he had complied with the
\ncondition upon which such tender of pardon was made and
\nthat he had not given any false evidence or willfully
\nsuppressed anything. Thus, the Code of Criminal Procedure
\nprescribes a procedure for prosecuting the approver who had
\ngiven false evidence or wilfully suppressed anything.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the instant case,  the approver  Kiran Shinde  was
\npresent when many of the murders had taken place and it is
\nquite possible  that he also must  have been an active
\nparticipant  and the High Court was justified in saying that
\nthe approver had not given full details of the crimes.  The
\napprover was moving with the two appellants for a long period
\nand despite  the repeated criminal acts committed by them,
\nthe approver did not inform the police or any authorities.
\nSome of the children kidnapped by the appellants were in the
\ncustody of the appellants and the approver, and later their
\nbodies were found. In one case, the post mortem examination
\nshowed that the child was subjected to some unnatural
\noffence. The approver himself had admitted that he had bribed
\nthe police many times and  saved these appellants from the
\nclutches of law.  Despite all these startling revelations,  the
\napprover could not be proceeded against and the public
\nprosecutor had not taken any step to proceed against the
\napprover.  We feel, under such circumstances the court itself
\nhas inherent powers to proceed against the approver in case
\nhe is  wilfully  suppressing material facts or is giving false
\nevidence.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe two appellants kidnapped several children and
\ncommitted their murder in the most dastardly manner.  In
\nsome cases, the body could not be found and in some cases
\nthe dead body could be traced out. The High Court felt that
\nthese five cases of murders have been proved against these
\nappellants.  The murder committed by the appellants are
\nproved by satisfactory evidence.  The approver’s evidence is
\nfully corroborated by other items of evidence.  We do not find
\nany reason to interfere with the order of conviction passed by
\nthe sessions court  and confirmed by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellants have been awarded capital punishment
\nfor committing these murders and their sentence was
\nconfirmed by the High Court.  Going by the details of the case,
\nwe find no mitigating circumstances in favour of the appellant,
\nexcept for the fact that they are women. Further, the nature of
\nthe crime and the systematic way in which each child was
\nkidnapped and killed amply demonstrates the depravity of the
\nmind of the appellants.  These appellants indulged in criminal
\nactivities for a very long period and continued it till they were
\ncaught by the police.  They very cleverly executed  their plans
\nof kidnapping the children and the moment they were no
\nlonger useful, they killed them and threw the dead body at
\nsome deserted place.  The appellants had been a menace to
\nthe society and the people in the locality were completely
\nhorrified and they could not send their children even to
\nschools.  The appellants had not been committing these
\ncrimes under any compulsion but  they took it very  casually
\nand killed all these children, least bothering  about their  lives
\nor agony of their parents.\n<\/p>\n
We have carefully considered the whole aspects of the
\ncase and are also alive to the new trends in the sentencing
\nsystem in criminology.   We do not think that these appellants
\nare likely to be reformed.  We confirm the conviction and also
\nthe death penalty imposed on them. The stay of execution of
\nthe capital punishment imposed on these appellants shall
\nstand vacated and the authorities are directed to take such
\nfurther steps as are necessary to carry out the execution of
\ncapital punishment imposed on these appellants.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Renuka Bai Alias Rinku Alias Ratan … vs State Of Maharashtra on 31 August, 2006 Author: K Balakrishnan Bench: K.G. Balakrishnan, G.P. Mathur CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 722 of 2005 PETITIONER: Renuka Bai alias Rinku alias Ratan & Anr. RESPONDENT: State of Maharashtra DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31\/08\/2006 BENCH: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN & […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-239649","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRenuka Bai Alias Rinku Alias Ratan ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 31 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renuka-bai-alias-rinku-alias-ratan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Renuka Bai Alias Rinku Alias Ratan ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 31 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renuka-bai-alias-rinku-alias-ratan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-10T17:29:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/renuka-bai-alias-rinku-alias-ratan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/renuka-bai-alias-rinku-alias-ratan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Renuka Bai Alias Rinku Alias Ratan … vs State Of Maharashtra on 31 August, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-10T17:29:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/renuka-bai-alias-rinku-alias-ratan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2006\"},\"wordCount\":4740,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/renuka-bai-alias-rinku-alias-ratan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/renuka-bai-alias-rinku-alias-ratan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/renuka-bai-alias-rinku-alias-ratan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2006\",\"name\":\"Renuka Bai Alias Rinku Alias Ratan ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 31 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-10T17:29:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/renuka-bai-alias-rinku-alias-ratan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/renuka-bai-alias-rinku-alias-ratan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/renuka-bai-alias-rinku-alias-ratan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Renuka Bai Alias Rinku Alias Ratan … vs State Of Maharashtra on 31 August, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Renuka Bai Alias Rinku Alias Ratan ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 31 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renuka-bai-alias-rinku-alias-ratan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Renuka Bai Alias Rinku Alias Ratan ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 31 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renuka-bai-alias-rinku-alias-ratan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-10T17:29:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renuka-bai-alias-rinku-alias-ratan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renuka-bai-alias-rinku-alias-ratan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Renuka Bai Alias Rinku Alias Ratan … vs State Of Maharashtra on 31 August, 2006","datePublished":"2006-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-10T17:29:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renuka-bai-alias-rinku-alias-ratan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2006"},"wordCount":4740,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renuka-bai-alias-rinku-alias-ratan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renuka-bai-alias-rinku-alias-ratan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renuka-bai-alias-rinku-alias-ratan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2006","name":"Renuka Bai Alias Rinku Alias Ratan ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 31 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-10T17:29:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renuka-bai-alias-rinku-alias-ratan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renuka-bai-alias-rinku-alias-ratan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/renuka-bai-alias-rinku-alias-ratan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-31-august-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Renuka Bai Alias Rinku Alias Ratan … vs State Of Maharashtra on 31 August, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/239649","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=239649"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/239649\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=239649"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=239649"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=239649"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}