Bombay High Court
Santosh S/O. Mangalprasad Morya vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 February, 2021
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge, B. U. Debadwar
1 902 application 435-20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
902 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.435 OF 2020
IN APEALST/120/2020 WITH APPLN/434/2020 IN
APEALST/120/2020
SANTOSH S/O. MANGALPRASAD MORYA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. A. Y. Pandule
APP for Respondent -State: Mr. K. S. Patil
Advocate Mr. S. J Salunke, appointed as amicus
curiae
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
B. U. DEBADWAR, JJ.
DATE :- 5th February, 2021
Per Court :-
1. The applicant prays for condonation of delay of 1336 days
caused in challenging the judgment and order dated
04.04.2016, delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-
2, Kopargaon in Sessions Case No. 67 of 2014 by which, the
applicant has been convicted for having committed an ofence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC and is sentenced to sufer
imprisonment for life.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and
the learned prosecutor.
2 902 application 435-20
3. We have no hesitation in observing that there is hardly any
reason set out in the application which would convince us to
condone the delay of 1336 days. We, however, are of the view
that as the applicant has been convicted by the trial court and if
the delay caused is not condoned, he would lose a valuable right
of fling an appeal for challenging his conviction and the
quantum of the sentence. He would have no opportunity to
question the legality and validity of the impugned judgment.
4. The applicant has been held guilty of murdering his wife, a
son and a daughter by taking them on a pilgrimage to the
pilgrimage city of Shirdi. He had checked into room no.201 of
hotel Neeta International and it is proved that he has killed his
wife and children, one by one, in the said room. The trial court,
while dealing with the gravity of the ofence and while assessing
as to whether the case would fall within the parameters of a
'rarest of the rare cases', has concluded that the applicant made
no attempt to commit suicide and there was no reason that
could prevent the accused from committing suicide. However,
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Amarsing
Yadeo Vs. State of Utter Pradesh, AIR 2014 SC 2486,
wherein a police ofcer had killed his wife and children by
3 902 application 435-20
locking them inside in a Maruti van and setting the van ablaze,
which was held to be not a 'rarest of the rare cases', was
followed by the trial court and granted the of sentence simple
imprisonment for life.
5. In view of the above, this application is allowed. The
criminal appeal Stamp No. 120 of 2020 shall be registered.
6. Considering the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate
to appoint learned advocate Shri S. J. Salunke, to represent the
appellant along with Advocate Shri Pandule in this matter,
through High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Aurangabad.
7. The learned prosecutor submits that he would take
instructions in this matter and as it appears that a lesser
punishment is awarded to the appellant, the State is likely to
take steps for fling an appeal for seeking enhancement of the
sentence.
8. In view of the above, we list this appeal for admission
hearing on 8th March, 2021.
4 902 application 435-20
9. The trial court i.e. 2nd Additional Sessions Court, Kopargaon
shall transmit the R & P in Sessions Case No. 67 of 2014 decided
on 04.04.2016, as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or
before 5th March, 2021 through a special messenger.
(B. U. DEBADWAR, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
vsm
