http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

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 & G.P. MATHUR

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

       This criminal appeal has been filed by the two appellants  herein who have been found guilty by the High Court of  Bombay for various offences.  These appellants were charged  for various crimes alleged to have been committed by them  during the period June 1990 to October 1996. They were tried  by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolaphur and found guilty  and sentenced to death.   The High Court confirmed their  conviction on various counts and the sentence imposed on  them.

       The appellants Renuka Bai @ Rinku @ Ratan and Seema  @ Devki @ Devli are sisters.  Their mother, Anjanabai, a  co- accused died in 1997 and hence she could not be tried.   Approver Kiran Shinde who had studied upto 7th standard and  left the school in 1982, belonged to Pune.  He obtained some  training in the work of tailoring and was doing tailoring work  in a shop belonging to one Suresh.  In 1983 he came in  contact with the first appellant Renuka Bai and in December  1989 he married Renuka at a temple near Shirdi.  Renuka was  previously married to somebody else and was having a child  by name Aashish.  These two appellants and their mother  Anjanabai and the approver Kiran Shinde and child Aashish  were residing as tenants in a house at Gonthalinagar in Pune.   The appellants and their mother used to commit thefts.  For  that they would go to the places of festivals and whenever they  got opportunity they used to snatch the gold chains and made  a living out of the income derived from such thefts committed  by them.

       In 1990, the first appellant Renuka Bai along with her  child Aashish went to a temple.  There was a large gathering at  the temple, Renuka Bai tried to snatch a purse from a person  but she was caught in that process.  On being caught, she  raised a hue and cry and questioned the person as to why he  had caught hold of her hand when she was having a child with  her and could not have been involved in a crime.  Many people  gathered around her and seeing the mother and the child, they  left the appellant Renuka Bai.  She narrated this incident to  her sister Seema and mother Anjanabai and told how she had  managed to escape as she had the child with her.  The police  had caught both the appellants and their mother on several  occasions and they used to bribe the police and escape from  the clutches of law.  The appellants and their mother decided  that thereafter they would have a child with them at the time  of committing the crime so that  by making use of the child

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

they can escape from the crowd.  According to the prosecution,  the appellants, their mother Anjanabai and approver Kiran  Shinde entered into a conspiracy to kidnap small children  below five years of age and make use of them whenever  necessary and dispose them of when they are no longer useful.   They thought that this was the only way to evade possible  arrest whenever they were caught in the process of committing  theft.  

       According to prosecution, these appellants alongwith  their mother Anjana Bai and approver Kiran Shinde were  instrumental in kidnapping 13 children and out of them they  had killed 9 of them.  All these crimes were allegedly  committed during the period June 1990 to October 1996.  The  appellants have been convicted on various counts and the  death penalty imposed on them by the Sessions Court was  confirmed by the High Court.

       The Sessions Judge meticulously considered the evidence  of the prosecution and by a detailed judgment found these  appellants guilty of majority of crimes charged against them.   The High Court confirmed the finding in most of the cases.   Though 9 cases of murder were alleged against the appellants,  the Sessions Court found them guilty only of commission of 6  murders.  When the matter came up in appeal before the High  Court, it was held that the prosecution could succeed in  proving only 5 cases of murder against these appellants.  The  trial Court convicted the appellants for murder in the case of  death of Santosh, Anjali  @ Pinki, Raja, Shraddha, Gauri and  Pankaj.  However, the High Court held that in the case of  murder of Raja, the evidence was not satisfactory.  Appellants  in all these cases pleaded not guilty and alleged that they had  been falsely implicated in these cases.   

The gist of allegations against them is that these two  appellants, along with their mother Anjana Bai, with the help  of the approver in this case, namely, Kiran Shinde, had  kidnapped 13 children and caused the death of 9 out of them.   They also had attempted to kidnap yet another child but their  attempt failed.  Anjana Bai, the mother of the present  appellants died in 1997.  For the offences punishable under  Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC, the appellants have  been awarded capital punishment.

       Brief summary of the successive criminal acts of  kidnapping and murder committed by the appellants is thus.

       These appellants were found guilty of kidnapping one  child, namely, Santosh who was aged about 1-= years in July  1990.  They killed Santosh, and disposed of the dead body  near the State Transport Stand at Kolhapur.  For this offence,  they have been found guilty and sentenced to  death.  

       The appellants have also been found guilty of kidnapping  one child named, Naresh, aged 9 months, in 1991 from Thane  ST Stand.  The appellants were alleged to have left the child  near a temple at Nasik and later made a claim before the  Court for the custody of that child based on false  grounds.   The appellants were found guilty of the offence punishable  under Section 364 read with Section 120B IPC; Section 323   and sentenced to undergo 3 years imprisonment for the main  offence.

       In another case in 1993,  these appellants kidnapped a  child named Bunty aged about one year, and a girl named,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

Swati, aged about two years from the Kalyan Railway Station,  Mumbai.  There was also an allegation that these appellants  kidnapped Guddu aged 2 = years and a girl named, Meena,  aged 3 years, in 1993, from V.T. Station, Mumbai.  The  appellants along with their mother, Anjanabai, ,killed Bunti  and Guddu and disposed of their dead bodies.  For kidnapping  Guddu and Meena, they were found guilty, but as regards the   murder of Guddu, the prosecution could not prove the offence  under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC and they were  acquitted of the charge.          The next case for which these appellants had been  charged was the kidnapping of a child, namely, Anjali @ Pinky,  aged about two years from Kalika Mandir at Nasik on  18.X.1994 and killed her and disposed of the dead body with  the help of the approver, Kiran Shinde.  The appellants have  been found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302  read with Section 120B IPC and for this offence they have  been imposed with capital punishment.  

       It is further alleged that in March 1995, the appellants  along with their mother Anjanabai and approver, Kiran  Shinde, kidnapped a male child by name, Swapnil @ Raja from  the S.T. Stand at Kolhapur. They killed the child in the second  week of March, 1995 and threw the dead body of the child  near Khandala Ghat and for this offence, the appellants have  been found guilty and sentenced to death.

       Another criminal case charged against them is  that  these appellants kidnapped one girl, namely, Shraddha @ Rani   @ Bhagyashree aged about one year nine months from  Mahalaxmi Temple, Kolhapur, and thereafter killed the child  while the appellants were traveling in a taxi from Pune to  Surat and disposed of the dead body of the child.  For these  criminal acts, the appellants have been found guilty of the  offences  punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120  B and other allied offences and for the main offence, they have  been sentenced to death penalty.

       In the next case also, the appellants have  been found  guilty of kidnapping one child named Kranti, aged nine years  and later killed the child and disposed of the dead body in a  sugarcane field at a place called Narsoba.  For this offence  also, appellants have been found guilty and sentenced to  death.

       Another allegation against the appellants relates to  making an attempt to kidnap a child namely, Devli from a  primary school at Nasik.  Though the Sessions Court found  the appellants guilty of kidnapping,   the High Court found  that the case  of kidnapping of a child was wrongly entered  against the appellants.

       In  the chain of crimes committed by these appellants,  they were again found guilty of offence punishable under  Section 302 read with Section 120 B IPC for kidnapping and  murdering one Gauri @ Bhavna aged 1-= years.  This child  was kidnapped from Ganga Ghat vegetable market in Nasik.   The child was killed in Kolhapur and the appellants  disposed  of his dead body in the women’s  lavatory of  a cinema theatre.   For this offence, the appellants have been found guilty and  sentenced to death.

       In the last of the series of criminal offences charged  against them, the appellants were found guilty of kidnapping

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

one male child, namely, Pankaj aged four years on 27.7.1996  from Vithal Mandir, Wadala, Mumbai.   The appellants later  killed the child in September 1996 in a house at Pune and  disposed of the dead body of the child in a gunny bag.  For  this offence, the appellants  have been found guilty on various  counts.

       In the appeal preferred by the appellants, the Division  Bench of the High Court confirmed their conviction on almost  all the counts and confirmed the death penalty imposed on  these appellants.

       We shall briefly consider the evidence adduced by the  prosecution in these five cases and whether any error or  illegality had been committed in the case of conviction of these  appellants for these offences charged against them.   

       Kiran Shinde turned approver on 17-10-1997 and he was  first examined on 17.9.1998 before the Magistrate.   

       One of the earliest cases of kidnapping and murder  committed by these appellants relates to the incident of  kidnapping of one Santosh.   The prosecution case is that in  July, 1990 the appellants and their mother Anjanabai had  gone to Kolhapur.  Appellant Renuka met a female beggar with  a child at the bus stand.  She promised the beggar that she  would give her a job.  Renuka managed to kidnap the child  without being noticed by his mother and took the child to  Pune where the appellants were staying.  They named the  child as Santosh.   In July, 1990 itself, the appellants went to  Shirdi for the purpose of committing thefts.   As they did not  come back to Pune for 5-6 days,  Anjanabai went in search of  them.  About 7 days thereafter, the police brought the  appellants  and conducted a search of their house at Pune.    There were two children with the appellants at that time.  They  were Ashish and Santosh.   Approver-Kiran Shinde bribed the  police and  he escaped from Maharashtra.   Appellants and  their mother Anjanabai were taken into custody, but later they  were released from  police  custody.  In March, 1991, Renuka  gave birth to a child and he was named ’Kishore’.  In April,  1991, appellants, their mother and Kiran Shinde went to   Kolhapur for committing thefts.   They took a room in a  "Dharamshala" , kept their luggage there and went to  Mahalaxmi temple in the evening.   There, appellant-Seema  tried to snatch the purse of a person.   She was caught and  beaten by him.   Her mother Anjanabai then intervened.   She  threw Santosh on the ground who sustained a bleeding injury  on his head.    Many persons gathered  around them and  seeing the bleeding wound on the head of the  child Santosh,  people consoled them and the matter was not reported to  the  police.    Appellant Reunka then suggested that they may  commit some more thefts.  They went to the bus stand and  managed to commit theft of  2-3 purses.    On their way back,   the child Santosh started crying  as he was bleeding.   Anjanabai then told that the child was no longer useful as he  was crying and there was a  likelihood of their being caught by  police.   The further case of the prosecution is that Anjanabai  pressed the mouth of  Santosh and dashed his head  on an  iron bar whereby   Santosh sustained more head injuries  and  died on the spot.    The clothes worn by  Anjanabai were   washed at the water tap and now they wanted to dispose of  the dead body of Santosh.   They left the dead body near the  heap of some old rickshaws and came back to Dharamshala.    On the next day, the dead body of Santosh was found and the  matter was reported to the  Laxmipur police station.   The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

police could not find out any trace of the murder and later  they filed the final report.

       In order to prove the case of murder of Santosh, PW 53,  PW 54, PW 56, PW 58, PW 63 to PW 65, PW 67 to PW 69, PW  124, PW 125, PW 127 and PW 132, PW 137 and PW 155 were  examined.  PW 132 Dr. Chandrashekhar Chanokar of CPR  Hospital who conducted the post-mortem case  was of the  opinion that the cause of death of the boy was shock due to  the fracture of the base of his skull with intra cerebral  hemorrhage.  PW 56 is a Peon who was present at the time  when the dead body of Santosh was recovered from a place  near the Vikram High School, Kolhapur.  He deposed that  there was bleeding from the ear and injury on the head of the  deceased.  The evidence of PW 67 is very crucial in proving the  prosecution case.  PW 67 is a Constable in the State Reserve  Police Force.  His house is at Gondhalinagar, Pune.  Though  he constructed this house in 1987, he was not staying there.   He knew approver Kiran Shinde and these appellants and  their mother.  He gave this house in 1990 to these appellants  and they stayed there for about 1-= years.  He used to go to  this place for collecting rent and had seen Santosh at that  place and when inquired about him, Anjanabai told that the  boy was the son of the relative who was staying at Kolhapur.   The photo taken from the dead body of Santosh was shown to  the witness and he identified and the same was marked as  Exhibit 235.  When PW 67 inquired with the police, they told  that these women were associated for committing theft of  ornaments.  Thereafter, he asked the approver Kiran Shinde to  vacate the house and the witness came to know that these  three women were in jail for about 9 to 10 months and at last  he got back the possession of the house.  The evidence of this  witness alone is sufficient to prove that these appellants were  responsible for the death of boy Santosh.  There was also the  supporting evidence of other witnesses and the prosecution  satisfactorily proved the guilt of the accused persons and their  conviction for murder of this boy Santosh is perfectly justified.

       The appellants were found guilty of kidnapping 1 = year  old child by name Naresh @ Kalpesh @ Aniket.  PW 90, PW 91,  PW 92, PW 96, PW 106, PW 107 were examined to prove the  kidnapping of child Naresh.  The approver Kiran Shinde stated  that in the year 1992, they were residing at Indubai Chawl  and as they were in need of money, they decided to go to Pune.   They reached the bus stand at Thane.  There, they met a  beggar who was with a child about 8 to 9 months.  Appellant  Renuka started talking with the beggar and got the child in  her arms.  Appellant Renuka gave her some money and asked  her to get milk for the child.  When the mother of the child  went out of the bus stand to get milk, the appellant slipped  away with the child and left the bus stand in an auto  rickshaw.  The appellants took this child to Nasik to attend  ’Kumbh’ mela.  Whenever the child cried  deceased Anjana Bai  used to beat him.  Anjana Bai then advised the appellants to  leave the child at a temple and the child was left at a temple.   When the child started crying, a lady police constable came  and took the child.  The appellants then left that place.   Appellant Renuka was so fond of this child that she wanted to  retrieve this child.  She came to know that the child was in an  orphanage by name "Adhar Ashram" at Nasik.  Deceased  Anjana Bai filed application to this orphanage to get this child  by stating that he was her child but she was not successful.   They had also resorted to some litigation for getting this child  back.  Kidnapping of the child is proved by these items of  evidence.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

        The appellants were found guilty of murder of the child  Bunty.  This child was picked up by the appellants in April  1993 from Kalyan Railway Station, Bombay and the child was  killed in May 1993.  The appellants had also kidnapped  children Swati aged 2 = years, and Guddu aged 2 = years.   Swati was abandoned and Guddu was allegedly killed in May  1993.  But the prosecution could not produce any satisfactory  evidence of the murder of Guddu.  To prove these cases, series  of witnesses were examined by the prosecution.

The appellants were found guilty of having caused the  death of Anjali @ Pinki.  She was a child of 2 = years of age  and was kidnapped on 18.10 1994 from Kalika Mandir at  Nasik.  As regards the kidnap of Anjali @ Pinki, the approver  Kiran Shinde stated that in the year 1994, he stayed at Pune  and the appellants and their mother came to him and  alongwith them, there was a girl aged 3 years and she was  called Pinki.  Approver made inquiries and he was told that  they had gone to Kalika Mandir at Nasik and from there, they  got Pinki.  He further stated that Pinki was continuously  crying and the neighbouring women asked the appellants as to  who she was and the first appellant replied that her mother  had been admitted in the hospital and hence the child was  brought to them.  As Pinki was continuously crying it became  a nuisance to the appellant and her mother Anjana Bai was  very much annoyed by this girl and she pushed this girl  forcibly and the girl fell in front of the latrine and the first  appellant held her legs together and after sometime the  movements of Pinki stopped and she died.  They kept the body  in a bag and brought the bag near Saswad Road and threw it  in a compound where there were lot of bushes.

The evidence of the approver is fully corroborated by the  other items of evidence.  PW 10 Sujata is the mother of Anjali  @ Pinki.  She gave a complaint to the police stating that she  had gone to the Kalika Mandir on 18.10.1994 along with her  husband and daughters Shweta and Anjali.  The daughter  Anjali was with her husband.  PW 10 Sujata had gone to have  a Puja.  When the articles of Puja was being handed over to  them, daughter Anjali was sitting on the floor.  When they  came back, the girl was not seen.  They made fanatic search  but the child could not be found.  After the body was  recovered, she identified certain photographs of the child.

PW 62 is the father of Anjali.  He deposed that from  18.10.1994 onwards, Anjali was missing when they had gone  to the Kalika Mandir at Nasik and on 1.11.1996, he lodged  FIR.  He had also identified the photographs Exhibit 87/1,  87/2, 87/3 and Exhibits 90 and 91.

There is also evidence to show that deceased Anjali was  found in the company of appellants.  PW 12 is the owner of a  lodge at Nasik and he deposed that on 11.10.1994, three  women alongwith two to three children came there to have a  room in the lodge.  They told that they would like to stay there  for 8 to 10 days.  Though he was reluctant to give them a room  but as they had children alongwith them, he ultimately gave  them room no. 6 which they took in the name of ’Sima Patil- Gavit’ and these three women stayed in the lodge for 8 days.   On one day PW 12 heard the cries of a child and he made  enquiries and he was told that the girl was a child of the  maternal aunt of one of them who was having a stall in the fair  at the temple and the child was crying so they had brought  her alongwtih them.  Again after 20-25 minutes, there was a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

crying sound and PW 12 and his mother asked them to vacate  the rooms.  PW 12 identified the first appellant and one of the  women who had stayed in the lodge.  She also identified  exhibit 87/1 and 87/2 photographs of the girl and deposed  that the very same girl was with the three women when they  were staying in the lodge.

There is also the evidence of PW 46 Kantabai Borkar who  identified the photographs of Anjali @ Pinki.  This witness was  the neighbour of the accused and deposed that the deceased  Anjali @ Pinki was with them.  So there is also evidence of PW  22 Rajendra Sankpal who saw the dead body of Anjali near his  nursery, and reported the same to the police.  PW 25 Narsinh  Kendgale recovered the dead body and prepared the  Panchnama.  PW 131 Dr. Lakshmikant Bade conducted the  post-morterm on the dead body of Anjali.  In the post morterm  report, it was reported that there were series of injuries in the  body of deceased Anjali @ Pinki.  There were series of  abrasions and the doctor deposed that injury no. 2 namely  contusion of upper and lower lips and the laceration of  mucosa of upper and lower lips in incisol area indicated that  the mouth of the victim was pressed and that injuries no.  2,7,9,11 and 12 might have happened due to fall or being  thrown from the staircase.

The entire evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly  establishes that the approver’s evidence was fully corroborated  by other items of evidence and death of Anjali @ Pinki was  caused by the appellants.

The Sessions Judge has dealt with in detail each items of  evidence and the High Court also re-appreciated the evidence  in respect of each item of evidence.  We do not propose to  consider each case but we are satisfied that the evidence  adduced by the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt  that the appellants were responsible for series of kidnapping of  children and murders and they have been rightly found guilty  for these offences.   

The prosecution thus succeeded in proving that these  appellants have committed a series of murders.  The learned  Counsel for the appellants strongly urged before us that the  evidence of the approver should not have been accepted by the  Court as it is a tainted evidence. It was argued that there is no  satisfactory corroboration of the evidence of the approver and  unless there is a corroboration,  it should not have been acted  upon.  It is true that the evidence of the approver is always to  be viewed with suspicion especially when it is seriously  suspected that he is suppressing some material facts.  Here  the approver’s evidence was not fully accepted by the High  Court.  High Court was of the view that he had suppressed  some material facts.  We find that the observation made by the  High Court was justified.  The tenor  of the evidence given by  the approver Kiran Shinde is to the effect that he was only a  silent spectator but all these heinous crimes were committed  by the appellants and their mother Anjana Bai.  It is difficult  to believe that these women alone had committed all these  crimes unless there is strong support from the approver Kiran  Shinde.  When the Court suspected the evidence of the  approver, the pardon given to him itself could be withdrawn  and he could be tried along with the other accused.  But  unfortunately the provisions contained in the Criminal  Procedure Code do not enable the Court to take such a strong  action.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

       The approver was given pardon under Section 306 of the  Cr.P.C.  and thereafter he was examined as a witness for  prosecution under Section 308 of the Cr.P.C.  The procedure  prescribes that if the approver is wilfully concealing anything   essential  or is giving false evidence or had not complied with  the conditions  on which the tender of pardon was made, the  approver can be tried for the offence in respect of which he  had been given pardon.   In order to prosecute the approver,  the public prosecutor  has to give a certificate and he should  express his opinion that the approver has either wilfully  concealed anything essential or has given false evidence or has  not complied with the conditions on which pardon  has been  made.  The proviso  to Section 308 also says that such person  shall not be tried for the offence for giving  false evidence  except  with the sanction of the High Court and the approver  also would be entitled  to plead that he had complied with the  condition upon which such tender of pardon was made and  that he had not given any false evidence or willfully  suppressed anything. Thus, the Code of Criminal Procedure  prescribes a procedure for prosecuting the approver who had  given false evidence or wilfully suppressed anything.

       In the instant case,  the approver  Kiran Shinde  was  present when many of the murders had taken place and it is  quite possible  that he also must  have been an active  participant  and the High Court was justified in saying that  the approver had not given full details of the crimes.  The  approver was moving with the two appellants for a long period  and despite  the repeated criminal acts committed by them,   the approver did not inform the police or any authorities.   Some of the children kidnapped by the appellants were in the  custody of the appellants and the approver, and later their  bodies were found. In one case, the post mortem examination   showed that the child was subjected to some unnatural  offence. The approver himself had admitted that he had bribed   the police many times and  saved these appellants from the  clutches of law.  Despite all these startling revelations,  the  approver could not be proceeded against and the public  prosecutor had not taken any step to proceed against the  approver.  We feel, under such circumstances the court itself  has inherent powers to proceed against the approver in case  he is  wilfully  suppressing material facts or is giving false  evidence.

       The two appellants kidnapped several children and  committed their murder in the most dastardly manner.  In  some cases, the body could not be found and in some cases  the dead body could be traced out. The High Court felt that  these five cases of murders have been proved against these  appellants.  The murder committed by the appellants are  proved by satisfactory evidence.  The approver’s evidence is  fully corroborated by other items of evidence.  We do not find  any reason to interfere with the order of conviction passed by  the sessions court  and confirmed by the High Court.

       The appellants have been awarded capital punishment  for committing these murders and their sentence was  confirmed by the High Court.  Going by the details of the case,  we find no mitigating circumstances in favour of the appellant,  except for the fact that they are women. Further, the nature of  the crime and the systematic way in which each child was  kidnapped and killed amply demonstrates the depravity of the  mind of the appellants.  These appellants indulged in criminal  activities for a very long period and continued it till they were  caught by the police.  They very cleverly executed  their plans

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

of kidnapping the children and the moment they were no  longer useful, they killed them and threw the dead body at  some deserted place.  The appellants had been a menace to  the society and the people in the locality were completely  horrified and they could not send their children even to  schools.  The appellants had not been committing these  crimes under any compulsion but  they took it very  casually  and killed all these children, least bothering  about their  lives  or agony of their parents.    We have carefully considered the whole aspects of the  case and are also alive to the new trends in the sentencing  system in criminology.   We do not think that these appellants  are likely to be reformed.  We confirm the conviction and also  the death penalty imposed on them. The stay of execution of  the capital punishment imposed on these appellants shall  stand vacated and the authorities are directed to take such  further steps as are necessary to carry out the execution of  capital punishment imposed on these appellants.