Reached Daily Limit?

Explore a new way of legal research!

Click Here
Indian Case Summary

Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar vs State Of Maharashtra on 9 March, 2011 – Case Summary

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In the case of Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar vs State Of Maharashtra on 9 March, 2011, the Supreme Court of India was tasked with reviewing a criminal appeal. The case was presided over by Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar and Justice B. Sudershan Reddy. The appeal was directed against the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court dated 21st August, 2008, which confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant, Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar (A5), by the Special Judge of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOC Act) in Special Case No. 3 of 2005.

Facts of the Case

The prosecution alleged that the accused, including Paradkar, were active members of the organized crime syndicate of Chhota Rajan. They were accused of conspiring to eliminate a prominent Mumbai businessman, Bharat Shah. The plan was to assassinate him near his office at `Mehta Bhuvan’, Charni Road, Mumbai. The movements of Bharat Shah were closely monitored, and his office timings were communicated to the accused via telephone by Bharat Nepali. The police received information about the conspiracy on or before 14th October, 2004.

Court’s Observations

The court observed that the prosecution had relied heavily on the evidence of intercepted telephone conversations to establish the conspiracy. The prosecution also presented evidence of the accused’s cell phone records, the recovery of weapons from the accused, and the identification of the accused by witnesses. However, the court noted that the evidence presented was not without its flaws and inconsistencies.

Ruling

The trial court convicted all the five accused under various sections of the MCOC Act, IPC, and Arms Act. However, on appeal, the High Court acquitted accused Nos. 1 to 4, but upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar. The High Court made a distinction in the case of the appellant based on the voice identification evidence. The appellant, aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments, found merit in the submissions made by the appellant’s counsel. The court noted that the High Court had committed a grave error in treating the voice identification evidence as substantive evidence, which could at best be used as corroboration of other independent evidence. The Supreme Court thus agreed with the appellant’s contention that the High Court had erred in its judgment. The final ruling of the Supreme Court, however, is not provided in the extracted content.