Case Title: Sumit Suresh More vs State of Maharashtra
Summary
The Bombay High Court denied parole to Sumit Moore, who allegedly staged his own death by murdering his neighbor to claim the benefit of his life insurance policy, valued at Rs. 1.5 Crores. The Accused No.1 was killed to imply that he was involved in an accident, resulting in the destruction of both the vehicle and the Accused No.1. The prosecution claimed that a scheme was orchestrated by More, his parents, two siblings, and a friend to fraudulently claim benefits from his ICICI Prudential Life Insurance policy. Moore’s maternal uncle filed a FIR after discovering a charred corpse in a burnt car belonging to Moore’s mother. The State’s Additional Public Prosecutor, PH Gaikwad, opposed bail, citing the severity of the offense and incriminating evidence, such as the recovery of a wood log and clothes with petrol odors from More. The court acknowledged the gravity of the charges, particularly the murder charge under section 302 of the IPC, which entails a minimum sentence of life imprisonment. The court rejected the argument of parity with the other accused, emphasizing that More played the primary role and that the life insurance policy was registered in his name.
About the case
The Bombay High Court denied parole to a man who allegedly staged his own death by murdering his neighbor in order to claim the benefit of his life insurance policy, which is valued at Rs. 1.5 Crores.
Despite a postponement in the trial, Justice Madhav J Jamdar determined that the alleged offense was severe enough to warrant denying bail.
“The Applicant has been incarcerated for approximately four years and two months. Consequently, Mr. Chavan, the learned counsel for the Applicant, is correct in his assertion that the trial is being conducted behind schedule.” Nevertheless, as previously mentioned, the offense is extremely severe and grievous. This is a premeditated offense. In order to obtain the Rs.1,50,00,000/- life insurance policy benefit, an innocent individual was killed to imply that the Accused No.1 was involved in an accident. The accident occurred when the vehicle in which the Accused No.1 was traveling took fire, resulting in the destruction of both the vehicle and the Accused No.1.Consequently, the Bail Application was denied.
A scheme was orchestrated by the applicant, Sumit More, and five other accused, according to the prosecution, to fraudulently claim benefits from his ICICI Prudential Life Insurance policy. A plan was purportedly devised by More, his parents, two siblings, and a friend. The plan involved the fabrication of a fatal car accident by setting it on fire, the assertion that More was involved, the fabrication of his death, and the claim of his life insurance policy.
On January 20, 2020, More’s maternal uncle filed a FIR after discovering a charred corpse in a burnt car that belonged to Moore’s mother. Initially, he determined that the deceased was More. Nevertheless, in a supplementary statement issued on January 27, 2020, he stated that he had identified More alive at the police station on January 24, 2020. It is purported that More informed his uncle at that time that he had murdered a neighbor in order to stage his own demise. Additional bookings were made under Sections 302, 435, 201, 109, 120-B, and 34 of the IPC.
Shailesh Chavan, his attorney, contended that More had been in detention for more than four years and two months without making any substantial progress in the trial. He argued that Kamble’s supplementary statement is an extra-judicial confession and, as such, is inadmissible as evidence. Chavan cast doubt on the prosecution’s case by emphasizing the absence of blood-stained clothing among the recovered items. Additionally, he cited the release of other co-accused on parole, including More’s mother and a friend.
The State’s Additional Public Prosecutor, PH Gaikwad, opposed bail, citing the severity of the offense and incriminating evidence, such as the recovery of a wood log and clothes with petrol odors from More, as well as witness statements that connected him to the crime site. He argued that there is significant circumstantial evidence against More and that premeditation was involved.
According to the record, More was the sole individual to operate the vehicle involved in the criminal activity. Furthermore, the incinerated remains of his neighbor were discovered in the burned vehicle. The incriminating evidence was supplemented by the recovery of clothing with a petrol odor and documents related to insurance policies in order to prima facie appease the court in support of the charges. The court acknowledged the gravity of the charges, particularly the murder charge under section 302 of the IPC, which entails a minimum sentence of life imprisonment.
“The Accused’s propensity to tamper with witnesses and flee from justice is evident in the manner in which the offense was committed,” the court explained. The court acknowledged that the case is not entirely or exclusively predicated on the uncle’s extra-judicial confession, despite finding veracity in Chavan’s assertion that an extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. The court rejected the argument of parity with the other accused, emphasizing that More played the primary role and that the life insurance policy was registered in his name. Nevertheless, the court permitted More to reapply for parole if the trial did not make significant progress within 15 months, as the prosecution had indicated that it would take measures to conclude the trial within that time frame.
