SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(SC) 1074

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Madan B. Lokur and C. Nagappan, JJ.
Mahamadkhan Nathekhan - Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 162, 406 and 695 of 2007
Decided On : 10-9-2014

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Sanjay Jain, AOR (NP), Ms. Manisha T. Karia, AOR (NP), Dr. Sushil K. Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Ajay Kr. Sinha, Advocate for Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, AOR (NP).
For the Respondent:Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR (NP), Ms. Pinky Behera and Ms. Preeti Bhardwaj, Advocates.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 120(B) and 201 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25 - Challenging their conviction – Offence of Murder – Injury - Both brothers took dinner in night and at that time informed his wife about his programmed to go to and further told her that was to go in car with accused and she need not worry because of severe cold - After dinner he left home with a suitcase and went to shop of accused No. 3- Held, circumstances which are not put to accused in his examination under Section 313 CrPC, cannot be used against him and must be excluded from consideration said statement cannot be treated as evidence within meaning of Section 3 of Evidence Act, as accused cannot be cross-examined with reference to such statement died of gunshot injury is established by the medical evidence - Trial Court elaborately considered the evidence and held that there was possibility of accidental death rather than homicidal death - In our view the homicidal death has not been established in facts of the case - There was no motive for the occurrence - Though large amounts are said to be due from customers at there is no evidence of record in form of books of accounts. Practically there is no evidence on this aspect. In fact according to as was due from accused was due from accused cross examination he has stated that said amount is due from clients of and not from accused and there are no dues from him - Law is well settled that when prosecution case rests purely on circumstantial evidence motive plays an important part in order to tilt scale against accused - In our view High Court misread the material evidence and reversed decision of Trial Court by convicting accused conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside Accused was seated in the back seat along with when gun fired. Prosecution witness Ballistic expert has testified that on back seat of car and on doors of left side glass pane nitrite was found - Having seated in back seat it is but natural that nitrate was found in hands of but from that no inference can be drawn that he used gun and was responsible for injury - High Court treated statement of accused given under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as evidence against him - This is clearly impermissible in law - This Court in recent decision in State of Assam - Appeals are allowed

JUDGMENT :

C. Nagappan, J.

All three appeals are preferred against the judgment dated 26.12.2006 in Criminal Appeal No. 865 of 1986 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad.

2. Accused No. 1 Asaf Afkhan Kalandarkhan, accused No. 2 Mahamadkhan Nathekhan and accused No. 3 Vora Ismailbhai Daudbhai were tried for the charge under Sections 302, 120(B) and 201 of IPC and Section 25(A) of The Arms Act, 1959 for committing the murder of Firozbhai Abdul Latif by firing gun shot on the right side of his chest, when he was in the motor car of accused No. 3 in the early hours on 21.2.1984 in Sessions Case No. 44 of 1985 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol. The Trial Court acquitted the accused from all the charges leveled against them. Challenging the same the State of Gujarat preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 865 of 1986 on the file of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad and the High Court held that the charge of criminal conspiracy against accused Nos. 1 to 3 has not been proved by the prosecution and the offence under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act is not proved as against accused No. 3 and acquitted them of the said charges. At the same time, the High Court found accused Nos. 1 and 3 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and accused No. 2 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 114 IPC and further held accused Nos. 1 and 2 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. Accordingly, the High Court sentenced all the three accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the charge of murder and sentenced accused Nos. 1 and 2 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of L 5000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under the Arms Act. Challenging their conviction and sentence all the three accused have preferred three independent appeals before this Court.

3. Briefly the prosecution case is as follows :

Accused Nos. 1 and 3 were friends of deceased Firozbhai and their relationship was cordial. Accused No. 2 was also a common friend of them. Firozbhai was in the business of selling tyres of four wheelers and two wheelers and accused No. 3 was in the business of sale and purchase of motor trucks and was a broker in that field and he was helping Firozbhai to sell tyres to the traders at Savarkundla, a town under the district Bhavnagar. There were outstandings to be recovered from customers at Savarkundla and Firozbhai was interested in early recovery and at his instance accused Nos. 1 and 3 on 20.2.1984 agreed to accompany Firozbhai to Savarkundla sometime during afternoon hours. Firozbhai sold the tyres at Savarkundla on credit basis at the instance of accused No. 3 by taking only token amount and hence Firozbhai was keen that accused No. 3 should accompany him. The brother of deceased Firozbhai, Mohammed Usman was working in a cooperative bank in the same place and during the spare hours he was helping Firozbhai in his business. On 20.2.1984 Firozbhai told his brother Mohammed Usman of his plan to go to Savarkundla with accused Nos. 1 and 3 for collecting dues from his customers and requested him not to go to the bank on the next day so that he can attend to the business at the shop. Both the brothers took dinner in the night and at that time Firozbhai informed his wife Banu Bibi about his programme to go to Savarkundla and further told her that he was to go in the car with accused Nos. 1 and 3 and she need not worry because of severe cold. After dinner he left the home with a suitcase and went to the shop of accused No. 3.

4. Accused No. 3 at that time was reluctant to go with Firozbhai and finally accused Nos. 1 and 3 agreed and they started in the fiat car driven by accused No. 3. On their way, they put petrol from the petrol pump of Lalitkumar and proceeded towards Bagodara. Suddenly, they decided to go to Nal Sarovar for huntin






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top