Important Point – It is not necessary for the police to go into detail and verify whether the accused are innocent or not which is the function of the Court.

V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.

1. Criminal Appeal No. 1020 of 2009 has been preferred by Jaswantbhai Chaturbhai Nai, Shailesh Chimanlal Bhatt and Ramesh Rupabhai Chandana who are original accused Nos. 1, 4 and 12. Criminal Appeal No. 1021 of 2009 has been preferred by Rajubhai Babulal Soni and Mitesh Chimanlal Bhatt who are original accused nos. 10 and 11. Criminal Appeal No. 1022 of 2009 has been preferred by Govindbhai Nai, Bipinchand Kanaiyalal Joshi @ Lala Doctor and Somabhai Koyabhai Gori who are original accused nos. 2, 6 and 17. Original accused no. 17 - Somabhai Koyabhai Gori expired during the pendency of the appeal, hence, the appeal stands abated in relation to him. He was convicted for the offence under Sections 217 and 218 of IPC. Criminal Appeal No. 1023 of 2009 is preferred by Kesharbhai Khimabhai Vohania, Pradip Ramanlal Modhiya and Bakabhai Khimabhai Vohania who are original accused nos. 7, 8 and 9. Criminal Appeal No. 487 of 2010 is preferred by Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah who is original accused no. 5.

2. The appeals have been preferred by accused nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 12 against their conviction and sentence under Sections 143, 147, 302 read with Section 149, 376(2) (e) & (g) and 376(2)(g) of IPC. It may be stated here that original accused no.3 – Naresh R. Modhiya expired during the pendency of the trial. For the offence under Section 143 of IPC, the accused nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 12 have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for six months. For the offence under Section 147 of IPC, they have been sentenced to R.I. for two years. For the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC, they have been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2000/- on each count of murder and in default of payment of fine, to suffer R.I. for a further period of two years. For the offence under Section 376(2)(e) & (g) of IPC, they have been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/- each in default to suffer R.I. for a further period of two years for having committed gang-rape on the prosecutrix i.e. Bilkis Yakub Rasul Patel who was pregnant at the time of the incident. For the offence under Section 376(2)(g), they have been sentenced to R.I. for ten years and fine of Rs.2000/- each in default, R.I. for a further period of two years for having committed gang-rape on Halima Abdul Issa Ghachi and Shamim Musa Patel. In addition, accused No. 1 has assailed his conviction under Section 148 of IPC for which he was sentenced to R.I. for three years. The trial Court directed the sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently.

3. Criminal Appeal No. 271 of 2011 has been preferred by Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) for enhancement of sentence imposed on original accused no. 1- Jaswantbhai Chaturbhai Nai, accused no. 2-Govindbhai Nai and accused no.4 Shailesh Chimanlal Bhatt. Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 2011 has been preferred by C.B.I. against acquittal under Sections 201, 217 and 218 IPC of original accused nos. 13 to 20 i.e. accused no.13 – Narpatsingh Ranchodbhai Patel, accused no. -14 Idris Abdul Saiyed, accused no. 15- Bhikhabai Ramjibhai Patel, accused no.16 Ramsingh Mitlibhai Bhabhor, accused no. 17- Somabhai Koyabhai Gori, accused no. 18 – R.S. @ Ramabhai Bhagora, accused no. 19 – Dr. Arunkumar Ramkishan Prasad and accused no.20 – Dr. Sangeeta Arunkumar Prasad. As stated earlier, accused No. 17 expired during pendency of the appeal, hence, the appeal abates as far as he is concerned. As all these appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.1.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 634 of 2004, we have heard all the appeals together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the accused are being referred to as they were referred before the trial Court.

4. The prosecution case, briefly stat