The judgment establishes the principle that when the prosecution proves that only the accused persons were responsible for the offense and the acquittal of other accused is not based on mistaken identity, the appellant can only be held responsible for his individual act.

V.K. Tahilramani, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant-original accused No. 1 against the judgment and order dated 10.12.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag in Sessions Case No. 105 of 2012. By the said judgment and order, the learned Session Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 25000/-, in default R.I. for one year. The appellant was further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506(II) of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default R.I. for three months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed that both the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further directed that out of the fine amount deposited by the appellant, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- be paid to the wife of the deceased Zahir, namely Rubina Zahir Patel towards compensation after appeal period is over.

2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under:

"(a) PW 1 Arfad is the first informant in the present case. He had one brother i.e. PW 3 Ashpak and three sisters namely Sheema, Farah and Rubina. Deceased Zahir was the husband of Rubina. Zahir was residing at Taloja. Jugda Patel is the mother of deceased Zahir. Fatima was the sister of Jugda. The appellant, original accused No. 3 - Dastagir and original accused No. 4 - Mohd. Hanif were the sons of Fatima. Original accused No. 2-Husenmiya is the husband of Fatima and father of the appellant, Dastagir and Mohd. Hanif. Deceased Zahir, accused persons as well as PW 1 Arfad were all residing at Taloja. About 3-4 years prior to the incident, a quarrel took place between deceased Zahir and accused persons on account of land. The land was owned by Jugda and Fatima and there was dispute in relation to this land.

(b) The incident took place on 6.5.2012. PW 1 Arfad and his brother Ashpak had dinner. Thereafter, they went outside for a walk. They were going by old Mumbra-Panvel road. At about 10.30 p.m., when they came in front of Lakshyache hotel, they saw Zahir on a black colour pulsar motorcycle. Then one Maruti Zen car of silver colour came and gave dash to the motorcycle of Zahir. All the four accused persons were in the car. They got down. Zahir started abusing the accused persons. The accused persons then assaulted Zahir with weapons. The appellant assaulted Zahir on the neck with a knife. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 assaulted Zahir with knives on the chest. PW 1 Arfad questioned the accused persons why they were assaulting Zahir whereupon the appellant threatened Arfad and pushed him aside. PW 1 Arfad then got frightened and proceeded to his house. While going, he saw the accused persons assaulting Zahir. Arfad went home and narrated the incident to his parents. After 15-20 minutes, they came back to the spot. That time, they saw pool of blood on the spot and the motorcycle was also lying on the spot. They came to know that Zahir was taken to M.G.M. Hospital. Within short time, he received a phone call that Zahir had died.

(c) Police came to the spot. Arfad told them that he had witnessed the incident. Police took him to Taloja Police Station. There PW 1 Arfad lodged FIR Exh. 36. Thereafter investigation commenced. The dead body of Zahir was sent for postmortem. According to PW 10 Dr. Lohare who conducted the postmortem, the cause of death was due to multiple stab injuries with head injury. All the accused came to be arrested. There was recovery of weapon and blood stained clothes at the instance of the appellant. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed."

3. Charge came to be framed against original accused Nos. 1 to 4 under Sections 302 r/w 34 and 506(II) r/w 34 of IPC. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. Their defence was that of total denial and false implication