Back
2020 Supreme(Bom) 1413
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
PRASANNA B. VARALE, V.G. BISHT, JJ.
Sayeed Dabestani @ Sayeed Irani @ Akbar Irani - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Cri. Appeal Nos. 610 and 662 of 2016
Decided on : 04-12-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Fakhruddin Khan
For the Respondent: A. R. Patil, APP
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a complete and conclusive chain of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a murder case.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Murder - Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 302, Section 34 - Summary: The court acquitted the appellants accused of the offence charged against them based on the lack of conclusive evidence connecting them to the crime. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence ruling out any other hypothesis except guilt of the accused. The judgment and order of conviction were quashed and set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the charges.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was found murdered in a pool of blood in a house where one of the appellants was residing. The prosecution alleged that the appellants were involved in the murder due to a grudge against the deceased. However, the evidence presented was circumstantial and lacked conclusive proof of the appellants' guilt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence ruling out any other hypothesis except guilt of the accused. The court noted inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborating evidence, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
Issues: The main issue was the lack of conclusive evidence connecting the appellants to the murder, as well as inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the absence of corroborating evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a complete and conclusive chain of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a murder case. The court also highlighted the importance of corroborating evidence and the reliability of witness testimonies in reaching a verdict.
Final Decision: The judgment and order of conviction were quashed and set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the charges.
JUDGMENT :
V. G. BISHT, J.
1. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Bombay, dated 18th August 2016 in Sessions Case No.676 of 2012 along with Sessions Case No.627 of 2013. Criminal Appeal No.610 of 2016 is preferred by Sayeed Dabestani @ Sayeed Irani @ Akbar Irani and Criminal Appeal No.662 of 2016 is preferred by Nitesh @ Chauda Krushnkumar Zha.
2. They have been convicted under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) and Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) respectively, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and 2 months respectively. They were also given benefit of setoff under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As both these appeals arise out of the same judgment, we propose to decide these appeals by one judgment.
3. Briefly put, the facts may be summarized as follows :—
(a) Informant along with his family members including parents, wife and a son earlier used to reside in Room No.5, 1st Floor, R. J. Irani Building, beside New India Guest House, Charnal, Jail Road, Dongri, Mumbai – 400 009. As the said building was to be repaired, they all shifted to Moghul Manzil area.
(b) Informant was an employee at New Taj Bakery Store, Borivali. On 23rd May 2012, at about 7.15 p.m., he received a call on his mobile from his mother viz. Masooma informing that wife of Sayeed Irani (A1) had informed her about a quarrel going on between his father Kambar Ali and A1 and asked her to immediately reach Dongri. At about 9.30 p.m., informant, his mother and wife visited Police Station and informed about the incident but the police asked them to go to the house, break open the lock and then inform the factual position. Accordingly, informant and one Bhaimiya (PW15) broke open the lock and found Kambar Ali i.e. father of informant in a pool of blood on a wooden cot. Abdul Rahim Bashir Khan (PW14) then informed the police.
(c) According to prosecution, since five months before the incident, A1 was residing in the house belonging to informant as he was from informant’s community and was well acquainted with the father of the informant i.e. the deceased.
(d) The prosecution alleges that A1 was a goonda and since 5th of May 2012 was threatening the informant’s wife. A1 was also threatening to kill her family members.
(e) The prosecution further contends that on 23rd May 2012, at about 3.30 p.m., A1 rang up informant’s father and asked him to come at Dongri i.e. old house of the informant. According to the prosecution, A1 along with others for some unknown reason committed the murder of the deceased.
(f) Informant, accordingly, lodged the report with Police Station Dongri on the basis of which Crime No.75 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC came to be registered against the appellants accused along with a juvenile in conflict with law.
(g) In the course of investigation that followed, usual steps for holding of Inquest Panchnama, seizure of blood stained clothes of accused and seizure of weapon of offence were taken and the autopsy was got done through PW9 Medical Officer. Investigating Officer also got appellants accused medically examined. All the incriminating articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. After completion of investigation police submitted charge-sheet and in usual course the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
(h) Appellants accused pleaded not guilty to the Charge leveled against them and contended that they have been falsely implicated. According to A1, deceased was his very good friend. From the community persons he came to know about the incident and on 24th May 2012, he himself went to the police station, surrendered himself and asked the police as to why they were blaming him. During that period, police used third degree methods and
