Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
REVATI MOHITE DERE, DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ
Mohd. Ali Jaan Mohd Shaikh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Neela Gokhale J.
1. The Appellants have assailed the judgment and order dated 25th April 2022 passed by the Special Judge (Exclusive Special Court constituted for the cases under MCOCA/TADA/POTA and other Sessions Cases against the accused - Rajendra Sadashiv Nikalje @ Chhota Rajan) at Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.187 of 2011 arising out of CBI RC-3(S)/2016-SCUV/SC-II, New Delhi. By the impugned judgment and order, the Appellants stand convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326, 120-B , 34 of the Indian Penal Code (‘ IPC ’), 1860 and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act , 1959. For the offences punishable under Sections 302, 34, 120-B of the IPC for committing murder of Irfan Qureshi, the Appellants are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life with fine of Rs.8,000/- each, in default to suffer additional RI for six months each. For the offences punishable under Section 302, 34, 120-B of the IPC for committing murder of Shakil Ibrahim Modak (‘Modak’), the Appellants are sentenced to suffer RI for life with fine of Rs.8,000/- each, in default to suffer additional RI for six months each. For the offence punishable under Section 307, 3
Eyewitness testimony, especially from injured witnesses, is accorded special status, and can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt when corroborated by forensic evidence.
The testimony of injured eyewitnesses is accorded special status, and their accounts can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, even in the absence of corroborative evidence.
Conviction can be based on a sole eyewitness if credible, but significant inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence can lead to acquittal.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder, emphasizing the consistency of eyewitness accounts as reliable evidence supporting the charges under Sections 302 and 9(b) of the Indian Penal Code.
(1) Murder and wrongful confinement – In every criminal trial, minor variations in detail are bound to occur – Discrepancies which do not go to root of prosecution case cannot obliterate otherwise tr....
(1) Number of witnesses – There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on sole testimony of a single witness – But if there are doubts about testimony courts will insist on corroboration.(2) M....
Mere failure of the prosecution in producing reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory relating to the weapon of offence and the blood-stained earth and clothes would not derogate from the veracit....
The conviction based on the testimony of a sole injured eyewitness is valid if the testimony is credible and minor discrepancies do not overshadow the overall evidence supporting the charges of murde....
The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to reliance on uncorroborated eyewitness testimony from interested parties and lack of independent evidence.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
