Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 848
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
REVATI MOHITE DERE, NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
Mohd. Ali Jaan Mohd Shaikh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
Criminal Appeal No.559 of 2022
Decided on : 15-04-2025
Mr. Nitin Sejpal, with Ms. Akshata Desai, for the Appellants.
Ms. P.P. Shinde, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Pradip D. Gharat, Special P. P. for Respondent No.2-CBI.
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.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 307, 326, 120-B, 34 - Indian Arms Act, 1959 - Section 27 - Conviction for murder and attempted murder - Appellants convicted for the murder of two individuals and attempted murder of another, sentenced to life imprisonment and fines - Conviction based on direct evidence from injured eyewitnesses and recovery of weapon - Acquittal of co-accused noted. (Paras 1, 2, 24)
(B) Eyewitness Testimony - The testimony of an injured eyewitness is given special status in law, as their injury guarantees presence at the crime scene - Courts should rely on such testimony unless strong grounds for rejection exist. (Paras 8, 9, 23)
Facts of the case:
The Appellants were convicted for the murders of Irfan Qureshi and Shakil Ibrahim Modak, and for attempted murder of the First Informant, following a shooting incident on 13th February 2010, where multiple eyewitnesses were present. (Paras 1, 2)
Findings of Court:
The evidence presented, including eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence, established the guilt of the Appellants beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the confirmation of their conviction and sentence. (Paras 24, 25)
Issues: The main issues included the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the admissibility of forensic evidence related to the weapon used in the crime. (Paras 23, 24)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the reliability of eyewitness testimony, particularly from injured witnesses, and upheld the conviction based on the totality of evidence presented. (Paras 8, 24)
Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.
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, 34, 120-B of the IPC, both the Appellants are sentenced to suffer RI for 8 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer RI for four months each. The Appellants are sentenced to suffer RI for five years with fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer RI for four months each for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 34, 120-B of the IPC. The Appellants are also sentenced to suffer RI for four years with fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer RI for four months each for the offences punishable under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. All the substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently and both the Appellants are entitled to set off for the period of detention already undergone by them. There were three more co-accused in the same case, however, vide the same Judgment and Order, the said three co-accused were acquitted of all the offences.
2. The facts leading to the present Appeal are as follows:
(a) On 13th February 2010, the First Informant, Mohd. Asif Mohd. Rafiq Khan along with one Naushad Qureshi and Mohd. Irfan Qureshi were sitting outside the shop of Naushad Qureshi situated at Dharmashi Street, Phool Galli, Aktari Masjid Building, Mumbai. The First Informant received a phone call from one of the deceased, one Modak, informing him that he was coming to Princess Building. However, Modak replied that he was himself coming to the Phool Galli. Modak reached Phool Galli at 20:15 hours and sat on the chair next to the Informant. While they were talking, a person came from the front side and fired at him with a revolver held in his right hand with an intention to kill him. The Informant received an injury on the left side of his chest. Three other persons came along with the first assailant and started firing at Modak and Qureshi. In order to save his life, the Informant ran towards Bhendi Bazar and went to his friend’s shop near Metro Optician and narrated the incident. His friend took him to Sir JJ Hospital. In the firing, Modak and Qureshi received bullet injuries and were also taken to Sir JJ Hospital but they succumbed to their injuries. In the firing, another woman namely, Smt. Gangubai Eknath Sonawane also sustained a bullet injury while she was walking on the Dharamshi street. She was also admitted to Sir JJ Hospital.
(b) The Informant narrated the entire incident to the police while in the hospital. His statement was recorded on the basis of which, C.R. No.26 of 2010 was registered at the Sir JJ Marg Police Station against four unknown persons for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 34 of the IPC and Section 3, 25, 27 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. Spot Panchanama was prepared in the presence of panchas; blood, blood mixed with earth and, earth were collected from the spot. Three lids were also foun
