Gujarat High Court
Judgename :A.M.KAPADIA, MS.H.N.DEVANI
ABDULWAHAB ABDULMAJID BALOCH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 1095 Of 1999
Decided On : 08/24/2007
CRIMINAL APPEAL - [SECTION 302, 365, 387, 332, 120B, 201, 202 OF IPC] - [SECTION 21 (1) (A) AND 27 OF ARMS ACT] - [MURDER] - [CONSPIRACY] - [RECOVERY OF FOREIGN LIQUOR] - [RECOVERY OF ARMS] - [RECOVERY OF BULLET] - [IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED] - [TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES] - [EVIDENCE ACT, SECTION 27] - [CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE] - [CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES] - [PROOF OF MOTIVE] - [PROOF OF ENMITY] - [EYEWITNESS] - [DISCOVERY PANCHNAMA] - [BALLISTIC REPORT] - [EXPERT OPINION] - [DELAY IN SENDING MUDDAMAL ARTICLES TO FSL] - [SAFE CUSTODY OF WEAPONS] - [OWNERSHIP OF HOUSE] - [TABLE WORK OF INVESTIGATING AGENCY] - [FABRICATION OF DOCUMENTS] - [HOSTILE WITNESSES] - [CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES] - [REASONABLE DOUBT] - [BENEFIT OF DOUBT] - [PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE] - [JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS] - [CONCLUSION] - [DISMISSAL OF APPEAL] - [CONFIRMATION OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE].
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, along with 25 other accused, was charged and tried for the murder of Bhagwandas Dwarkadas Sindhi, who was importing foreign liquor and not purchasing the same from the deceased Abdul Latif Abdulwahab Sheikh. As a part of the conspiracy, the deceased was kidnapped and thereafter the appellant fired a bullet from his foreign-made revolver, which he possessed illegally, and caused the death of Bhagwandas Dwarkadas Sindhi.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had committed the murder of Bhagwandas Dwarkadas Sindhi and convicted him under Section 302 of the IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. The court acquitted the appellant of the remaining offenses.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were sufficient to form a complete chain of evidence? 3. Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence. 2. The court found that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, including the recovery of the bullet from the deceased's body, the ballistic report, and the discovery panchnama, formed a complete chain of evidence pointing towards the guilt of the appellant. 3. The court held that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of doubt as the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
( 1 ) APPELLANT ("the Accused" for short) along with other 25 accused was charged and tried by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 13 of 1997 and 14 of 1997 for commission of the offence under Sections 302, 365, 387, 332, read with Section 34, 120b, 201, 202 of the Indian Penal Code ("the IPC" for short), and under Section 21 (1) (a) and 27 of the Arms Act, on the accusation that the Accused and the other accused persons belonging to the gang of Abdul Latif Abdulwahab Sheikh " accused no. 24, who was supplying the foreign liquor, hatched a conspiracy to kill Bhagwandas Dwarkadas Sindhi, who was importing foreign liquor and not purchasing the same from deceased Abdul Latif Abdulwahab Sheikh. As a part of that conspiracy, deceased was kidnapped and thereafter the Accused fired bullet from his foreign made revolver, which he has possessed illegally, and caused the death of Bhagwandas Dwarkadas Sindhi.
( 2 ) AT the end of the trial, as the Accused was found guilty of committing murder of Bhagwandas Dwarkadas Sindhi, he was convicted vide judgment and order dated 19. 8. 1999 for commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default SI of 3 months, whereas for remaining offences, the accused was acquitted.
( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the trial Accused No. 14 " Mohamadrafiq Ganibhai Shayer Chipa and Accused No. 24 " Abdullatif Abdulwahab Sheikh died, therefore, case against them has been abated. So far as remaining accused are concerned, since the prosecution failed to establish the charges leveled against them, they have been acquitted of the offences with which they were charged.
( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19. 8. 1999, the Accused has filed the instant Criminal Appeal with the aid of Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code ("the Code" for short ).
( 5 ) THE prosecution case, as disclosed from the FIR and unfolded during trial, is as under:
5. 1 On 4. 9. 1993 at 1:15 am, H. P. Kohri, PSI, Gaekwad Haveli Police Station received message that a dead body was lying near Sahakari Cold Storage, just opposite Munda Gate and Telephone Exchange. Near the dead body, there was a stationery Truck bearing registration No. GJ 1u 7377. The dead body was of a male person aged about 35 years, which was bleeding. A fire-arm injury could be seen on the forehead above left eye. On being seen minutely, there was bullet injury found on the neck of the dead body. He, therefore, lodged FIR, which was registered as I. C. R. No. 161/93.
5. 2 Pursuant to the registration of FIR, investigation was carried out. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that it was the dead body of one Bhagvandas Dwarkadas Sindhi who used to deal with illicit foreign liquor. It has also been alleged that Accused No. 24 " Abdullatif Abdulwahab Sheikh (since deceased) was also dealing in identical business and the said Bhagwandas Dwarkadas Sindhi was not prepared to buy liquor from him. There was financial loss caused to Abdullatif Abdulwahab Shaikh as he was not getting amount of commission. Therefore, a conspiracy was hatched by the said Abdullatif Abdulwahad Sheikh, Accused no. 1 Abdulwahab, Accused No. 25 " Abdulsattar and the absconding accused Rasulkhan @ Rasulparti, to abduct Bhagwandas Dwarkadas Sindhi and to extort money from him. If he failed to do so, then he should be done to death. It is also alleged that Accused no. 4 " Shakilahmed and Accused No. 17 " Aslam were also dealing in liquor business near Madhuram Theatre and the said Bhagvandas Dwarkadas Sindhi used to visit them in this regard. Information in this regard was supplied by said Accused No. 17 " Aslam and relying on the same, Accused No. 2 " Iqbalhussain and Accused No. 3 " Mohamadsalim were posted at Madhuram Cinema for having watch. When said Bhagwandas came there, Accused No. 4 "
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.