The judgment underscores the importance of a complete chain of evidence, the need for establishing motive, and the requirement for reliable and consistent witness testimonies in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Umesh A. Trivedi, J.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.408 of 2002

1. This Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) is filed by the State against accused no.1 alone challenging the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court No.4, Ahmedabad dated 30.10.2001 rendered in Sessions Case No.240 of 1996 with Sessions Case No.283 of 1997 whereby the respondent – accused alongwith two other accused were tried in the same case though Sessions Cases were different. As respondent no.3 shown in the judgment came to be arrested subsequent to the accused in Sessions Case No.240 of 1996 were arrested, however, since both the Sessions Cases arise out of the same case, they were tried jointly and the accused were shown in seriatim under common judgment and order passed in both Sessions Cases jointly.

2. The accused were tried for an offence registered under Sections 302 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 25(1-AA) and 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959. They were also tried for the offence under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The FIR for the said offence came to be registered as I-C.R. No. 34 of 1995 with Dariapur Police Station and in all four accused were involved in the said offence as revealed during the course of investigation. However, accused no.1 - Abdul Rauf @ Rauf Abdulkadar Shaikh against whom this Appeal is preferred and accused no.2 – Jehangir Marajban Patel were arrested and charge-sheet came to be filed against them vide Criminal Case No.610 of 1996 before the competent Court, which culminated into Sessions Case No.240 of 1996. However, other two accused i.e. accused no.3 in this case Gulam Mohamad @ Gulal @ Arif A. Shaikh and one Abdul Latif were shown as accused in column No.2 in the charge-sheet submitted against accused no.1. However, it appears that Abdul Latif expired before framing of charge in the second Sessions Case, which was filed against the accused no.3 – Gulam Mohamad @ Gulal. The said charge came to be framed on 08.12.1997 in Sessions Case No.283 of 1997 against accused no.3 shown in the judgment. In short, for the trial into the offence registered, three accused were tried, may be under different Sessions Case numbers. They were jointly tried and ordered to be acquitted vide impugned judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court. All the three accused were tried for the offence of hatching conspiracy to commit murder of Mohamad Hanif @ Majdi Mohamadbhai on a suspicion that he is providing information in respect of their misdeeds to the police, which caused hindrance to their activities. As per the prosecution case, despite the deceased - Mohamad Hanif @ Majdi Mohamadbhai was persuaded not to cause hindrance to their activities, he did not stop, and therefore, he was being eliminated and for which the accused faced the charge, as aforesaid.

(2.1) As per the case of the prosecution, all the accused hatched conspiracy to kill Mohamad Hanif @ Majdi Mohamadbhai as he became informer of the police giving information of the activities of them and in execution of their conspiracy, on 17.05.1995, the sole respondent herein is said to have fired gunshots between 5:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m., while the deceased - Mohamad Hanif @ Majdi Mohamadbhai was passing on his bicycle from Shakrkhan Masjid situated in Dariapur area, from the revolver illegally procured and provided to him for ultimate murder of the deceased. It is further the case of the prosecution that accused no.2 – Jehangir Marajban Patel procured the revolvers and cartridges from Delhi and he provided the same to the deceased accused – Abdul Latif, who in turn provided two revolvers and ammunition to accused no.3 – Gulam Mohamad @ Gulal and ultimately he provided the said arms and ammunition to the respondent – accused – Abdul Rauf @ Rauf Abdulkadar Shaikh. It is further the case of the prosecution that pursuant to the bullets fired, possessed by