: 1 :

apeals-352-2019-1444-2018.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

[I]

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.352 OF 2019

Shabbir @ Sabir Haroon Shaikh

….Appellant

[orig.accused No.5]

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

.... Respondent

…..

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.111 OF 2020

IN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.352 OF 2019

…..

WITH

[II]

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1444 OF 2018

Anwar Hussain Abdul Rashid

Shaikh @ Anna

….Appellant

[orig.accused No.6]

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

.... Respondent

…..

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.154 OF 2021

IN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1444 OF 2018

-----

Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhry, Advocate a/w. Ms. Madhvi

Gomathieswaran, for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal

No.352/2019.

Mr. Gaurav Bhawnani, Advocate a/w. Shahabuddin Shaikh i/b.

Khan Abdul Wahab for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal

No.1444/2018.

Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP, for the Respondent-State.

-----

1 of 17

: 2 :

apeals-352-2019-1444-2018.odt

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

DATE : 06^th DECEMBER, 2022

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.

These two appeals are being decided by this common

judgment because they arise out of the same case. In both these

appeals the same judgment and order dated 15.10.2018 passed in

Sessions Case No.306/2013 along with Sessions Case

No.719/2013 along with Sessions Case No.453/2014 is

challenged. The impugned judgment and order was passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay in these cases. For

the sake of convenience, the appellants in these appeals are

referred to by their original status as accused in the Sessions Case.

The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.352/2019 Shabbir @ Sabir

Haroon Shaikh was the original accused No.5 and the appellant in

Criminal Appeal No.1444/2018 Anwar Hussain Abdul Rashid

Shaikh @ Anna was the original accused No.6. There were four

other accused i.e. accused No.1 Parvez Salim Khan, accused No.2

Sachin Suresh Nikharange, accused No.3 Tarbez Rahamatulla

Sayyed and accused No.4 Jainal Sardar @ Chachu @ Jalil Miya.

2 of 17

: 3 :

apeals-352-2019-1444-2018.odt

All the accused, including the present appellants, were convicted

and sentenced as follows :

i.

They were convicted for commission of the offence

punishable under Section 342 read with 34 of IPC and were

sentenced to suffer RI for one year and to pay fine of

Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer

SI for one month.

ii.

They were convicted for commission of the offence

punishable under Section 395 of IPC and were sentenced to

suffer RI for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each

and in default of payment of fine to suffer SI for three

months.

iii. They were convicted for commission of the offence

punishable under Section 458 read with 34 of IPC and were

sentenced to suffer RI for ten years and to pay fine of

Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer

SI for three months.

iv. No separate sentence was imposed on them for the offence

punishable under Sections 452, 457 and 392 of IPC.

v.

All the substantive sentences were directed to run

concurrently.

vi. They were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section

3 of 17

: 4 :

apeals-352-2019-1444-2018.odt

397 of IPC.

All the accused were granted set off under Section

428 of Cr.P.C. for the period they had undergone as under-trial

prisoners.

2.

Heard Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhry, learned counsel for the

appellant in Criminal Appeal No.352/2019, Shri Gaurav

Bhawnani, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal

No.1444/2018 and Shri S.R. Agarkar, learned APP, for the State.

3.

The original accused No.1 Parvez had not filed any

appeal. The accused Nos.2, 3 & 4 had filed separate appeals but

they have withdrawn their appeals. Therefore, I am considering

the appeals of only two accused i.e. accused No.5 and accused

No.6 and, therefore, it is necessary to discuss the evidence in

respect of these two accused only.

4.

The prosecution case is that on 13.12.2012 at