SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J
Harqbahaddur Logbahaddur Bhandari @ Raju – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 938 OF 2015 | MCOC Special Case No.05/2011 @ 12/2012



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Nitin Sejpal, Ms. Akshata Desai
For the Respondents: Mr. S.V. Gavand, APP

The conviction under IPC and Arms Act was reversed as the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting the necessity of procedural integrity in identification processes.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code - Sections 120-B, 307, 450, 506(ii) - Indian Arms Act, 1959 - Section 27(1) - Appeal against conviction - Appellant convicted under various sections, including IPC and Arms Act, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fines - Trial court's conviction set aside due to failure of prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal of the Appellant. (Paras 1-9; 23)

(B) Test Identification Parade - Guidelines for fair identification - Identification evidence necessitates strict adherence to procedural guidelines to prevent wrongful identification - Delay in conducting a Test Identification Parade is not necessarily fatal provided no actual prejudice is shown. (Paras 12-21)

Facts of the case:
The Appellant was convicted for attacking victims in Sagar Builders' office with a firearm, leading to a lengthy trial and ultimately his appeal. Key evidence included witness identification and a Test Identification Parade that was criticized for procedural breaches.

Findings of Court:
The conviction and sentence were deemed unsustainable due to lack of credible evidence proving the Appellant's guilt, eventually leading to acquittal.

Issues: Key issues were the admissibility and reliability of the Test Identification Parade and the sufficiency of the evidence to secure a conviction. The Court noted procedural discrepancies that undermined the integrity of identification.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that mere procedural lapses in ID parades cannot invalidate convictions unless actual prejudice to the accused is established, stressing the necessity of robust identification protocols to ensure justice.

Result: Impugned judgment set aside and the Appellant acquitted.

Table of Content
1. overview of appeal and conviction details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. conviction for serious offences affirmed in initial trial. (Para 5)
3. identification evidence presented and assessed for credibility. (Para 6 , 7)
4. discussion on witness identification and procedural violations. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 22)
5. guidelines for fair conduct of test identification parade. (Para 12 , 15 , 20)
6. court analysis of prosecution's evidence shortcomings. (Para 14 , 21)

1. This is an Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. directed against the judgment dated 03/09/2015 passed by The Special Judge (Under MCOC Act, 1999), Gr. Bombay in MCOC Special Case No.05/2011 @ 12/2012.

2. By the impugned judgment, the learned Special Judge has held the Appellant, who was arrayed before the trial Court as accused no.1, guilty of offences under Sections 120-B , 307, 450, 506(ii) r/w. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27(1) of the Indian Arms Act , 1959. The Appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 03 years for offences under Sections 307 , 450, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for 05 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 01 year in respect of offences under Sections 506(ii) r/w. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27(1) of the Indian Arms Act , 1959. All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 30/06/2010, three unknown persons entered the office of Sagar Builders, with whom the first informant (PW10 – Sumit Sonawane) was employed as Sales Executive. One of the persons kept a folder on the teapoy and suddenly removed a pistol and pointed at the first informant PW10 – Sumit Sonawane and fired at him. It is stated that the said person also pointed the pistol towards Hasan Gokulsab Chaudhari - PW11 and thereafter, ran away from the office. Sometime later, the police came to the place of the offence and took PW10 to Cooper Hospital. He was given first aid. PW10 thereafter went to the D.N. Nagar Police Station and lodged the first information report (Exhibit – 131). PW15- Maruti Awhad, Senior Police Inspector of D.N. Nagar Police Station visited the scene of the offence along with API - Desai and other police staff. API – Desai conducted the scene of offence panchanama and seized the bullet and other incriminating material in presence of panchas. API – Desai recorded the statements of some of the witnesses under the supervision of PW15 – Maruti Awhad. PW15 took over further investigation on 01/07/2010. He requested the sketch artist PW16 to draw the sketch of the suspects as per the description given by PW11-Chaudhari.

4. The Appellant and the co-accused were arrested in C.R.No.83/2010 registered at Oshiwara Police Station. A rifle and some live cartridges were recovered from the possession of the Appellant. In the course of the investigation of the said crime, it was revealed that the Appellant and the co-accused were also involved in C.R.No.198/2010 registered at D.N. Nagar Police Station and were informed accordingly.

5. PW22 – Satish, API, Anti Extortion Cell took the Appellant in custody in the present crime on 06/01/2011. It was revealed that the Appellant and the other co-accused were the members of an organized crime syndicate headed by Ravi Pujari. Hence, the provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime (MCOC) Act, 1999 were also invoked after complying with all the procedural requirements.

6. PW4 – Suvidha Sawant, Nayab Tahasildar was requested to conduct Test Identification (TI) Parade. Accordingly, she conducted the TI parade on 05/02/2011 wherein PW10 and PW11 allegedly identified the Appellant. The incriminating material recovered from the scene of offence was sent to CFSL, Pune for examination. Upon conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the Appellant and two others for of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top