Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 569

SURYA KANT, J. B. PARDIWALA
Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Richa Kapoor, Advocate
For the Respondent:Rahul Chitnis, Sachin Patil, Aaditya A. Pande, Advocate, Geo Joseph, Shwetal Shepal, Advocates

Judgement Key Points

Question 1? What is the scope of the Supreme Court's power under Article 136 to interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a criminal appeal? Question 2? What are the proper considerations and standard for evaluating eyewitness evidence and its reliability in a murder trial? Question 3? What is the admissibility and evidentiary value of discovery panchnama and a disclosure/mentions under Section 27 and Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act in establishing authorship of concealment?

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

Question 1?

What is the scope of the Supreme Court's power under Article 136 to interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a criminal appeal?

Question 2?

What are the proper considerations and standard for evaluating eyewitness evidence and its reliability in a murder trial?

Question 3?

What is the admissibility and evidentiary value of discovery panchnama and a disclosure/mentions under Section 27 and Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act in establishing authorship of concealment?

JUDGMENT

J.B. Pardiwala, J.

This appeal, by special leave, is at the instance of a convict accused of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 10.07.2015 in the Criminal Appeal No. 449 of 2014 by which the High Court dismissed the Appeal filed by convict accused and thereby affirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the 6th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai dated 08.09.2008 in the Sessions Case No. 256 of 2007.

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION :

2. The deceased viz. Mahankal Jaiswal and the appellant herein were working as labourers at various places in the Vile Parle area, Mumbai & were known to each other. The deceased along with the other labourers used to sleep underneath or on the bridge situated near the Vile Parle Railway Station. There is also one Hanuman Temple situated near the bridge of the Vile Parle Railway Station. The original first informant Nandlal Ramnihor Mishra (PW-1) was the priest of the Hanuman Temple. Nandlal used to reside in a hut nearby the Temple. On 10.12.2006 at 10:30 P.M. a quar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document