Partly allowed

Mohammad Nadeem Abdul Rashid Bagwan, C.No. 9129, Nashik Road Central Prison v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Jan 2017APEAL/430/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three criminal appeals against ex post facto acquittal of accused in murder case were filed. The High Court held that while Mohammad Nadeem Abdul Rashid Bagwan shared common intention to kill, Shaikh Shakil Shaikh Khalil and Kadir Yakub Gawali did not. Their convictions for murder were quashed, but they were convicted of Section 323 IPC. The conviction of Mohammad Nadeem was confirmed.

What did the court decide?

Conviction of Shaikh Shakil and Kadir Yakub under Section 302 IPC quashed and acquitted; convicted under Section 323 IPC. Conviction of Mohammad Nadeem under Sections 302 and 324 IPC confirmed.

Mohammad Nadeem Abdul Rashid Bagwan, C.No. 9129… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.169 OF 2013

¶5

Shaikh Shakil Shaikh Khalil,
Age: 29 Years, Occupation: Labour,
R/o. Jam Mohalla, Bhusawal,
Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. APPELLANT
[Orig.Accused No.3]

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT

¶8

WITH

¶9

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.263 OF 2013

¶10

Kadir Yakub Gawali,
Age: 25 years, Occupation Nil,
R/o.Bhusawal, Taluka Bhusawal,
District Jalgaon.

¶11

APPELLANT
 [Orig.Accused No.2]

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

The State of Maharashtra,
Through P.I. Bazarpeth
Police Station, Bhusawal.

¶14

RESPONDENT

¶15

WITH

¶16

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.430 OF 2013

¶17

Mohammad Nadeem Abdul Rashid Bagwan,
Age 32 yrs, Occ. Nil,
R/o. Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal,
Dist. Jalgaon. APPELLANT

¶18

APPELLANT

¶19

 [Orig.Accused No.1]

¶20

VERSUS

¶21

The State of Maharashtra
Through P.I. Bazarpeth,
Police Station, Bhusawal. RESPONDENT

¶22

169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt

¶23

¶24

...

¶25

Mr.N.S.Ghanekar, Advocate for appellant in
Criminal Appeal No.169/2013
Mr.V.D.Sapkal, Advocate for appellant in
Criminal Appeal No.263/2013
Mr.V.B.Jagtap [Appointed], Advocate for
appellant in Criminal Appeal No.430/2013.
Ms. Preeti V. Diggikar, APP for the
Respondent / State.

¶26

...

¶27

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &

¶28

K.K.SONAWANE,JJ.

¶29

Reserved on : 04.01.2017
 Pronounced on : 10.01.2017

¶30

JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):

¶31

1.All these three Criminal Appeals are

¶32

arising out of the judgment and order dated
30th March, 2013 passed by the Sessions Judge,

¶33

Jalgaon in Sessions Case No.187 of 2009,
thereby convicting the appellants for the
offences punishable under Sections 302, 324
r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore,
these Appeals are heard together and being
disposed of by the common judgment and order.

¶34

169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt

¶35

¶36

2.The prosecution case in nutshell is

¶37

as under:

¶38

It is the case of the prosecution
that on 10.08.2009 in the morning Kesharlal
Pralhad Patil and Mukesh had been to Shirpur

¶39

for admission of Mukesh in Engineering
College. Pankaj was on duty at Jalgaon from
3.00 p.m. to 12.00 p.m. After work of

¶40

admission at Shirpur was over, Kesharlal and
Mukesh came to Amalner by bus. From Amalner

¶41

they boarded Surat-Bhusawal Passenger train
to come to Bhusawal. Pankaj joined them in
the same train at Jalgaon at around 1.15 a.m.

¶42

Trio reached Bhusawal Railway Station at
around 2.10 a.m.

¶43

3.On getting down at Railway Station,

¶44

Bhusawal, Pankaj started on foot ahead and
Kesharlal and Mukesh were behind on bicycle.

¶45

They were proceeding towards their house. At
around 2.30 a.m., Pankaj was passing through

¶46

169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt

¶47

¶48

the road in front of Shalimar Hotel near

¶49

Amardeep Talkies in Jam Mohalla at Bhusawal.
That time 5-6 persons sitting on Ota of
Shalimar Hotel called Pankaj. He did not
respond. It is contended that one of them
abused Pankaj and asked him to stop. Then
Pankaj stopped. Those persons called Pankaj

¶50

so he went to them. One of those persons was

¶51

tall, fair and wearing yellow shirt. He
enquired from Pankaj which train has arrived.

¶52

In reply, Pankaj stated it was a Surat
Passenger. Those persons asked Pankaj where

¶53

is he going. Pankaj told them that he is

¶54

going to home. By that time, Kesharlal and
Mukesh, who were behind on bicycle reached
there. They got down from bicycle and then

¶55

trio started walking so as to go to their
home.

¶56

4.It is alleged that those 5-6 persons

¶57

were in drunken condition and they hurled

¶58

abuses to Kesharlal and his sons. But

¶59

169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt

¶60

¶61

ignoring abuses, Kesharlal, Pankaj and Mukesh
walked ahead. Those persons followed them
till Amardeep square. At Amardeep Square one
of them gave slap to Pankaj on his head from
back and others too started beating Pankaj.
Kesharlal and Mukesh tried to intervene and
save Pankaj. That time a person in yellow
shirt caught hold neck of Pankaj while
another gave a blow with knife at the abdomen
of Kesharlal. Kesharlal fell down. When

¶62

Mukesh tried to hold his father, he was
assaulted with knife by that person on his
left shoulder. Pankaj raised alarm. As people
started assembling, accused persons fled
away. According to prosecution witnesses,
they must be in the age group between 20-30
years.

¶63

5.Pankaj then called his cousin Deepak
Pundlik Patil on mobile. Within few minutes,
Deepak Patil along with his father Pundlik
Nath Patil arrived on the spot. Kesharlal was

¶64

169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt

¶65

¶66

lying in a pool of blood. He was taken to the
Hospital of Dr.Santosh Chaudhari by Deepak
and his father on motorcycle. Pankaj and
Mukesh followed them on bicycle. From the
Hospital of Dr.Santosh Chaudhari, Kesharlal
was taken to Municipal Dispensary Bhusawal
where he was declared as dead.

¶67

6.On 11.08.2009 at 3.15 a.m. Pankaj

¶68

lodged report with Bazarpeth Police Station
Bhusawal. Crime No.136/2009 was registered

¶69

for the offences punishable under Sections
302, 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 323 and 504 of
the Indian Penal Code.

¶70

7.After registration of FIR by Pankaj,

¶71

the investigation was set in motion, and
thereafter after investigation was complete,
charge-sheet came to be filed. The appellants

¶72

were tried and stands convicted for the
offences punishable under Sections 302, 324
r/w.34 of the I.P. Code. Hence these Appeals.

¶73

169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt

¶74

¶75

8.The learned Advocate Mr.V.D.Sapkal

¶76

appearing for the appellant namely Kadir
Yakub Gawali in Criminal Appeal No.263/2013
submits that, the identification parade

¶77

before the Court, after one year from the

¶78

date of incident, could not have been
believed by the trial Court. It is submitted

¶79

that the identification parade which was
carried out before the concerned Authority
suffered from inherent procedural defects and

¶80

also the same was of no use since the
photographs of the accused were already
published in the leading news paper published

¶81

at Bhusawal, prior to conducting the
identification parade by the Tahsildar. It is
submitted that, in the said identification
parade before the Tahsildar, the appellant

¶82

namely Kadir Yakub Gawali was not identified

¶83

by PW2-Mukesh Kesharlal Patil. He submits

¶84

that, there is no any other independent
evidence which lends support to the version

¶85

169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt

¶86

¶87

of Pankaj Kesharlal Patil (PW1) and Mukesh
(PW2). It is submitted that the prosecution
has not brought on record the evidence which
would indicate that the accused had any
motive/reason to commit the alleged offences
in question. It is submitted that, since the
accused were not known to the prosecution
witnesses the identification parade assumes
importance and in the facts of the present
case the identification parade which was

¶88

carried out before the Tahsildar was
disbelieved by the trial Court. It is
submitted that the evidence of PW-1 Pankaj

¶89

and PW-2 Mukesh suffers from inherent
contradictions, omissions and improvements.
In support of his contention that in absence

¶90

of proper identification parade and

¶91

identification of the accused first time in
the Court, the benefit of doubt ought to have

¶92

been given to the appellant, pressed into
service the judgment of the Supreme Court in

¶93

169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt

¶94

¶95

the case of Girdhar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)¹ in particular para 8 thereof.

¶96

N.S.Ghanekar appearing for the appellant

¶97

namely Shaikh Shakil Shaikh Khalil in
Criminal Appeal No.169 of 2013 in addition to

¶98

the arguments advanced by the learned
Advocate Mr. V.D.Sapkal submits that, once

¶99

the identification parade before the
Tahsildar was disbelieved by the trial Court
on the ground that the said identification

¶100

parade was not in accordance with the
procedure/rules and also the photographs of

¶101

the accused were already published in the

¶102

news paper, the identification parade before

¶103

the Tahsildar or an identification of the

¶104

accused before the court by the Pankaj (PW1)

¶105

and Mukesh (PW2), cannot be believed. He

¶106

submits that, since there was no any
motive/intention to commit the alleged

¶107

1 2012 AIR SCW 425

¶108

169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt

¶109

¶110

offences, the benefit of doubt deserves to be
given to the appellant.

¶111

10.The learned Advocate Mr.Vijay B.
Jagtap [Appointed], appearing for the
appellant namely Mohammad Nadeem Abdul Rashid
Bagwan in Criminal Appeal No.430 of 2013
submits that, the Medical Officer has not
firmly stated that the death of Kesharlal was
homicidal. In fact, the injuries sustained by
the deceased Kesharlal was due to accidental

¶112

cause. He submits that, in absence of
identification parade of the accused and

¶113

weapons used, the benefit of doubt should

¶114

have been given to the appellant. He submits

¶115

that, the prosecution has utterly failed to
bring on record any motive for commission of

¶116

offences by the appellant. Therefore, he
submits that, the Appeal filed by the
appellant deserves to be allowed.

¶117

Without prejudice to the arguments

¶118

169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt

¶119

¶120

already advanced, the learned counsel by way
of alternate submission argued that, there
was no motive for commission of offences. At
the most it can be said that, appellant in
the heat of anger in sudden provocation
appears to have committed the alleged
offences, and therefore, the sentence for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of the
appellant be modified and may be brought down
under Section 304 (II) of the Indian Penal
Code.

¶121

11.It appears that, the prosecution did
examine as many as 12 witnesses. However, the
evidence of Pankaj (PW1) and Mukesh (PW2)
assumes importance inasmuch as they are eye
witnesses to the incident. It clearly emerges
from the evidence available on record that,
the alleged incident had taken place on 11th
August, 2009 at about 2.30 a.m. Immediately
thereafter Pankaj lodged report with
Bazarpeth Police Station, Bhusawal and the

¶122

169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt

¶123

¶124

FIR came to be registered. It further appears
that the injured Mukesh was treated at
Bhusawal Municipal Dispensary immediately
after the incident and the Medical Officer
noticed contused lacerated wound on left
upper arm and on left scapular region on back
of Mukesh. Therefore, the presence of Mukesh

¶125

at the time of incident is proved by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Pankaj
was also assaulted by the accused.

¶126

12.It appears that even the spot

¶127

panchanama was immediately drawn between 3.35
a.m. to 4.20 a.m. in the presence of panchas

¶128

namely Pradeep Madhukar Sutar and Ravindra
Jagannath Dhage. Immediately on 11.08.2009 at
about 6.20 a.m. the accused no.1 Mohammad
Nadeem Abdul Rashid Bagwan and accused no.2
Kadir Yakub Gawali were arrested. Therefore,
there is no manner of doubt that there was
prompt lodging of FIR, carrying out the spot
panchanama referring the Pankaj to the

¶129

169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt

¶130

¶131

medical examination. Kesharlal Pralhad Patil
(deceased) was immediately taken to the
Hospital after the incident, but he was
declared as dead and his post mortem was
conducted between 7.10 a.m. to 8.10 a.m.

¶132

13.Medical Officer Dr.Ajay Bajirao
Sonowane (PW8) stated in his deposition
before the Court that, on external
examination he found that stab wound of size
9 cm x 5 cm over the epigastric region on

¶133

anterior abdominal wall just 10 cm from
umbilical site. Depth of wound was up to 5 cm
extended up to peritoneal region. Stab wound

¶134

was present over the right neck side over the
carotid triangle. Size of the stab wound was
6 cm x 3 cm. Its depth was upto 15 cm. These

¶135

were cut sharp injuries. Edges were sharp.
Injuries were grievous in nature. Both the

¶136

stab wounds were ante-mortem. After external
examination, he started post mortem. During
internal examination, he found first stab

¶137

169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt

¶138

¶139

wound up to peritoneum region. No internal
abdominal bleeding was found. The depth of
second wound shows rupture of carotid artery
andjugularveinshowinginternal
haemorrhage. He opined that, probable cause
of death is due to haemorrhage and shock due
to stab injuries. Both the injuries stated by
him are possible with a sharp knife. Death is
possible due to these injuries. Upon careful
perusal of his cross examination, his version
in examination in chief remained unshattered.
Therefore, the prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that death of Kesharlal was
homicidal.

¶140

14.Pankaj Kesharlal Patil (PW1) in his
evidence stated that, his brother had passed
12th standard. He was selected at Engineering
College Shirpur. His father and brother had
been to Shirpur on 10.08.2009. On that day,
he was on duty from 3.00 p.m. to 12.00 p.m.
After attending duty, he came to Jalgaon

¶141

¶142

169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt

¶143

Railway Station. His father and brother were
coming by Amalner-Bhusawal passenger. They

¶144

met him at Jalgaon Railway Station on
11.08.2009 at 1.10 hours. After getting down
at Bhusawal Railway Station, he was
proceeding to his home. Followed by his
father and brother on bicycle behind him.

¶145

When he was going by Amardeep Talkies through
Jam Mohalla, he noticed that near Shalimar
Talkies 5-6 persons were sitting on the Ota /

¶146

Platform. One of the accused Shaikh Shakil
asked him to stop. He did not stop. Said
Shakil abused him. He stopped him between

¶147

2.15 to 2.30 hours. A tall boy with Yellow Shirt asked him ‘ dkSulh xkMh vk;h] dgkWa tk jgk

¶148

gS ’ (about the name of train arrived and where are you going), he stated that he came by

¶149

Surat passenger and he is going to his home.
His father and brother then arrived there. He

¶150

further stated that those 5-6 persons were
under the influence of liquor. He himself,

¶151

169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt

¶152

¶153

his father and brother reached at Amardeep
Talkies square. The accused persons were

¶154

abusing them from behind. They ignored it.
Then Kadir Gawali slapped on back of his
head. While he was beating him, other accused

¶155

also came there and they started beating him.
His father–Kesharlal came to save him. Shaikh

¶156

Shakil caught hold his neck. When his father
was coming to save him, Nadim inflicted knife
blow on the stomach of his father. He could

¶157

rescue himself. When his brother intervened
to save his father, Nadim had given a knife
blow on his brother’s left shoulder. They

¶158

raised cries then accused started running.

¶159

He called his cousin Deepak Pundlik Patil on
mobile and Deepak came there by two-wheeler.

¶160

His father was taken to the Hospital of

¶161

Dr.Santoch Chaudhari on the said two-wheeler.

¶162

However, his father was declared as dead by
the said Doctor and then his father was taken

¶163

to the Municipal Hospital. He also stated

¶164

169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt

¶165

¶166

details about the registration of FIR and
seizure of clothes of deceased. He further
stated that on 18.08.2009, he was called for
identification parade at tahsil office,
Bhusawal. He stated details about the manner

¶167

in which the identification parade was
carried out. It appears from his evidence

¶168

that, he identified the present appellants as
assailants in identification parade before
the Tahsildar and also before the Court.

¶169

15.During his cross examination, he
stated that, police caught some suspects,
they were shown to him in between 4.00 to
5.00 a.m., but they were not accused persons.

¶170

When suggestion was given to him, whether he
had seen accused on BCL Channel or the
photographs of the accused on news paper, he
denied the said suggestion. Be that as it
may, the said identification parade before

¶171

the Tahsildar was not believed by the trial
Court for the reasons which are assigned in

¶172

169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt

¶173

¶174

the impugned judgment. It appears from the
evidence of Pankaj (PW1) that, there was no
any specific reason or motive for commission
of offence by the accused persons. It appears
from his evidence that, the accused were of

¶175

the age group between 25 to 30 years. The
entire beginning or starting point of episode

¶176

as appearing in his evidence is that, near
Shalimar Talkies 5-6 persons were sitting on
the Ota/Platform. Out of 5-6 accused persons,

¶177

one of the accused namely Shaikh Shakil told

¶178

him ‘ :[k ’ (Stop). He did not stop and then accused started abusing him and accused stopped him in between 2.15 to 2.30 hours.

¶179

It further appears that a tall boy out of 5-6
accused persons asked him about the name of
train and where PW-1 is going.

¶180

16.It is further stated by Pankaj (PW1)

¶181

that his father and brother arrived there.
Upon reading the evidence of Pankaj (PW1), it

¶182

169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt

¶183

¶184

clearly emerges that, the prosecution did not
bring on record the evidence showing that as
a matter of fact other accused knew that,
Nadim was possessing knife and he is likely
to use the said knife in the commission of
offence. It appears that, Nadim inflicted
knife blow in the stomach of Kesharlal and
also when the brother of Pankaj (PW1) i.e.
another witness Mukesh (PW2) intervened to
save his father, Nadim had given a knife blow
on the hand of Mukesh (PW2). Mukesh (PW2)
sustained injuries on his shoulder due to
said assault by the Nadim.

¶185

17.Mukesh (PW2) in his deposition

¶186

stated that, on 10.08.2009 he himself and his
father had been to Shirpur for his admission.
On that day, his brother i.e. Pankaj (PW1)

¶187

was on duty at Jalgaon from 3.00 p.m. to
12.00 p.m. Their train reached to Jalgaon at
1.00 a.m. to 1.25 a.m., that time they met
his brother Pankaj (PW1) in the train. Then

¶188

169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt

¶189

¶190

they three started for Bhusawal. They reached
Bhusawal at 2.00 to 2.15 a.m. on 11.08.2009.
They got down at the station. His father had
kept bicycle at R.P.F. office. His brother
Pankaj (PW1) told them that, both i.e. Mukesh
and Kesharlal can come by bicycle, and Pankaj
(PW1) started proceeding to their home. His
father took bicycle from R.P.F.office. His
brother was walking ahead. He started riding
bicycle. His father was sitting behind. They
reached near Shalimar Hotel. They saw that,
5-6 persons had stopped his brother Pankaj
near Shalimar Hotel. They went close to his

¶191

brother. 5-6 persons were abusing his
brother. He asked his brother what happened?
Pankaj (PW1) replied that, these persons are
abusing him. However, they ignored abuses and
went ahead.

¶192

18.When they were going ahead, his
brother Pankaj (PW1) informed them that,

¶193

those 5-6 persons were sitting near Shalimar

¶194

169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt

¶195

¶196

Hotel. He stated that, a tall and fair person

¶197

asked him come here ( b/kj vko ). However, Pankaj ignored their call and then accused started abusing him. Then Pankaj stopped. Then 5-6 persons asked Pankaj by which train he has arrived and where he is going.

¶198

 Mukesh (PW2) further stated in his
deposition that, he was slowly riding

¶199

bicycle. His father was pillion rider. His
brother was on foot. They reached near
Amardeep Talkies. That time Kadir Gawali

¶200

slapped on the back of head of Pankaj. Then
he along with his father got down from
bicycle. Put bicycle on stand and went to
rescue his brother. Accused Sk. Shakil a fair

¶201

and tall boy caught neck of his brother
Pankaj (PW1). That time Sk.Shakil was wearing

¶202

yellow shirt. They tried to rescue his

¶203

brother but they could not rescue him, that

¶204

time Nadim assaulted his father on stomach by

¶205

knife. He tried to rescue his father. That

¶206

169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt

¶207

¶208

time, Nadim gave knife blows on his left hand
and back. With the same knife, he gave blow
on the neck of his father. He himself and his
father sustained injuries and there was
oozing of blood. He made his father lie on
the floor. Then he himself and his brother
shouted. People assembled there. Then they
fled away from the said place. He called his
cousin and his uncle. They arrived at the
place of incident.

¶209

19.If the evidence of Pankaj (PW1) and
Mukesh (PW2) is considered in its entirety,
the genesis or starting point of the incident
is one of the accused namely Shaikh Shakil
asked Pankaj (PW1) to stop. Pankaj (PW1) did
not stop, then accused started abusing him.
As already observed, it has not come on
record that, they had any particular motive
or object for commission of offence. It
clearly emerges that, the father of Pankaj
(PW1) and Mukesh (PW2) got down from the

¶210

169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt

¶211

¶212

bicycle and went to rescue Pankaj (PW1). When
he went to rescue Pankaj (PW1), that time
Nadim assaulted Kesharlal on the stomach with
a knife blow and when Mukesh (PW2) tried to
rescue Kesharlal, Nadim gave knife blows to
Mukesh (PW2) and again knife blow on neck of
Kesharlal. Therefore, it can safely be
concluded that, Nadim gave knife blow not
only to Kesharlal but also to Mukesh, had
intention to kill Kesharlal. The fact that he

¶213

had given more than one knife blows on the
neck and stomach of Kesharlal is sufficient
to hold that the accused / appellant Nadim is

¶214

rightly held guilty of offence punishable
under Section 302, 324 r/w.34 of the Indian
Penal Code by the trial Court for the murder
of Kesharlal and also for inflicting knife
injuries on Mukesh (PW2).

¶215

20.It is true that, the identification
parade, which was conducted before the
Tahsildar, has been disbelieved by the trial

¶216

169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt

¶217

¶218

Court, though Pankaj (PW1) identified all
three appellants in the said identification
parade and Mukesh (PW2) was able to identify
two appellants accused. Be that as it may,
Pankaj (PW1) and Mukesh (PW2) identified all

¶219

three accused before the Court. The
submission of the learned counsel appearing
for the appellants that, such identification
parade before the Court, that too, after one
year from the date of incident deserves to be
discarded has no substance in the peculiar
facts of this case. Pankaj (PW1) and Mukesh
(PW2) had ample opportunity to clearly notice

¶220

the appearances and physical features of the
accused as there was sufficient light. Since
the incident had taken place on public road
for considerable period, we are not prepared
to accept the submission of the learned
counsel appearing for the appellants that,
such identification parade before the Court
should not be believed. In the present case,

¶221

169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt

¶222

¶223

Pankaj (PW1) and Mukesh (PW2) had opportunity
to witness the entire incident and their
evidence corroborates each other. Apart from

¶224

that, there is evidence of Medical Officer
wherein it is clearly stated that the death
of Kesharlal was homicidal and caused due to
injuries inflicted by knife by Nadim. At this
juncture, it would be apt to refer the
authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme

¶225

Court in the case of S Vs. Sunil Kumar and another² , the Supreme Court while reversing acquittal of the respondent therein held in para 11 that:

¶226

“11. It has consistently been held by this Court that what is substantive evidence is the

¶227

identification of an accused in

¶228

court by a witness and that the prior identification in a test identification parade is used only to corroborate the identification in court. Holding of test

¶229

2 (2015) 8 SCC 478

¶230

169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt

¶231

¶232

identification parade is not the rule of law but rule of prudence. Normally identification of the accused in a test identification parade lends assurance so that the subsequent identification in court during trial could be safely relied upon. However, even in the absence of such test identification parade, the identification in court can in given circumstances be relied upon,

¶233

if the witness is otherwise trustworthy and reliable. The law on the point is well settled and succinctly laid down in Ashok Debbarma.”

¶234

21.In that view of the matter, in our

¶235

considered view the identification of the
appellants by the Pankaj (PW1) and Mukesh
(PW2) in the Court has been rightly
considered and believed by the trial Court.

¶236

22.So far other accused are concerned,
in the light of evidence brought on record by

¶237

the prosecution, it can not be safely

¶238

169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt

¶239

¶240

concluded that the prosecution has proved
beyond reasonable doubt that, accused namely
Shaikh Shakil Shaikh Khalil and Kadir Yakub
Gawali were sharing common intention to kill
Kesharlal or inflicted injuries / assaulted
Mukesh (PW2) by any weapon. It is also not
the case of the prosecution that, accused
namely Shaikh Shakil Shaikh Khalil and Kadir
Yakub Gawali were holding/possessing any
weapon. However, the fact remains that, one
of the aforesaid accused gave slap to Pankaj
and another accused caught hold his neck. As
already observed, though accused namely
Shaikh Shakil Shaikh Khalil and Kadir Yakub
Gawali cannot be held guilty for the offences
punishable under Section 302, 324 r/w. 34 of
the Indian Penal Code nevertheless since one
of the accused gave slap and another accused
caught hold his neck, they are liable to be
convicted for the lesser offence punishable
under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶241

169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt

¶242

¶243

23.In the light of discussion in the
foregoing paragraphs, in our considered view
the prosecution has not brought on record
sufficient evidence / circumstances which
would unequivocally and beyond reasonable
doubt would establish that, the accused
appellant namely Shaikh Shakil Shaikh Khalil
in Criminal Appeal No.169/2013 and appellant
namely Kadir Yakub Gawali in Criminal Appeal
No.263/2013 were sharing common intention
with Mohammad Nadeem Abdul Rashid Bagwan to
kill Kesharlal or to assault/inflict stab
injuries to Mukesh (PW2).

¶244

24.In that view of the matter, so far

¶245

conviction of the appellant namely Shaikh
Shakil Shaikh Khalil in Criminal Appeal
No.169/2013 and appellant namely Kadir Yakub
Gawali in Criminal Appeal No.263/2013 for the
offences punishable under Section 302 r/w.34

¶246

of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of

¶247

169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt

¶248

¶249

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each, in
default each to suffer further rigorous
imprisonment for one year and for the offence
punishable under Section 324 r/w.34 and
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
two year each, cannot sustain and the benefit

¶250

of doubt deserves to be given to them, and
accordingly, their conviction for the offence
punishable under Section 302 r/w.34 of the
Indian Penal Code and for the offence
punishable under Section 324 r/w. 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, stands quashed and set
aside and they stands acquitted from the said
offences.

¶251

25.However, conviction of appellant

¶252

namely Mohammad Nadeem Abdul Rashid Bagwan in
Criminal Appeal No.430/2013 for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to suffer
imprisonment for life and a fine of

¶253

169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt

¶254

¶255

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand), in default

¶256

to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for

¶257

one year and his conviction for the offence
punishable under Section 324 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for two year, stands confirmed.

¶258

26.Set off under Section 428 of the
Criminal Procedure Code be given to him as
already ordered by the trial Court.

¶259

27.In the light of discussion in the

¶260

foregoing paragraphs, appellant - accused
no.2 namely Kadir Yakub Gawali and appellant

¶261

accused no.3 namely Shaikh Shakil Shaikh
Khalil are held guilty for the offence

¶262

punishable under Section 323 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous

¶263

imprisonment for one year each. They were in

¶264

jail during trial and also subsequently they
are not released on bail, already they have

¶265

¶266

169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt

¶267

undergone more than 1 year sentence,
therefore they be released forthwith if not
required in any other case.

¶268

28.In the result, Criminal Appeal
No.430 of 2013 filed by Mohammad Nadeem Abdul
Rashid Bagwan is dismissed and Criminal
Appeal No.169 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal
No.263 of 2013 are partly allowed in above
terms.

¶269

Since Mr.V.B.Jagtap, the learned

¶270

counsel is appointed to prosecute the cause
of the appellant namely Mohammad Nadeem Abdul
Rashid Bagwan, we quantify his fees
Rs.7500/-.

¶271

Sd/Sd/- [K.K.SONAWANE] [S.S.SHINDE] JUDGE JUDGE

¶272

DDC

Mohammad Nadeem Abdul Rashid Bagwan, C.No. 9129, Nashik Road Central Prison v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Nadeem Abdul Rashid Bagwan, C.No. 9129, Nashik Road Central Prison v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anup Kumar S/O Shri Bhimsen and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Lata W/O. Raibhan Thombre and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanjay S/O Bhimrao Tathe and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kadir Yakub Gawali Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kalpana Baban Madan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shaikh Shakil Shaikh Khalil Vs the State of Maharashtra