Allowed

Mansoorali Khan Ahmed Khan and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC14 Feb 2022APEAL/685/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay in criminal appeals set aside the lower court's conviction for murder. The court held that the extra-judicial confession was unreliable and uncorroborated, the recovery of clothes was insufficient without forensic proof, and the prosecution failed to establish the motive required for a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.

What did the court decide?

Appeals allowed; convictions and sentences quashed; appellants acquitted; warrants for arrest discharged.

Mansoorali Khan Ahmed Khan and Anr. Vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

APEAL685.662.2010.doc

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 685 OF 2010

¶4

WITH

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1435 OF 2020
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1941 OF 2021

¶6

1. Mansoorali Khan Ahmed Khan. Majipur Post, Baktavsinh,

¶7

 Tal. Karnalganj. Dist. Gonda,
 Uttar Pradesh.

¶8

2. Shahjad Ahmed Tashrif.
 Ahmed Khan, Taspura,
 Tal. Karnalganj, Dist. Gonda,
 Uttar Pradesh.

¶9

...Appellants.

¶10

v/s.

¶11

State of Maharashtra.
(At the instance of the Trombay
Police Station C.R. No. 167/2006)…Respondent.

¶12

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 662 OF 2010

¶13

Mohd. Arman Mohd. Ali Khan,
Aged : 39 years.
Residing at Maijapur Post,
Baktavsinh, Tal. Karnalganj.
Dist. Gonda, Uttar Pradesh.

¶14

(At present in judicial custody in Nashik
Central Prison. )...Appellant.

¶15

v/s.
State of Maharashtra.
(At the instance of the Trombay
Police Station C.R. No. 167/2006)…Respondent.

¶16

1 of 25

¶17

Talwalkar

¶18

APEAL685.662.2010.doc

¶19

Mr. M.M. Khokhawala a/w. Ms. Megha Puralkar, advocate for
appellant No. 1 in Appeal No. 685/2010.

¶20

Ms. Devyani Kulkarni, advocate appointed for appellant No. 2 in
Appeal No.2 in Appeal No. 685/2010 and for appellant in Appeal No.
662/2010.

¶21

Ms. G.P. Mulekar, APP for State.

¶22

CORAM :SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV & PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ.

¶23

Digitally CORAM :SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV & signed by ARUNA S ARUNA S TALWALKAR PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ. TALWALKAR Date: 2022.02.14 14:55:15 +0530 RESERVED ON :SEPTEMBER 28, 2021.

¶24

PRONOUNCED ON :FEBRUARY 14, 2022.

¶25

JUDGMENT (PER SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)

¶26

1The appellants herein are convicted for the offence

¶27

punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal

¶28

Code and each of the accused is sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and to
pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer R.I. for two years. The
appellants are further convicted of the offence punishable under
section 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of
them is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-

¶29

in default to suffer further R.I. for six months by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay vide Judgment and Order dated
7/7/2010 in Sessions Case No. 807 of 2006. Hence, this appeal.

¶30

2 of 25

¶31

Talwalkar

¶32

APEAL685.662.2010.doc

¶33

2Such of the facts necessary for the decision of these appeals
are as follows :

¶34

(a)On 21/5/2006 one Nurul Hasan Khan lodged a report with
Trombay Police Station alleging therein that his uncle Nadir Khan
owned Shop No. 24 in E-Sector of Chita Camp, which is given on rent
to one Akbar Khan who runs a grocery shop in the name and style of
Khan store. One Suresh Murav works in the said shop alongwith
Dilshad, brother-in-law of Akbar Khan. Dilshad was also residing in
the said shop on the mezzanine floor.

¶35

(b)On 21st May, 2006 at about 8.30 p.m. Nurul Khan(P.W.1)
was surprised to see shop closed as the shop normally remains open till
midnight. He called upon the people in the locality and opened
shutter and saw that fans and lights were on. Similarly, cash drawer
was found open. He therefore, called out for Dilshad who resides on
the mezzanine floor, but there was no response. When he lit candle,
he noticed legs of someone on first floor and therefore, he called upon
Trombay Police Station.

¶36

(c)Then they noticed dead body of Suresh Murav whose

¶37

3 of 25

¶38

Talwalkar

¶39

APEAL685.662.2010.doc

¶40

throat was slit. The dead body was found in the bed room. A knife
was seen lying nearby. Soon thereafter, they saw the dead body of
Dilshad Khan in the bathroom with his face submerged in milk crate
filled with water. There were marks of strangulation around neck of
Dilshad Khan.

¶41

(d)On the basis of the report filed by Nurul Hasan, Crime No.
167 of 2006 was registered at Trombay Police Station for the offence
punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against
unknown persons.

¶42

3At the trial, prosecution has examined as many as 16
witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has
placed reliance upon the evidence of P.W. 1 Nurul Hasan Khan, P.W. 2
Jilani Vasi Mirza, P.W.3 Suraya Sakharkar, P.W. 4 Abdul Rashid Shaikh,
P.W. 5 Munna Shaikh to substantiate involvement of the accused
persons in the said offence.

¶43

4P.W. 1 Nurul Hasan Khan has proved the contents of FIR on

¶44

the basis of which the offence is registered. It is elicited in the cross-

¶45

4 of 25

¶46

Talwalkar

¶47

APEAL685.662.2010.doc

¶48

examination that he looks after the shop and he had stated so before
the police. However, it does not find place in the FIR. There is no
documents to show that the shop of Nadir Khan was being run by
Akbar who happens to be the maternal cousin of Nadir. Khan Kirana
Store consisted of ground plus one floor. The shop has two doors i.e.
iron shutter on the west side and on south side there is wooden door.
On the south side of the shop, it is surrounded by other shops.

¶49

5It is the case of the prosecution that the accused No.1 met
P.W. 2 Jilani Vasi Hyder Mirza on 22/5/2006 at about 11 a.m. and had
made an extra judicial confession to the effect that he was in love with
Ms. Anjum, sister of Dilshad Khan. That on 21/5/2006 Mansoor and
his associates visited the shop to talk to Dilshad. They requested
Suresh Murav to look after the shop and they took Dilshad to the
mezzanine floor. They questioned him as to why she was being
married to some other person when they knew that she is in love with
Mansoor. There was verbal altercation. Mansoor caught hold of him,
whereas Shahjad gagged mouth of Dilshad so that he does not scream.
Thereafter, Arman had given 2 to 4 fists blows on his chest and finally,
Mansoor strangulated him with wire. The accused were conscious of

¶50

5 of 25

¶51

Talwalkar

¶52

APEAL685.662.2010.doc

¶53

the fact that Suresh had realised that something had happened and
therefore, Suresh was called and his throat was slit by Arman. Soon
thereafter, P.W. 2 approached Trombay Police Station and informed the
police. He had reiterated the statement before the Senior Police
Officer Mr. Bakhare. According to P.W. 2, accused No. 1 was working as
waiter in hotel Metro, which was often visited by P.W. 2. According to
P.W. 2, extra judicial confession was made by accused No. 1 near
Karbala Maidan when he was on his way to work place. It is elicited in
the cross-examination that P.W. 2 had found accused No. 1 sitting on
the stair case of Gym at Karbala ground.

¶54

6P.W. 3 Suraiya Sakharkar claims to have visited the said
shop on 21/5/2006. Dilshad was at the counter. She saw 3 persons
who had come to the shop. She gave description of the clothes worn
by 3 customers. She purchased sugar and left the shop. At 12 a.m.
she returned from Dadar after making purchases and saw that people
had gathered near Khan Kirana store and learnt from two females that
Dilshad and his servant Suresh were murdered and therefore, she
approached the police station and informed the police about 3 persons
she had seen in the shop. She was called upon by the police to Thane

¶55

6 of 25

¶56

Talwalkar

¶57

APEAL685.662.2010.doc

¶58

jail for identifying the accused and she identified 3 persons whom she
had seen in the shop on 21/5/2006. It is elicited in the cross-
examination that she is working as house-maid at different places.
According to her, Karbala Maidan is situated on the road exactly
opposite grocery shop and is at a very close distance. She claims to be
at the shop hardly for 5 to 10 minutes when she saw 3 accused

¶59

persons. There are material omissions and contradictions in the
evidence of P.W. 3. The very fact that she had seen 3 persons coming to
the shop when Suresh was packing sugar is in the nature of omissions.

¶60

7P.W. 4 Abdul Rashid Shaikh was looking after the shop of

¶61

Akbar Khan after the incident. According to him, on 20/21 May, 2006
Dilshad had called upon him and informed him that Akbar is returning
from his native place within 2 to 3 days. That some 2 to 4 persons
were present in the shop. The witness could identify one person out of
2 to 4 person, who was present in the shop. He had identified Mohd.
Arman i.e. accused No. 1.

¶62

8P.W. 5 Munna Mohd. Kasim Shaikh was also acquainted

¶63

with Akbar Khan and therefore, he used to visit the shop run by

¶64

7 of 25

¶65

Talwalkar

¶66

APEAL685.662.2010.doc

¶67

Dilshad. According to him, one day in the month of May, he had seen
a scuffle between Arman and Dilshad. Upon enquiry, he was informed
by Dilshad that since Arman had uttered something inappropriate
about his sister, they were quarreling. Arman was accompanied by two
other persons. Dilshad had requested P.W. 5 not to disclose about the
said incident to any one since it involves the honour of his sister.
Dilshad had disclosed that the other two persons were cousin of
Dilshad. The material omissions in the evidence of P.W. 5 go to the
root of the matter since he claims that when the incident was going
on, Suresh had informed him that Dilshad and others are on the
mezzanine floor. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 5 that he used to
borrow money from Dilshad. It is pertinent to note that he had visited
the police station at 1 a.m. on 22/5/2006 and informed about the said
incident.

¶68

9After receipt of information from P.W. 1 police had called
upon finger print expert Sharad Shalu(P.W. 9) at 10.30 p..m. P.W. 9
had received wireless message from Trombay Police Station. He had
immediately approached the police station and reached the scene of
offence at about 12 midnight. That at the scene of offence, they had

¶69

8 of 25

¶70

Talwalkar

¶71

APEAL685.662.2010.doc

¶72

seen melanin tin box lying on the floor. They had collected two finger
prints from the mirror, which was hanged on the wall. Photographer
was not available. He had developed the chance print collected from
the mirror. On 19/6/2006 he had received the finger prints slips of 3
accused persons from Trombay Police Station. Upon comparison, he
could identify the finger prints of accused No. 1 which was found
identical with the chance print collected from the mirror. The report
submitted by P.W. 9 is at Exh. 25.

¶73

10Test identification is conducted by P.W.13 Nirmala Singh. It
is pertinent to note that P.W. 13 had no document to show that at the
time of conducting test identification parade, she was working as
Special Executive Officer. She had started writing panchanama at
about 5.45 p.m. and completed writing of the panchanama at 6.15
p.m.. She had categorically admitted that she is not aware of any
rules prescribed by High Court for conducting test identification
parade. She could not recollect as to whether the accused were
brought at the place of test identification parade after arranging the
dummies in the row or before that and that the accused persons were
not similar in appearance. She could not recollect as to whether the

¶74

9 of 25

¶75

Talwalkar

¶76

APEAL685.662.2010.doc

¶77

dummies brought for test identification parade resembled the accused
in any way.

¶78

11P.W. 14 Shenshah Khan happens to be the brother of the
deceased Dilshad. He has categorically admitted that he knows all the
3 accused persons as they happened to be his cousins. The witness is
declared hostile. He has denied to have stated the portion marked “A”,
which is to the effect that his mother has proposed marriage of
Mansoor with Anjum which was not accepted by Mansoor’s mother.
Dilshad had warned Mansoor not to contact his sister Anjum and that
was the reason why Mansoor was annoyed with Dilshad.

¶79

12P.W.15 PSI Arvind Parab was attached to Trombay Police
Station on 21/5/2006. He was deputed by PI Mr. Panpatte to visit the
scene of offence. He had taken steps in the course of investigation. He
had prepared inquest panchanama on the dead bodies of Dilshad and
Suresh. He had also conducted scene of offence panchanama and at
that time, had noticed that in the bath room on the mezzanine floor of
Khan Kirana stores, water and blood was mixed. They had taken
charge of the knife and aluminum wire, which was lying near the

¶80

10 of 25

¶81

Talwalkar

¶82

APEAL685.662.2010.doc

¶83

bathroom. He was not sure as to whether panchas for the scene of
offence were stock panchas. That the bath room is not immediately
visible upon entering into the loft. It is submitted that the crate in
which the face of Dilshad was immersed, was not seized.

¶84

13P.W. 16 Manik Bakhre was also attached to Trombay Police
Station. Investigation of Crime No. 167 of 2006 was entrusted to him
on 22/5/2006. He had recorded statement of the witnesses. It is
admitted that he had been to Gonda, District Uttar Pradesh in search of
the accused. They were first called for interrogation. They were then
brought to Trombay Police Station and arrested. He had taken finger
prints of the accused persons in the presence of panchas. Clothes of
the accused were seized at their instance under section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act. He was on leave on 21/5/2006 and therefore,
he visited the scene of offence on 22/5/2006. According to him,
Karbala ground is at a distance of half kilometer from the scene of
offence. He has proved the omissions in the evidence of P.W. 3 Suraiya
that she had stated before the police that 3 persons had visited the
shop in her presence and they were talking loudly. It is also admitted
that the arrest panchanama of the accused was not prepared in Uttar

¶85

11 of 25

¶86

Talwalkar

¶87

APEAL685.662.2010.doc

¶88

Pradesh. It is also admitted that there is non-compliance of section
157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and FIR was not sent to court
within 24 hours. According to him, he had recorded the statement of
Nurul Hasan. It is also admitted that he had not obtained transit
warrant from Magistrate of Gonda District. There was no search taken
of the dwelling houses of the accused in Gonda, nor the statement of
the family members was recorded. It is admitted that he had not
arrested the accused in Gonda district, but simply asked the accused to
accompany the police to Mumbai. It is alleged that in the course of
investigation, bloodstained clothes were recovered at the instance of
the accused under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the
Investigating officer had admitted before the Court that he had not
enquired the connection of the places with accused from where the
clothes were recovered.

¶89

14Cross-examination of P.W. 16 would show that after seizure,
the clothes were not sealed and they were kept in muddemal room.
The place from where the clothes were seized is accessible to members
of the public. Knife was recovered at the instance of accused No. 1. It
is apparent on the perusal of the said document that the names of the

¶90

12 of 25

¶91

Talwalkar

¶92

APEAL685.662.2010.doc

¶93

panchas was written subsequently and marked as Exh. 18A.

¶94

15Respective Counsel for the accused have urged before the
Court that the extra judicial confession would not inspire the
confidence of the Court since P.W. 2 was a stray acquaintance with the
accused. The omissions and contradictions in the evidence of P.W. 3, 4
and 5 would go to show that they are got up witnesses and in that
view, the identification itself would fail. Hence, it is vehemently urged
that the prosecution has not stood on it’s own leg and therefore, the
accused deserves to be acquitted.

¶95

16Per contra, learned APP submits that the prosecution has
established the motive for commission of offence. That accused No. 1
was in love with the sister of deceased Dilshad, who had warned him
not to keep in contact with his sister. It is submitted that the recovery
of weapons of offence and the clothes of the accused itself makes it
clear that they are the perpetrator of the crime and the most important
factor in the present case is that the prosecution has proved the extra
judicial confession and in view of the same, learned APP submits that
the Judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Court calls for

¶96

13 of 25

¶97

Talwalkar

¶98

APEAL685.662.2010.doc

¶99

no interference.

¶100

17With the help of the respective Counsel, we have perused
the papers meticulously and upon appreciation of the evidence
adduced by the prosecution, following points would emerge :

¶101

(i)It is admitted that deceased Dilshad was the cousin of the
accused persons. That Dilshad and his servant Suresh were murdered
in the shop, which was being run by Dilshad, brother-in-law of Akbar
Khan, who had been to his native place at the time of the incident.

¶102

(ii)P.W. 1 happens to be a chance witness. That at about 8.30
p.m. on 21/5/2006 he was surprised to see shop closed and that it
was not locked. He therefore, entered the shop premises only to see
that lights and fans were on. However, there was darkness on the
mezzanine floor. He could notice feet in the bed room on the
mezzanine floor. His call was not answered and therefore, he was
constrained to call upon the police.

¶103

(iii) The investigation was set in motion and the accused were brought from their native place Gonda, Utter Pradesh. They were not arrested in Utter Pradesh, but at the request of the police, accused Talwalkar 14 of 25

¶104

14 of 25

¶105

APEAL685.662.2010.doc

¶106

accompanied them.

¶107

(iv)That the accused were not even the residents of

¶108

Bombay/Trombay.

¶109

18The question that falls for determination before this Court
is as to whether extra judicial confession alleged to have been made
by accused No. 1 on 22/5/2006 at Karbala ground is voluntary,
truthful and has been a north star for the investigating agency. Firstly,
P.W. 2 was a stray acquaintance with the accused No. 1. It is admitted
by P.W. 2 that accused No. 1 was working as waiter in Hotel Metro,
which was visited by P.W. 2 once in a week. There was no reason for
accused No. 1 to repose faith in customer of the hotel. Moreover, the
location of Karbala ground is just across the road from the scene of
offence. He met P.W. 2 by chance and divulged his guilt to P.W. 2 which
does not appeal to a prudent mind. Extra Judicial confession
necessarily is to be made to a person in whom maker of the statement
reposes faith. Moreover, accused had given graphic details of the act
committed by him including the role of each of the accused persons
and the manner in which they had killed both the deceased. It is rather

¶110

15 of 25

¶111

Talwalkar

¶112

APEAL685.662.2010.doc

¶113

very difficult to accept that the accused would make an extra judicial
confession to a stranger, passing by the road, who is only acquainted.

¶114

19The material on record would show that immediate
disclosure was made by P.W. 2 to investigating agency. However, there
is no material on record to show that the investigating agency had
made any efforts to apprehend the accused immediately. There is no
material to show as to when the accused had left Bombay for Gonda
after commission of offence. It is neither the case of the prosecution
that they had absconded due to an apprehension of being placed under
suspicion after disclosure was made by P.W. 2 to the police. However,
suddenly the police had gone to Gonda in the month of June, 2006. In
fact, extra judicial confession made to P.W. 2 was more than sufficient
for the police to arrest the accused in Gonda itself and return to
Bombay after obtaining a transit warrant from the Magistrate in
Gonda. The accused had not resisted to go to Bombay. That the
conduct of the accused would show that they had not absconded since
their place of residence has not been brought on record by the police.
There is no reference to taluka Karmalganj from where the accused
were brought to Bombay. The Investigating Officer had made no

¶115

16 of 25

¶116

Talwalkar

¶117

APEAL685.662.2010.doc

¶118

attempts to record the statement of accused No. 1 under section 30 of
the Indian Evidence Act, although he had stated graphic details before
P.W. 2.

¶119

20Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under :

¶120

30. Consideration of proved confession affecting person
making it and others jointly under trial for same offence.—
When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the
same offence, and a confession made by one of such
persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is
proved, the Court may take into consideration such
confession as against such other person as well as against
the person who makes such confession.

¶121

[Explanation.—“Offence”, as used in this section, includes
the abetment of, or attempt to commit the offence.]

¶122

21It appears from the record that the investigation was
directed on the basis of the statement of the P.W. 2 and the same is
supplemented with motive. It would therefore be necessary to
ascertain as to whether there is any independent, reliable
corroboration in order to place implicit reliance upon extra judicial
confession of accused No. 1 to P.W. 2.

¶123

17 of 25

¶124

Talwalkar

¶125

APEAL685.662.2010.doc

¶126

22In fact, extra judicial confession has to be proved like any
other evidence and the value of the same would depend upon veracity
of the witness, to whom it was made. The confession is normally made
to a person to avoid harassment from the police or the people
concerned and also it is made to a person, who could otherwise
protect the accused. P.W. 2 is neither influential and not even of any
help to accused No. 1. It does not appeal to a prudent mind that the
accused, who is not apprehended by police nor under any suspicion
would confess the guilt before a stranger.

¶127

23The Supreme Court in the case of Balwinder Singh v/s.
State of Punjab1 has held as follows :

¶128

“An extra-judicial confession by its very nature is rather a
weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with great
deal of care and caution. Where an extrajudicial confession
is surrounded by suspicious circumstances its credibility
becomes doubtful and it loses its importance. The courts
generally look for independent reliable corroboration
before placing any reliance upon an extra judicial
confession.”

¶129

1 1996 AIR SC 607

¶130

18 of 25

¶131

Talwalkar

¶132

APEAL685.662.2010.doc

¶133

24 It would also be trite to refer to the Judgment of Supreme

¶134

Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs Rajaram2, wherein the
Supreme Court has held as follows:

¶135

“It is not open to any court to start with the presumption
that extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. It
would depend on the nature of the circumstance, the time
when the confession was made and the credibility of
witnesses who speak to such a confession. Such a
confession can be relied upon and conviction can be
founded there on if the evidence about the confession
comes from the mouth of witnesses who appeared to be
unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in
respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to
indicate that he may have a motive for attributing an
untruthful statement to the accused, the words spoken by
the witness are clear unambiguous and unmistakably
convey that the accused is the perpetrator and nothing is
omitted by the witness which may militate against it. If the
evidence relating to extra judicial confession is found
credible after being tested on the touch stone of credibility
and acceptability, it can solely form the basis of conviction.
The requirement of corroboration is a matter of prudence
and not an invariable rule of law. It is improbable that the
accused would repose confidence on a person who is
inimically deposed towards him and confess his guilt.”

¶136

2 (2003) Cr. L. J. 3901

¶137

19 of 25

¶138

Talwalkar

¶139

APEAL685.662.2010.doc

¶140

25Upon meticulous examination of the evidence of P.W. 3, the
manner in which it is narrated, the juncture at which the alleged extra
judicial confession is said to have been made to P.W. 2 and the fact that
the motive is falsified by the brother of the deceased (P.W. 14), we are
of the opinion that this is not a fit case where implicit reliance could be
placed on the extra judicial confession of the accused No. 1 for
upholding the conviction. It is also clear that there is no independent
corroboration to the alleged extra judicial confession. The manner in
which it is said to have been made appears to be improbable and
imprudent.

¶141

26There is no doubt that P.W. 3 is a got up witness, as she
claims to be a chance witness, who seems to recollect even clothes
worn by the accused when she saw them in the shop for hardly 5
minutes. In view of that, the evidence in the nature of test
identification would also fail. Moreover, the Special Executive Officer
(P.W. 13) has failed to demonstrate before the Court that her
nomination as Special Executive Officer was in place and that she was

¶142

20 of 25

¶143

Talwalkar

¶144

APEAL685.662.2010.doc

¶145

authorised to conduct test identification parade.

¶146

27 The learned Judge has placed reliance upon the recovery

¶147

under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act at the instance of the
accused. The question is as to whether in a case of circumstantial
evidence, recovery by itself would be sufficient to uphold the
conviction. The learned Sessions Judge has given undue importance to
the recovery of blood-stained clothes at the instance of the accused
under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act after about 20 days. It is
further pertinent to note that it is the case of the prosecution that the
accused were not resident of Bombay. They were arrested on
6/6/2006. The chronology of the events would be as follows :

¶148

(i) FIR was lodged on 21/5/2006 against unknown persons.

¶149

(ii) An extra judicial confession was made to P.W. 2 on

¶150

22/5/2006.

¶151

(iii)The accused were arrested on 6/6/2006 from Karnalganj,
district Gonda, Uttar Pradesh.

¶152

(iv)Recovery of blood stained clothes was made on 11/6/2006.

¶153

The knife was seized from the scene of offence on 21/5/2006 itself.

¶154

21 of 25

¶155

Talwalkar

¶156

APEAL685.662.2010.doc

¶157

28It is pertinent to note that the Chemical Analyser’s report

¶158

does not establish that the blood stains on the clothes recovered at the
instance of the accused matched with the blood group of the
deceased. The blood group of the deceased was “O” and blood of “O”
group was found on the knife, electric wire and key chain. The reports
are inconclusive and therefore, it cannot be said that the recovery of
blood stained clothes after more than 3 weeks of the alleged incident is
sufficient material to convict the accused for offence punishable under
section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶159

29The first and foremost fact that the weapons such as knife
and wire were noticed while conducting the scene of offence
panchanama and therefore, it is only the recovery of blood-stained
clothes at the instance of the accused. The said evidence does not
inspire the confidence in as much as the scene of offence panchanama
does not even show as to whom the premises belonged from where
the accused had produced the clothes. Moreover, after seizure, the
clothes were not sealed. Panchas to the scene of offence panchanama
appeared to be stock panchas of police. The recovery of the clothes is
made approximately after more than 20 days of the incident.

¶160

22 of 25

¶161

Talwalkar

¶162

APEAL685.662.2010.doc

¶163

30On elimination of the material in the form of extra judicial
confession and the recovery of blood-stained clothes, this could be a
case of circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the onus would lie upon
the prosecution to show that there are cogent, incriminating
circumstance against the accused which would lead to the only
inference that the accused are guilt of the offence alleged. The motive
for commission of the offence is not proved, which could have in all
probabilities established a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence.
Brother of the deceased is declared hostile. In this premise, the learned
Counsel has placed reliance upon the Judgment in the case of Anwar
Ali & anr. v/s. State of Himachal Pradesh3. The Apex Court has
observed that -

¶164

“It is also required to be noted and it is not in dispute that
this is a case of circumstantial evidence. As held by this
Court in catena of decisions that in case of a circumstantial
evidence, the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should
form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the
conclusion that within all human probability the crime was
committed by the accused and none else and the
circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be
complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis

¶165

3 (2020) 10 SCC 166

¶166

23 of 25

¶167

Talwalkar

¶168

APEAL685.662.2010.doc

¶169

than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should
not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should
be inconsistent with his innocence.”

¶170

31There is no unimpeachable, legal, reliable and admissible
evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has been
unable to discharge the onus cast upon it to adduce such evidence
which would prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

¶171

32The Apex Court in the case of Sarwan Singh v.s. State of
Punjab4. The prosecution has to travel the distance between ‘may be’
and ‘must be’. It was held as follows :

¶172

“considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true;
but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is
inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this
distance must be covered by legal, reliable and
unimpeachable evidence.”

¶173

33In view of the above observations, the appeals deserve to
be allowed.

¶174

34Before parting with the Judgment, this Court appreciates

¶175

4 1957 AIR 637

¶176

24 of 25

¶177

Talwalkar

¶178

APEAL685.662.2010.doc

¶179

the Ms. Devyani Kulkarni, learned Counsel appointed, for giving able

¶180

assistance to espouse the cause of the appellants. She is entitled to the
professional fees as per rule.

¶181

35.Hence, following order is passed :

¶182

ORDER

¶183

(I) The appeals are allowed.

¶184

(II)The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants
vide Judgment and Order dated 7/7/2010 by the Additional Sessions

¶185

Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 807 of 2006 is hereby
quashed and set aside.

¶186

(III)The appellants are acquitted of all the charges levelled
against them.

¶187

(IV) The appellants be released forthwith if they are in jail. If they are on bail, their bail bonds stand cancelled.

¶188

(V) The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

¶189

(VI) In view of disposal of appeals, nothing survives in the

¶190

interim applications. The same is disposed of accordingly.

¶191

(PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J)(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)

¶192

25 of 25

¶193

Talwalkar

Mansoorali Khan Ahmed Khan and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mansoorali Khan Ahmed Khan and Anr. 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

Sikander @ Sikka Ibrahim Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Aquino Avith Martis Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sheetal Anil Berlekar and Anr. . Vs the State of Maharashtra .

Shahjad Ahmed Tashrif Ahmed Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd. Arman Mohd. Ali Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ravi Shubhashnaik Vs the State of Maharashtra