JAVED SHAUKAT ALI QURESHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The occurrence based on which the appellant was convicted was of 7/11/2003. According to the prosecution case, around 10 a.m. on that day, about 1,000 to 1,500 people had gathered in the Shah Alam area of the city of Ahmedabad. When PW­1 Baldev was passing through that area by his two­wheeler, the crowd stopped him. He was forced to disclose his identity. After he disclosed his identity, the crowd started assaulting him and his two­wheeler was burnt. Thereafter, the crowd stopped an auto­rickshaw, and the passengers in the auto­rickshaw were forced to alight. The necklace of PW­2 Gitaben Bhailal, who was a passenger in the auto rickshaw, was snatched. The mob assaulted PW­3 Hemubhai, who was carrying LPG cylinders on a bicycle. PW­ 13 Ajay was passing through that area on his two­wheeler with Mukesh as a pillion rider. PW­13 Ajay managed to run away. However, Mukesh was assaulted by the mob. Afterwards, the dead body of Mukesh was found in a nearby lake. A total of 13 accused were prosecuted. Accused nos. 1 to 6 and 13 were convicted and Trial Court acquitted the rest of the accused. Seven accused were convicted, including the present appellant­accused no.6, for the offences punishable under Sec. 396 read with Sec. 149, Sec. 395 read with Sec. 149, Sec. 307 read with Sec. 149, Sec. 435 read with Sec. 149 and Sec. 201 read with Sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC '). The maximum sentence imposed was life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec. 396 read with 149 of IPC. By the impugned judgment, while confirming the conviction of the accused, the High Court brought down the sentence to 10 years. The appeals preferred by the convicted accused were decided by a Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment.

(2.) The appellant is accused no.6. Accused nos.1, 5 and 13 preferred Criminal Appeal no.1041 of 2016 to this Court. By the judgment dtd. 9/8/2018, this Court acquitted the said three accused. SLP (Crl.) Dy. No.13063 of 2018 filed by the accused no.2 was summarily dismissed vide order dtd. 11/5/2018. Accused nos.3 and 4 did not prefer any appeal for challenging the judgment of the High Court.

(3.) Learned counsel appointed as Amicus Curiae to espouse the cause of the appellant pointed out that only one witness, namely, PW­2 Gitaben identified the appellant and ascribed him a role of pulling her gold chain. He submitted that PW­2 did not know the appellant. Therefore, her identification of the appellant in the Court becomes doubtful as even according to her version; there were 50­100 persons in the mob which surrounded the auto­rickshaw by which the witness was travelling. Moreover, the witness deposed before the Court approximately two years after the occurrence of the crime. He pointed out that the test identification parade was not held.