STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. AHMED SHAIKH BABAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Maharashtra has preferred these five appeals, by special leave, against the common judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in Criminal Appeals No. 240, 241, 273, 381 of 1995 and Criminal Revision No. 156 of 1995. By the impugned order the High Court, while allowing all the criminal appeals preferred by the convicts and dismissing the criminal appeal and criminal revision preferred by the State, has affirmed the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dated 25th April, 1995, acquitting respondents No. 1 to 3 herein, of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short Rs. the I.P.C.) and has set aside the order of the Trial Court convicting the said respondents for offence under Section 456 read with Section 109 I.P.C. Conviction of respondents No. 4 and 5 for the offence under Section 456 I.P.C. has also been set aside by the High Court.

(2.) The backdrop under which the alleged occurrence took place on 27th April, 1989, in brief, is as follows:

(3.) The said agreement was finalised through an Estate Agent - Moinuddin Khan (accused A-3), a resident of the same society. About two weeks prior to the date of incident, accused A-1, his estate agent (accused A-3) and one Usmangani Shaikh (accused A-2), approached Bhagwant Singh Anand (PW-4) asking him to deliver vacant possession of the flat on the expiry of the said leave and licence agreement. Thereafter on 24th, 25th and 26th April, 1989, they again met Bhagwant Singh Anand and insisted on the delivery of vacant possession of the flat by 27th April, 1989. It will be of some relevance to note that Usmangani Shaikh (accused A-2) is the brother of Asmabi (accused A-4), wife of accused A- 1 and Rahimabi, (accused A-5) is the sister of accused A-1. PW-4 requested for permission to stay in the flat for a few more days as his children, including the complainant (PW-1), were busy in their annual examination; his wife, Rani Anand (PW-6) and daughter Harjeet Kaur (PW-5) were also away to Hyderabad since the latter was appearing for her final B.A. examination in Osmania University and they were expected to return back to Bombay on 27th April, 1989. The request was turned down by accused A-1, who insisted that the possession of the flat must be delivered by 27th April, 1989, failing which possession would be taken by force.