IRFAN SHAMIMULLA SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/accused is convicted for the offence of murder punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d. to suffer R.I. for one year and also convicted for the offence punishable under sections 392,397,201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each i/ d. to suffer S.I. for one year each by judgment and order dated 30/8/2007 passed by the Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai.

(2.) The accused was arrested in Crime No.283/2005 registered under sections 454,457,380 of the Indian Penal Code at Deonar Police Station. During the interrogation it was transpired that the applicant/accused had committed murder of his friend one Kamal who has come to Mumbai with money. After such disclosure the applicant/accused took police and the panchas near his hut and as per the information given by the applicant/accused the police dug the constructed Koba of the platform and found bones, footwear and rope. The said skeleton of the deceased was exhumed from the pit and the present offence was registered. After investigation the applicant/accused was tried alongwith the other accused and was convicted for the offence of murder as well as other offences.

(3.) Learned counsel Mr. Mooman for the applicant/accused has submitted that the applicant/accused is in jail since 6/10/2005. however, learned Judge has taken erroneous approach while appreciating the evidence and he has good chances of getting acquittal in the appeal. Learned counsel has further submitted that though the skeleton was found in the pit. the prosecution failed to prove that it was of Kamal. It is further submitted that the alleged statement u/s.27 of the Evidence Act disclosing the information about the burial of the body is not admissible as it travels beyond the scope of the section. He has further submitted that in the said room alongwith accused Irfan other 2-3 persons were residing and there is no evidence to show when the body was buried. He has further submitted that the super-imposition work which was done by P.W.10 is not authentic to arrive at conclusion that the body was of Kamal. He has further submitted that the prosecution neither brought any motive on record nor did examine wife of Kamal showing that he was missing. Learned counsel hence prayed that the bail application may be allowed.