LAWS(BOM)-2001-8-26

MAQBUL MOHAMED KARAJGI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On August 10, 2001
MAQBUL MOHAMED KARAJGI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Appeal was preferred by two Appellants viz. , Maqbul Mohamed Karajgi and Dundappa Balappa Ningnoor against their conviction and sentence by the Joint District and Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Sessions Case No. 127 of 1994. It appears that during the pendency of the Appeal, the first Appellant viz. , Maqbul Mohamed Karajgi, who had been released on parole, absconded and could not be apprehended. Accordingly, by order dated 1st March 2001, this Court separated the Appeal of the first Appellant to be heard after his surrender. The Appeal of the second Appellant, viz. , Dundappa Balappa Ningnoor was directed to be heard. Accordingly, we have heard the Appeal of the second Appellant viz. , Dundappa Balappa Ningnoor. Though we have heard this Appeal confined to the Appeal preferred by the second Appellant, it is necessary for us to refer to the facts of the case even insofar as they relate to the role played by the first Appellant with a view to give a complete picture of the occurrence and the evidence adduced by the prosecution.

(2.) THE Appellants were charged of offences under Sections 302/34, 364/34, 392/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and were put up for trial before the Joint District & Additional Sessions Judge, Satara. By his judgment and order dated 14th December 1995, the learned Sessions Judge found the Appellants guilty of all the offences with which they were charged, and he accordingly, sentenced the Appellants to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each. THE Appellants have also been convicted of the offence under Section 364/34, IPC, and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 9 months each. THE Appellants have also been convicted of the offence under Section 392/34 IPC, and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years each and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each. THEy have also been convicted of the offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each.

(3.) THE other important witness on this aspect of the prosecution case in Imtiyaz Ismail Dhole (P. W. 18 ). He has deposed to the effect that one day before the 'sankrant' in the year 1994, he was sitting in the car of Prabhakar Mali at about 4. 00 p. m. Two persons came to the taxi-stand. One Pawar was standing in front of the car of Prabhakar Mali, and those two persons made enquiries from Pawar as they wanted to hire a vehicle for going to Jath. Pawar settled the hire charges for the vehicle of Prabhakar Mali for going to Jath. Prabhakar Mali then asked this witness to get down as he had to go with the passengers, and accordingly, this witness got down from the vehicle. Sachin, who was there, also accompanied Prabhakar Mali. Those two unknown persons along with Sachin and Prabhakar Mali left for Jath. Next morning, the witness came to know about the murder of Prabhkar Mali. He also went to the place where the dead body of Prabhakar Mali was found, and he returned to Miraj with the dead body of Prabhakar Mali. This witness also identified both the Appellants in the test identification parade held on 18th April 1994. This witness, in his cross-examination, denied the suggestion that the accused persons were shown to him. He admitted that a month before the test identification parade, the police had shown to him a photograph of one of the accused persons and that from that he had identified the photograph as the photograph of one of the two persons who had hired the vehicle. Nothing of significance has been taken from this witness in his cross-examination which would render the witness untruthful or unreliable.