AKBAR MUSTAFA SHAIK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Five accused alongwith deceased father of accused no.5, were tried before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Gr. Bombay in Sessions Case no.350 of 1992 for various offences. The learned Judge by his judgment and order dated 5.11.1993 was pleased to acquit accused no.5, but however, was pleased to convict accused nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 for offence under Section 120B read with section 302 IPC and was pleased to sentence each of them to undergo R.I. for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000 each in default R.I. for 30 days. Accused nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 were also convicted for offence under section 120B read with Section 436 IPC and were sentenced to suffer RI for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000 in default RI for 30 days. Accused no.1 and 2 were held guilty under section 114 read with section 302 of IPC and in the alternative under section 302 read with section 324 of IPC and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000 in default 15 days RI. Accused nos.1 and 3 were also convicted for offence under section 426 read with section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years each and to pay a fine Rs.1000 in default to suffer RI for 15 days. Accused nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 were convicted for offence under section 143 and were sentenced to suffer RI for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000 each in default RI for 15 days. Accused nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 were convicted for offence under section 148 of IPC and each was sentenced to suffer RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000 each in default RI for 30 days. Accused nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 were convicted for offence under section 302 read with 149 of IPC and each one was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000 each in default RI for 30 days. Accused nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 were also convicted for offence under section 149 read with section 436 of IPC and each one was sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000 each in default to suffer RI for 30 days. The learned Judge was pleased to acquit the original accused no.5 of all the charges.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved by the above order of conviction and sentence accused nos. 1 to 4 have preferred this appeal.

(3.) Shortly stated the prosecution case is that P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 who are brothers were tenants of a particular property and having their vakhar (timber depot) therein. Accused no.1 and father of accused no.5 were also tenants in the property by the side of this vakhar. It appears that there was some dispute between P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 on the one hand and accused no.1 and father of accused no.5 and accused No.5 on the other hand due to raising of the level of the road adjacent to their properties. Due to the raising of the level of the road the property of P.W.1 and P.W. 2 used to be flooded during the rainy season. It appears that in this regard some talks took place between P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 on the one side and accused no.1, father of accused no.5 and accused no.5 on the other hand in which talks the attitude of the deceased who was an employee of P.W. 2 was not liked by accused no.1 and father of accused no.5. Though the problem appears to have been solved by putting certain pipes for along the water to flow on the other side the accused no.1 and father of accused no.5 appear to have been offended by the conduct of the deceased who was taking side and making suggestions on behalf of the P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. Accordingly it appears that there was bad blood between the deceased and accused no.1 and father of accused no.5. It is the case of the prosecution that as a consequence of this enmity all these accused conspired to commit murder of the deceased and in fact in the early hours of 22.6.1991 not only committed murder of the deceased Ubedur Rehman Mohammed Yasin Chaudhari but also set fire to the said Latif Sons Saw Mill at Shamshuddin Chitalwala Compound, Jari Mari, Kurla Andheri Road, Mumbai, and that is how all of them came to be charged and tried as stated above. As stated earlier the Ld. Judge accepted the prosecution case as against the accused nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 and convicted and sentenced them as already detailed above.