BILAL BISHAD SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 30th October 2002 passed by the II Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli. The challenge is primarily based upon the argument that there was inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR); the recovery of the offending articles and the weapon was bad in law; even the other witnesses produced by the prosecution have not supported the case of the prosecution and as such the accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt. Further, it is contended that the learned trial Court failed in error of law inasmuch as it acquitted one of the accused on the same evidence and it ought to have passed an order of acquittal in favour of all the accused. To that extent, the judgment suffers from contradiction in findings of fact and law.

(2.) Vide charge Exhibit 4 all the three accused were charged for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the ground that on 3rd February 2001 between 22.30 to 22.45 hours in furtherance of common intention they committed the murder by intentionally or knowingly causing death of Abdul Samad Salar Inamdar by causing grievous hurt by knife and iron bar. To support this charge, the prosecution produced twelve (12) witnesses including the Doctor who had performed post mortem of the deceased body. The complaint in the present case was lodged by one Shri Abdul Latif Abdul Kazi who was examined as PW4 and his testimony is recorded at Exhibit 21. According to him, he was in the hotel Khwaja Darbar and was having tea. Thereafter, he came out and saw one person being beaten by two/three persons. The person who was being beaten was Abdul Samad Salar Inamdar who was also known to him. The persons beating him were named, Irfan Sikandar Bagewadi, Bilal Bishad Shaikh and Raufan Ibrahim Shaikh (Accused Nos. 1 to 3). They were duly identified by him in the Court. Accused Irfan gave fist and kick blows. Accused Bilal Shaikh was beating the deceased with iron bar. Abdul Samad Inamdar cried "Maa, Maa" and fell down there. He was having his hand on his stomach and was crying. Then some persons lifted the deceased and shifted him in a rickshaw. PW4 saw this incident in tube light but from some distance and then went to the Police Station to lodge a complaint being Exhibit 22 and later on Abdul Samad Inamdar died due to injuries. It may be noticed that in Exhibit 22 which resulted in registration of the FIR, he had stated that Irfan had taken out a sharp knife and given a blow to the deceased into his stomach twice or thrice. He could not give exact role of each accused because he admitted that he was at a distance of nearly 25 feet from the place of occurrence. There are some variations in his version given in the complaint and the statement made in the Court as PW4. It is clear from a bare reading of Exhibit 22 that the FIR was registered at 1.15 a.m. on the night of 4th February 2001. Thereafter the investigation of the case was taken over by Investigating Officer Ranjeet Dadasaheb Dhure, PW12, who had said that he had received a telephone call about the occurrence, went to the hospital but by the time he reached there, the victim was already dead. Then he went to the spot and after posting a constable at the site he came to police station. After going to the police station he recorded the statement of the witness Abdul Latif Abdul Kadar Kazi PW4, and registered C.R. No. 19/01. He then proceeded to the spot and prepared spot panchanama, where he collected blood stained soil, etc. vide Exhibit 47 and recorded the statement of the witnesses. The clothes of the accused were also seized by panchanama Exhibit 52. On 5th February 2001 he arrested Bilal Bishad Shaikh. On 6th February 2001 accused Irfan Sikandar Bagewadi was also arrested and on his disclosure statement, the knife and the iron bar used in the offence were recovered vide panchanama Exhibit 54. The blood stained knife was identified by him in Court along with iron bar Article 16.

(3.) The body of the deceased, as already noticed, was subjected to post mortem by Dr. Sujata Jagannath Joshi, PW6, vide Exhibit 33 and, according to her, the injuries and the cause of death were as under: