9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 of 2003 (Accused No. 2/A2 - Sadashiv Seena Salian) respectively, whereby the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Appellants herein and upheld the conviction order(s) passed by the Sessions Court. The State's appeal against the acquittal of 4 co-Accused i.e., A1, A5, A6 and A7 (Criminal Appeal No. 496 of 2003) as also Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 2003 by the Accused No. 3/A3 (Ganesh alias Annu Shivaram Shetty, who later passed away), were dismissed by the Impugned Judgment. THE FACTUAL PRISM: 3. Briefly put, relevant details of the story run thus: 3.1 The prosecution alleges that the original Accused A1, A2 and A7 were in the Colaba Police Station lockup from 23.09.1994 to 29.09.1994. The allegation is that they entered into a criminal conspiracy between the period from 23.09.1994 to 12.05.1995 to abduct and murder Mahendra Pratap Singh (hereinafter referred to as the "deceased"). 3.2 12.05.1995 became the fateful day. One Sharda Prasad Singh, a businessman, is stated to be in the petroleum business. His office was located at Express Highway, near the Regional Transport Office, Ghatkopar. He has five sons. They were carrying out the business jointly. One of the sons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tified A4 being in the hotel room with A3 and A2. 3.8 First Information Report, namely Crime No. 132/1995, was lodged on 13.05.1995. Investigation commenced and culminated into a chargesheet against 10 persons - 3 were discharged and 7 stood trial. Tabular summation of the assailed convictions, granted by the Sessions Court on 27.11.2002 is apposite: Sl. No. Position Convicted Under Punishment 1 A4 Section 302 r/w Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Hereinafter referred to as "IPC". Rigorous Imprisonment Hereinafter referred to as "RI". for Life and INR 50,000 Fine (1 year RI in default) 2 A2 Section 120-B, IPC 5 years' RI and INR 50,000 Fine (1 year RI in default) Section 302 r/w Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code RI for Life and INR 50,000 Fine(1 year RI in default) 4. Aggrieved by order dated 27.11.2002 rendered by the Sessions Court, the present Appellants (A4 and A2), A3 and the State of Maharashtra preferred separate appeals before the High Court. As noted above, the Impugned judgment dismissed all the appeals. In the meantime, A3 passed away. Aggrieved, now on account of the Impugned Judgment, the Appellants have preferred the instant appeals bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... much less proof, of any motive for the Appellants to commit the crime in question; in any view of the matter, benefit of doubt was required to be given to them. It was contended that the surfacing of PW7 (Shivshankar Mongalal Tiwari) after more than six months of the occurrence itself brings serious doubts about credibility in the statement as he has stated that he has not mentioned the factum of occurrence of the crime in question to anybody, which is highly improbable. 8. Another indicator concerning the testimony of PW7, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Appellants is that if the incident took place at 8:15 PM, and minute details are being disclosed by him when he was at a distance of 150 feet, the same is palpably difficult to believe. Moreover, the weapon having not been recovered nor there being collection of the clothes worn by PW1 showing that he has blood stains, when admittedly after being shot, the deceased's neck had tilted on his shoulder, also points to the said witness not being at the spot and the whole story so far as the Appellants are concerned is fabricated, per the learned Counsel. 9. Learned Counsel for A2 further took the stand that despite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e basis thereof, a conspirator can also be held responsible for a crime committed by co-conspirator in furtherance of the objective of the conspiracy. ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION: 13. The High Court relied on the judgment of a 3-Judge Bench in Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1971 SC 885 to hold that 'criminal conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence' Paragraph 51 of the Impugned Judgment. On a careful appreciation of Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin (supra), while in agreement with the law laid down therein, we are not able to see how the prosecution's case is strengthened with its aid. Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin (supra) does not, in any manner, militate against this Court overturning a conviction when reasonable doubt emanates. 14. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Krishna Gopal, (1988) 4 SCC 302, the Court held: 25. A person has, no doubt, a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Though this standard is a higher standard, there is, however, no absolute standard. What degree of probability amounts to "proof" is an exercise pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... radesh v. Dharkole, (2004) 13 SCC 308. On the above anvil, the prosecution story does not inspire confidence to enable sustenance of the impugned convictions. 16. Insofar as reliance placed by learned Counsel for the State on the judgment in Firozuddin Basheeruddin (supra) is concerned, this Court would only observe that the same encapsulated a different factual scenario- the main persons responsible for the death of the deceased in that case were convicted. However, in the present case, the prosecution story's main conspirators stand acquitted. This is one stark difference in the foundational facts of the said case and the present one. But this is sufficient to safely conclude that Firozuddin Basheeruddin (supra) would not apply to the case at hand. Recently, this Court in Sanjay Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 INSC 519, restated the position that is no longer res integra: 18. ... It is too well-settled that judgments are not to be read as Euclid's theorems; they are not to be construed as statutes, and; specific cases are authorities only for what they actually decide. We do not want to be verbose in reproducing the relevant paragraphs but deem it proper to indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and insistence on the Prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt are not empty formalities. Rather, their origin is traceable to Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India. Of course, for certain offences, the law seeks to place a reverse onus on the Accused to prove his/her innocence, but that does not impact adversely the innocent-till- proven-guilty Rule for other criminal offences. 19. In Coffin v. United States, 156 US 432 (1895), the United States' Supreme Court held: The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the Accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law. 20. We see no quarrel with the afore-noted statement as the same applies on all fours to our criminal justice system. The presumption of innocence is also a human right, per the pronouncement in Narendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2004) 10 SCC 699. In Ranjeetsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 294, a 3-Judge Bench of this Court, at Paragraph 35, had opined that '... Liberty of a person should not ordinarily be interfered with unless there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
