Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 104

Judgment1MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.

INTHECOURTOFSPECIALJUDGEDESIGNATEDUNDERMCOCACT
ATGR.MUMBAI.
MCOCSPECIALCASENO.2OF2012
TheStateattheinstanceofDCBCID
MumbaiC.R.No.86/11(J.J.MargPolice
Stn.C.R.No.138/11)
V/s.
1.RiyazAhmadHussainShaikh@Bhaiji
Age:47years.
R/o:A1TowerHillPark,FlatNo.1204,
AgrawalEstate,Jogeshwari,(W)
Mumbai.

...Complainant

2.NileshWilliamJatanna@Annu
Age:28years.
R/o:DahisarCheknaka,RaikarWadi,
RoomNo.66.Dist.Thane.
3.PrashantPrasadRao@Sunny
Age:37years.
R/o:MiraGaon,MunishCompound,
BehindDr.Khan'sClinic,Opp.Amish
Park,Kashmira,DistThane.
4.MohammadJafarEsakMadhwala@Chacha
Age:61years.
R/o:RizwanApartment,A20,GroundFloor,
Roomno.1,AmrutNagar,Jogeshwari(W),
Mumbai102.
5.ZakariyaBashirKhan@Jiko@Salim
Age:44years.
R/o:Zopadano.5,MahimDargaMohalla,
BacksideofAkramTerracebuilding,
Mahim,Mumbai16.

....Accused
...2/

Judgment2MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
Mr.D.M.ShahLearnedSpecialP.P.fortheState/Complainant.
Mr.SejpalLearnedAdvocateforaccusedno.1.
Mr.ManerkarLearnedAdvocateforaccusedno.2and4.
Mr.TaraqSayyedLearnedAdvocateforaccusedno.3
Mr.WareLearnedAdvocateforaccusedno.5.
Offences:U/sec.307,120(B)r/w387ofIPC,506
PartIIr/wsec.387,34ofIPC,3r/w25
oftheArmsAct,37/135oftheB.P.Act,
3(1)(ii),3(2),3(4)ofMCOCAct,1999.
CORAM:HISHONOURTHESPECIALJUDGE
SHRIP.R.Deshmukh.
JUDGMENT
th
(DELIVEREDON17

November,2014)

1.

Unfoldedcaseofprosecutionisasfollows.

2.

NirbhanConstructionCompanydealinginconstructionbusinessis

situated at Kamruddin Street, Nagpada Mumbai. Akram Nirbhan is


proprietoroftheCompany. OneSohelKhanwasworkingasrealEstate
AgentatNirbhanConstruction.On1/10/2011,atabout12.30p.m.,Sohel
Khan reached to Nirbhan Construction Company and was at reception
officewithfatherofAkramNirbhan. Whentheywerediscussing,Sohel
noticedhisclientSagirAhmedpassingfromRoad. Hewasstoppedby
Sohelandwerediscussingonaccountofchequeduefromhimtowards
NirbhanConstruction.Whentheirdiscussionwasgoingon,Sohelnoticed
twopersonscomingtowardshimonredcolouredmotorbikefromMoulana
...3/

Judgment3MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
ShoukatAliRoad.Bothwerestaringathim.Allofsuddenpersonwhowas
pillionridertookoutfirearmpistolandbypointingouttowardshimfired
threeroundsofbullet.Heavoidedtworoundsbutonebullethitathisleg
therebycausingbleedinginjury. Heimmediatelyraisedvoicebysaying
PakadoPakadoGoliMara. ByhearingsuchshoutofSohelafterfiring,
they both by pointing out fire arms towards public ran away from
DimtimkarRoad.
3.

Employee of Nirbhan Construction namely Nabeel took injured

SoheltoJ.J.Hospitalwherehewastreatedandoperated.Ultimatelyon
thebasisofstatementofinjuredSohel,FIRasperC.R.No.138/2011for
offencesundersection307,r/w34ofIPCand3/25,27ofArmsActcame
toberegisteredatJ.J.MargPoliceStationagainsttwounknownpersons.
4.

As per story of prosecution, second incident took place on

14/10/2011wheninvestigationofaforesaidC.R.No.138/2011wasgoing
on. CrimeBranchUnitIIIreceivedinformationthataccusedwereinthe
waytoreachinNagpadaareawithsomefirearms.SeniorPoliceInspector
PrashantMardedeputedateamofUnitIIIforarrangingtrapaspersecret
information.ASIChalke,APITawadeandPIDhanawadealongwithother
policestaffarrangedtrapnearBMCBeatChowkiatNagpadaarea.Police
teamnoticedthreepersonspassingfromBMCBeatChowki.Theywere
interceptedbypoliceteam. Personalsearchofthosethreepersonswas
takeninpresenceofpanchwitnesses.Policefoundfourfirearmsnamely
pistols and nine live cartridges in possession of those three persons. In
...4/

Judgment4MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
interrogation,theytoldtheirnamesasaccusedno.1,2and3.Afterseizure
of weapons and articles on spot, accused and articles were taken to
NagpadaPoliceStationandLACNo.2220/2011foroffenceundersection
3/25ofArmsActwasregisteredandasperC.R.No.35/2011byCriminal
DetectionBranchfurtherinvestigationwashandedovertoCrimeBranch
UnitIII.MeantimeC.R.No.138/2011ofJ.J.MargPoliceStationwasalso
handedovertoCrimeBranchUnitIIIasperorderofA.C.P.(Crime)dated
19/10/2011.Duringinterrogationwitharrestedaccusednos.1to3other
accusednos.4and5cametobearrestedon10/11/2011and13/11/2011
respectivelyhavingseentheirinvolvementincommissionofcrime.
5.

During interrogation with accused Prashant Rao, he gave

memorandumstatementaboutdiscoveryofNokiaMobilefromhishouse
Miragaon. As per his memorandum statement in presence of panch
witnesses,Mobile handsetof Nokia companycame tobeseizedunder
panchanama. Similarly as per memorandum and seizure panchanama,
twomobilehandsetsofMicromaxandL.G.companiescametobeseized
attheinstanceofaccusedZakariyaBashirKhan@Jiko. Bloodstained
shirtandjeanspantcametobeseizedfrominjuredSohelasperseizure
panchanama.Bloodstainedsoil,twoemptycartridges,onelivecartridge
came to be seized from spot of firing incident in presence of pancha
witnesses. Photographs(5)ofspotoffiringincidentweretakenwiththe
help of photographer Ahmed Kaji on 1/10/2011. During the course of
investigation medical examination report of injured Sohel who had
receivedbulletinjuryintheincidentcametobecollected.
...5/

Judgment5MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
6.

During further course of investigation and interrogation with

proprietor of Nirbhan Construction namely Akram, it was revealed to


policethaton9/9/2011,therewasthreatofextortiontohimfromEjaj
LakadawalafromAbroadonhismobilephonedemandingextortionmoney
Rs.ThreeCrores.Itisallegationagainstaccusednos.1to3thatonthe
sayofsaidEjajLakadawalawhoisleaderofOrganizedCrimeSyndicate
initiallytheyinspectedsiteofNirbhanConstructionandasMohd.Akram
didnotfulfilldemandofransomamount,ultimatelyaccusedNileshand
Prashant Rao on 29/9/2011 had been to Nirbhan Construction site for
firingandcreatingterrorinthemindofMohd.Akram,butdidnotsucceed
onaccountof lotof personspresentatthe site on thatday. However,
ultimatelyon1/10/2011,accusedNileshandPrashantRaosucceededin
thefiringincidentinwhichSohelreceivedbulletinjuryatthehandsof
accused Prashant Rao who was pillion rider with Nilesh on motorbike
whichwasdrivenbyaccusedNilesh.
7.

Asperfurtherstoryofprosecutiononnextdayoffiringincidenti.e.

on2/10/2011,Mohd.AkramNirbhanreceivedfourSMSofthreatening
callonhismobilefromEjajLakadawalathreateninghimofdeathifhis
demandis notfulfilled. Onthirddayofincident, EjajLakadawalaby
givingphonecalltoMohd.AkramNirbhanreducedhisdemandfromRs.
three Crores to Rs. one and half Crores. However, by saying that his
businessisnewlystarted,heisnotinpositiontopaysaidhugeamount,
refusedtopaytheransomtoEjajLakadawala.

...6/

Judgment6MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
8.

On the basis of aforesaid information supplied by Mohd. Akram

Nirbhanonwhosesiteincidentoffiringdated1/10/2011wastakenplace
in which his Estate agent Sohel was injured, further investigation
connectingroleof EjajLakadawalainthefiringincidentonthebasisof
SIMcardsusedbyarrestedaccusednos.1to3prior,duringandafterthe
incident collected call details, CDR and print out from Airtel, Aircel,
Vodafone,Idea,Reliance,Uninor,andLoopCompaniesandsubscribersin
whosenameseizedmobileswereregisteredintheaforesaidcompanies.
9.

DuringfurtherinvestigationwiththehelpofExecutiveMagistrate

(Tahasildar),TestIdentificationParade(T.I.Parade)aboutidentificationof
accusedno.1to3wasconductedinwhichtheywereidentifiedbyinjured
witness namely Sohel Khan who had injured in firing incident and eye
witnessSohel. Andalsofourwitnessesinwhosepresencefirearmsand
articleswereseizedon14/10/2011. During interrogation with accused
no.2and3,theyshowedwillingnesstogiveconfessionbeforeDCPasper
section 18 of MCOC Act. Their confessional statements came to be
recorded and statement under uection 164 of Cr.P.C. of witness Mohd.
AkramNirbhanandJigneshPandyaalsocametoberecordedbyproducing
thembeforeMetropolitanMagistrate.
10.

Aftercollectingmaterialinrespectofbothincidentandonthebasis

ofinformationgivenbyMohd.AkramNirbhananddocumentaryevidence
collectedfromNodalofficerasstatedabove,policecametobeconclusion
thataccusednos.1to5areactivemembersofOrganizedCrimeSyndicate
...7/

Judgment7MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
headedby EjajLakadawalaandasperhissayanddirection,theywere
continuing unlawful activities like threatening and demanding ransom
amountfrombuilders.AndonthesayoftheirleaderofSyndicateEjaj
Lakadawala accused nos. 2 and 3 committed incident of firing dated
1/10/2011. Accused nos.1 to 3 were found with firm arms and live
cartridgesaspertrapdated14/10/2011.Andallsuchactivitiescommitted
by accused nos. 1 to 5 are under head of Ejaj Lakadawala who had
threatenMohd.AkramNirbhanbyputtinghiminfearofdeathtoextort
money from him. Police while completing next part of investigation
collectedcopiesofchargesheetinwhichEjajLakadawalabeingleaderof
CrimeSyndicatewasinvolvedinsimilarnatureofoffencespriortopresent
incident and he alongwith others are facing two criminal cases filed
againsthimandothersatA.C.M.M.CourtNo.37KillaCourt,Mumbaiand
beforedesignatedMCOCCourtforoffencesundersection387,r/w34@
offences,underArmsandMCOCAct.
11.

In due course all investigation papers were submitted to Joint

Commissioner of Police initially for grant of approval for invoking


provision of MCOC Act as per section 23(1)(a) MCOC Act in C.R.No.
86/2011andhavinggivenapprovalandcompletinginvestigationunder
MCOCActsanctionundersection23(2)oftheActtoprosecutearrested
accusednos.1to5wasobtainedfromCommissionerofPoliceMumbai.
Ultimately on the basis of material collected in investigation viz.
confessional statement of accused nos. 2 and 3, seized fire arms and
articlesfromaccusednos.1to3,calldetailsobtainedfromNodalofficers,
...8/

Judgment8MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
statementoftwowitnessesrecordedunderuection164ofCr.P.C.andafter
getting sanction from Commissioner of Police, accused nos. 1 to 5
alongwithabscondingaccusedno.1to3cametobechargesheetedbefore
thisCourtfortrial.
12.

Induecourseoftrial,myLearnedPredecessorframedchargeEx.31

againstaccusednos.1to5on30/11/2013forabovementionedoffences
under IPC, Arms Act, Bombay Police Act and MCOC Act. As per plea
recordedatEx.32 to36,accusedpleadednotguiltyand claimedtobe
tried.Defenceofaccusedisthatoftotaldenialandfalseimplication.
13.

To prove allegations levelled against accused in respect of two

incidentdated1/10/2011and14/10/2011togetherwithconspiracyfor
commissionofoffence,prosecutionexaminedinall36witnesses.Tohave
properdiscussionofevidenceandmarshalingofevidence,itisdividedinto
VIdifferentgroupsasperdetailsinreasoning.
14.

Incriminating material came on record in the evidence of 36

prosecution witnesses explained to accused while recording their


statementsundersection313ofCr.P.C.videEx.32to36.Theyrepliedto
allquestionsputtothemaspertheirdefenceoffalseimplication.Noneof
theaccusedexaminedhimselfnorleadanydefenceevidence.
15.

As such on above stated facts, following points arise for my

determinationandIhave given myfindings toeachof themfor below


...9/

Judgment9MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
mentionedreasons.
POINTS

FINDINGS

1.Doesprosecutionprovethataccusednos.1
to 5 alongwith wanted accused nos. 1 to 3
before1st ofOctober,2011atBrihanMumbai
agreed to do illegal acts to wit to commit
extortionofRupeesThreeCroresbyextending
threats to kill Mohammad Akram Nirbhan a
builderbyprofessionandinpursuanceofthe
aforesaidagreementonorabout1/10/2011at
about14.45hrs.attheconstructionsiteoffice
ofNirbhanConstructionCompany,situatedat
Shaikh Burhan Qamruddin Street (Teli
Mohhala), Nagpada, Mumbai 400 008, and
accused no.2 drove red coloured motorcycle
bearing registration No.MH04EN4263 and
accusedno.3openedfirewithapistoltowards
Sohail@SoneyAbdulMajidKhan,workingas Provedagainst
a commission agent of Mohammad Akram A1,A2&A3
Nirbhan and thereby committed an offence u/sec.120(B)
punishable under section 120(B) r/w 387 of r/w387of
IndianPenalCode.
IPC.
2. Does the prosecution further prove that
accusednos.1to5andwantedaccusednos.1
to3infurtheranceoftheircommonintention
and pursuant to the criminal conspiracy
committedcriminalintimidationbythreatening
tokillMohammadAkramNirbha,abuilderin Provedagainst
order to commit extortion of Rupees Three
A3
Crores and thereby committed the offence u/sec.506(II)
punishable under section 506 PartIIr/w sec. r/w387,34of
387,34ofIndianPenalCode.
IPC.

...10/

Judgment10MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.

3. Does the prosecution further prove that


accused nos. 2 and 3 in pursuance to the
aforesaid criminal conspiracy and in
furtheranceoftheircommonintentionwithall
accusednos.1to5andwantedaccusednos.1
to3on1stofOctober,2011atabout14.45hrs.
andaccusedno.3openedfiretowardsSohail@
SonyAbdulMajidKhan,commissionagentof
Mohammad Akram Nirbhan, with such an
intention and knowledge and under such
circumstances that if by that act you had
causedanddeathofaforesaidSohail@Sony
AbdulMajidKhan,youwouldhavebeenguilty
ofmurderandinthatyouaccusedcausedhurt Provedagainst
to the aforesaid Sohail @ Sony Abdul Majid A2&A3
Khan and thereby committed an offence u/sec.307r/w
punishableundersection307r/w120(B)orin 120(B)ofIPC.
thealternativer/w.34ofIndianPenalCode.
4.Doestheprosecutionprovethataccusedno.
3 on the same date, time and place in
pursuanceoftheaforesaidcriminalconspiracy
and in furtherance of his common intention
with rest of the accused and the wanted
accuseddidpossessafirearmandammunition
to wit a countrymade pistol and cartridges
withoutlicenceasrequiredundertheArmsAct
and the rules made there under and thereby
committedanoffencepunishableundersection
3r/w25oftheArmsAct,r/w120(B)ofIndian
PenalCode.
Proved

...11/

Judgment11MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
5. Does the prosecution prove that on the
sametimeandplaceyouaccusedno.2and3
did posses the aforesaid countrymade pistol
and ammunitions and thereby contravened
Order No.CP/XI(6)/JVP/L, W/702(9)2011
dated 19/9/2011 issued by the Dy.
Commissioner of Police (Operations) Mumbai
inexerciseofficepoweru/s.37oftheBombay
Police Act and thereby committed an offence
punishable under section 135 of the Bombay
PoliceAct.

Proved

6. Does the prosecution prove that accused


nos.1to5alongwithwantedaccusednos.1to
3sometimebefore1stOctober,2011atGreater
Mumbai, being the member of an organized
crimesyndicateheadedbywantedaccusedno.
1 Ejaj Lakadawala @ Ajju conspired to
continue unlawful activities and to commit
organizedcrimetowittothreatenMohammad
AkramNirbhanabuilderbyprofessionthathe
would be killed if a demand of extortion of
RupeesThreeCroresisnotfulfilledandmade
anattemptonthelifeofSohailKhanworking
as his commission agent with an object of
gaining pecuniary advantage or to get undue
economic benefit and thereby committed an
offencepunishableundersection3(1)(ii)ofthe Provedagainst
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, A1,A2&A3
1999.
7. Does the prosecution prove that accused
nos.1to5alongwithwantedaccusednos.1to
3 conspired and/or attempted to commit
and/orabettedanorganizedcrimetowit

...12/

Judgment12MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
extended threats to kill Mohammad Akram
Nirban for extortion of Rupees Three Crores
andtherebycommittedanoffencepunishable Provedagainst
undersection3(2)oftheMaharashtraControl A1,A2&A3
ofOrganisedCrimeAct,1999.
8. Does the prosecution proves that accused
nos.1to5andwantedaccusednos.1to3are
members of an organized crime syndicate of
whichwantedaccusedno.1EjajLakadawala@
Ajju is the head and thereby committed an
offence punishable under section 3(4) of the Provedagainst
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, A1,A2&A3
1999.

REASONS
GroupI
Incidentdated1/10/2011
To prove incident dated 1/10/2011 prosecution examined in all
eightwitnesses
PW1(Namehidden)onseizureofclothesofinjured PanchanamaEx.44
PW2SohelAbdulMajidKhan,injuredandonFIREx.46.
PW14AbdulMajidonspotcumseizurepanchanamaEx.129.
PW21AhmedAnsarionseizureofmotorbikeandkeyEx.162.
PW23Dr.VatsalaKatkeonmedicalcertificateEx.167&168.
PW24AhmadKazi,Photographer,ofspotof(Article30).
PW27SohelDalvi,eyewitnesstotheincident.
PW34ASI,KailasBondre,onFIREx.46and46A.
...13/

Judgment13MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
GroupII
Incidentdated14/10/2011.
ToproveincidentprosecutionExamined3witnesses
PW11SameerQureshi,PanchwitnesstopanchanamaEx.112,
PW28APIVinodTawadememberofteamleadingtotrapofA1to3.
PW35PIDhanawade,inchargeofleadingteamoftrap.

GroupIII

TestIdentificationParade
ToproveT.I.ParadeEx.153prosecutionexamined3witnesses
PW2SohelKhan,Complainant.
PW27SohelDalvi,eyewitness.
PW19BhagwanArjun,NayabTahsildar.
GroupIV
OnconfessionofA2Ex.184&186,prosecutionexaminedfollowingthree
witness
PW28APIVinodTawade
PW29DCP,KeshavPatil.
PW32PSIAnantJadhav.
OnconfessionofA3Ex.137and138,prosecutionexaminedfollowing
threewitnesses
PW16DCPKishorJadhav,
PW25PSISubhanaNaik.attachedtoCrimeBranchUnitIII.
PW26PINitinPotdarattachedtoA.T.S.
...14/

Judgment14MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.

PW12 Jignesh Pandya is also on point of eyewitness of mobile

numberofaccusedno.1whohasalsogivenstatementu/sec.164ofCr.P.C.
Ex.125beforeMagistrate.PW15(Namehidden)onphonecallandthreat
byheadofCrimeSyndicateEjajLakadawala.Hehasalsogivenstatement
u/sec.164ofCr.P.C.beforeMagistrate.
GroupV
EvidenceaboutMobile&CDRprintout
PW4(Namehidden)onmemorandumandseizuregivenbyA3,Ex.52.
PW11SameerQureshi,onseizureofmobilefromA1&A3onthedate
ofincidentdated14/10/2011.
NodalOfficersexaminedfromPW5toPW10and31ofcompanies
namelyIndiaCellular,AircelLtd,Loop,Vodafone,Reliance,Bharti
AirtelLtd.andUninor.
GroupVI
Evidenceofinvestigatingofficers
PW20DCPMs.SharadaRaul,onsanctionedorderofA3Ex.158offire
arms.
PW30ArupPatnaik,CommissionerofPoliceonsanctionedorderEx.193.
PW35PIDhanawade(I.O.Ist)
PW36ACPVatkar.(I.O.IInd)

...15/

Judgment15MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
GroupI

Incidentdated1/10/2011.
16.

Toprovetheincident,thereisoralevidenceofPW2injuredSohel

KhanandindependentwitnessPW27SohelDalvi.InjuredSohelKhanin
histestimonyinchiefexaminationgaveevidencebeforetheCourtthathe
was working as Estate agent with proprietor of Nirbhan Construction
(PW15AkramNirbhan)andonthedayofincidenthadbeentositeof
Nirbhan Construction which is at Shaikh Burhan Kamruddin Street at
about 12.30 p.m.. Initially there was talk between him and father of
AkramNirbhaninthepassageofoffice.Atabout2.30p.m.byseeingtheir
clientSagirAhmedhecameoutoftheofficeandattherelevanttimewas
discussingaboutchequeduefromsaidSagirtoNirbhanConstruction.He
withina23minutesofstartoftheirdiscussionnoticedtwopersonsonred
colourmotorbikecomingtowardshimfromMoulanaShoukatAliRoad.
Bothwerestaringathim.Pillionriderwhippedoutafirearm(Pistol)and
firedthreeroundstowardshim.Hesavedfromtworounds.However,one
bullethitashisleftlegcausingbleedinginjury. Heimmediatelyraised
shoutcallingpublicbutbythattimebothpersonsbypointingoutweapon
towards public ran away from spot. While adducing evidence, he
identifiedaccusedPrashantRao(A3)whowaspillionrideronmotorbike
andfiredthreebulletroundstowardshimandaccusedNilesh(A2)who
wasriddingbikeatthetimeofincident.
17.

Aforesaid oral evidence adduced by injured Sohel Khan is mostly

challengedbyA3.Headmittedincrossexaminationthatgoingoutofthe
...16/

Judgment16MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
officetomeetSagirwasspontaneousactiononhispart. Therewasno
fixedtimetogoforworkeverydayandhehadnoideaastowhomhewas
goingtomeetonthatdayattheofficeofNirbhanConstruction.Itishis
versionthathenoticedmotorbikeinthemidstofhisconversationwith
Sagirandatthattimehewasnearsideacrosstheroad.Accordingtohim,
entire incident took place within ten seconds and first bullet was fired
uponhimwithinatwosecondofhisnoticingaccused.Healsoadmitted
thatassailantswereathisrighthandsidewhenfirstbulletwasfiredand
bikepassedinfrontofhimwhenitwasatthedistanceoftenfeet. He
also admittedthatassailantwas pointing his weapon towards his chest
whilefiringthreeshots.
18.

Onthebasisofaforesaidtestimonyofinjured,itissayofLearned

Spl.P.P.thatsofarastestimonyofinjuredSohelKhanisconcerned,itis
supported to the prosecution to prove his FIR Ex.46 which is within a
periodofonehourasFIRisregisteredat15.15p.m.Accordingtohim,
whatsoevermaterialbroughtonrecordbydefenceinhiscrossexamination
isnothingbutelaboratedpieceoffactofincidentoffiringi.e.comingout
oftheofficebynoticingSagir. Asperhissubmissionsuchadmissionin
cross examination is spontaneous and most natural one. According to
prosecution,defencealsobroughtonrecordonemoreadmissionfromhis
testimony that in amidst of conversation with Sagir injured noticed
motorbike.LearnedAdvocate forA3on the basis of certain elaborated
answer brought on record about actual incident in cross examination
submittedthatankleinjuryisabsolutelynotpossible.Toappreciatesuch
...17/

Judgment17MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
pointofargumentabouttestimonyofinjured,itisalsonecessarytosee
whatisevidenceofeyewitnessPW27.
19.

According to PW27 Sohel Dalvi, on the day of incident, he was

standinginfrontofDoctor'sclinicwherehewasworkingatthattimeand
timewasabout2.30.p.m.Hesawonemotorbikeofredcolourhavingone
pillion rider. Nirbhan Construction office is just in front of his clinic.
InjuredSohelKhanresidesatadjacentgalliofsaiddispensary.Therefore
heknowshimandalsothathewasworkingwithNirbhanBuilder.Asper
hisversioninchiefexamination,saidmotorbikejuststoppedbysidewhere
hewasstandingandpersonwhowaspillionridertookoutpistolandfired
itatSohelKhanwhoreceivedonebulletonhisleftlegfeet.Histestimony
ischallengedbyA3bygivingsuggestionthatentireincidenttookplace
within23minutesandhehasseeninjurysustainedtoSohelKhanwhich
wasontoeofleftleg.Itisalsohisversionthatassailantwasinfrontof
injured.Tothespecificsuggestionastowhetherassailantwastryingtokill
theinjured,hisanswerwasthattherewasnointentionofassailanttokill
him.Inrestofcrossexamination,defencehasbroughtonrecordsituation
of office of Nirbhan Construction which according to him just exact
oppositetoclinicandhehasseentheincidentwhichoccurredjustinfront
ofNirbhanConstructionsiteofficewhichisat15feetdistancefromhis
clinic.
20.

As both A2andA3allegedauthor of incidentdated 1/10/2011

were unknown to PW27. As per his statement U/sec. 161 of Cr.P.C.,


...18/

Judgment18MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
prosecutionledevidenceaboutdescriptionofbothA2andA3forpurpose
of identification andwhatsoever description statedbyhim in statement
U/sec.161ofCr.P.C.isdeposedbyhiminchiefexamination. Sofaras
other part of identification of A2 and A3 by him on the basis of T.I.
ParadeheldinAurtherRoadJailandbeforeCourtheidentifiedbothA2
andA3asbikedriverandpillionriderandspecificroleofA3infiring
incident.Ashehasidentifiedmotorbikearticle28usedinincidentbyA2
andA3,hewascrossexaminedbydefencespecificallyA3bybringingon
recordomissioni.e.notstatingdescriptionofmotorbikeandit'snumberin
statementU/sec.161ofCr.P.C.Thereisalsosubstantialcrossexamination
about necessity of keeping vehicle number involved in such type of
incidentinthemindandmemoryandsupplyingittopoliceimmediately
and omission on his part by not giving number of motorbike while
statementU/sec.161ofCr.P.C.andgivingittopoliceinsupplementary
statement dated 14/12/2011. When evidence of eyewitness was silent
about number of motorbike, defence in cross examination brought on
recordmaterialtotheeffectthatwhenhegavestatementtothepolice,he
wasknowingthatsaidmotorbikewasseenbyhimonthedayofincident.
Notonlythatbygivingspecificsuggestion,defencehasbroughtonrecord
motorbikenumberMH04EN4263usedinincidentandstatedbyhimin
cross examination. This material evidence of injured Sohel Khan and
eyewitnessSohelDalvineedstobeappreciatedwithotherpartoftheir
evidencewhichisinnatureofseizureofclothesofinjured,evidenceabout
injuries sustained to Sohel Khan and corresponding medical evidence
availableonrecord.
...19/

Judgment19MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
21.

ItissayofinjuredSohelKhanincrossexaminationthatassailant

wasonrighthandsidewhenfirstbulletwasfired.Whenfirstbulletwas
fired he immediately took action to save himself. Entire incident took
placewithintenseconds.Hedidnotgotoduckwalkpositionafterfirst
shot. It is also his version that he was standing there on spot facing
towardsofficeofNirbhanConstructionandmotorbikedidnotstop,but
wasmovinginveryslowspeedwhenfiringincidenttookplace.Itisalso
hisversionincrossexaminationthatwhenmotorbikepassedinfrontof
him,therewasdistanceofabouttenfeetinbetweenhimandmotorbike.
Headmittedsuggestionofdefencethatassailantsbypointoutingweapon
towardshischestfiredthreeshotsandhereceivedonebulletonhisleft
leg.
22.

PW27eyewitnessSohelDalvideposedthathewasstandingonthe

spotfacingtowardsNirbhanConstructionandfiringtookplacetwotimes
frommotorbikewhichcameonspotfromhisleftsidehavingtwopersons
onitandinsaidfiring,injuredSohelKhanreceivedbulletathisleftleg
feet.Defencecrossexaminedhimonsituationofspoti.e.siteofNirbhan
Constructionanditsofficefromhisdispensaryinfrontofwhichhewas
standing. Accordingtohim,incidenttookplaceatdistanceoffivefeet
fromsiteofofficeofNirbhanConstructionandhisdispensaryisatdistance
of fifteen feet from site office of Nirbhan Construction. In his further
evidenceincrossexamination,itishisversionthatentireincidenttook
place within 23 minutes and he had seen injury sustained to injured.
WhenitwasasimpleversionofinjuredPW2andthiseyewitnessPW27
...20/

Judgment20MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
thatbulletinjurywasreceivedonleftlegfeetofPW2,inparano.13of
crossexaminationofthisPW27,defencehasbroughtonrecordknowledge
ofthiswitnessaboutunderstandingofthigh,legfeetandtoe.Itisbecause
in his statement U/sec. 161 of Cr.P.C. before Police, he had stated that
injuredhasreceivedbulletinjuryabovefeetofleftlegbynamingsaidpart
oflegastoe.Hewasalsocrossexaminedbydefenceabouthisknowledge
inrespectofpistolandrevolver,tothesamehesatedthathehasnever
holdrevolverorpistolandcannottellhowpistollookslike.However,itis
his say that he can identify weapon like revolver or pistol as per his
knowledgefromMovieandNewpaper.
23.

Aforesaidevidencebroughtonrecordintestimonyofinjuredand

eyewitnessSohelDalviistriedtobecontradictedbydefenceonthebasis
of medical evidence which has come on record from mouth of Dr.
Ms.VatsalaKatke(PW23).AsperhertestimonybeforeCourtonthebasis
ofmedicalcertificateEx.168whichisissuedonthebasisofMLCregistered
Ex.167, injury sustained to PW2 was bullet injury on left ankle near
medialmalleolus. Duringthecourseofargument,LearnedAdvocatefor
A3onthebasisofabovecircumstancesofspotbroughtonrecordinthe
evidenceofPW2and27andspecificallythatinjuredandassailantswere
facingeachotherassailantswereonmotorbikeandinjuredwasstanding
andassailantswereaimingtowardschestofinjuredcomingfromhisright
side,possibilityofcausinginjuryatleftlegtoeisnotpossible. Itisalso
because PW23 in cross examination admitted that injury mentioned in
certificateEx.168isnotpossible,ifassailantisfacingtowardsinjured.It
...21/

Judgment21MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
istruethatDoctorwhoisexpertforgivingpossibilityofsustaininginjury
onparticularpartofinjuredfromspecificdirectionofthesideofassailants
butthatbeingmereopinionofexpertsameneedstobeappreciatedwith
othermaterialevidenceandinthepresentcase,evidenceofinjuredand
eyewitnessPW27SohelDalvi.Oralevidenceofinjuredandeyewitnessin
respectofincidentcannotbebrushedasideonthebasisofpossibilityof
sustaininginjuryormerelyoncountofsurmiseandonbasisofcertain
admissiongivenbythewitnesses.Itisalsobecauseothercorroborative
evidencealsoneedstobeappreciatedhavingconnectionwiththeincident
in question. And therefore evidence available on record in respect of
seizure of clothes of injured, bullet and cartridges seized from spot of
incident and corresponding evidence of FSL and opinion about seized
articlesgivenbyAnalystexpertneedstobeappreciated.
24.

Asperevidenceofpanchofseizurepanchanamaofshirtandjeans

pantworebyinjured(PW1)Ex.44inhispresencearticleA&Bareseized.
Jeanspantwasofblackcolourandleftpartoflegofjeanspanthavingtwo
hole with blood stains. His testimony is not challenged by any of the
accused. Jeanspantarticle1BasperevidenceofPW34wasproduced
beforehimbyPC28207NileshSalunkeandthoseclotheswereseizedas
perpanchanamaEx.44byhimi.e.PW1.Muddemalregisterentryistaken
as per no.112/11 vide Ex.203 (extract of muddemal register). Though
PW34 was cross examined on other aspect of his evidence, so far as
seizure of clothes as per panchanama Ex.44 by him and corresponding
entryinmuddemalregistervideEx.203givingcorroborationtoevidence
...22/

Judgment22MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
ofPW1wentunchallenged.
25.

Duringcourseofargument,LearnedAdvocateforA3bydrawing

myattentiontowardsfoldedlowerportionofjeanspantarticle1Band
holeofbullettoarticleBvehementlyarguedaboutnonpossibilityofsuch
natureofinjuryandholetothefoldedportionofjeanspantandsoalso
bloodstainofinnerpartofjeanspantofleftlegandalsorightlegofjeans
pant. WhileappreciatingsubmissionmadebyLearnedAdvocateforA3
about hole sustained to the jeans pant and blood stains on both legs,
materialcameonrecordinparano.11ofcrossexaminationneedstobe
appreciatedratherthangoingonhypotheticalandsurmise.Itisversionto
PW2inparano.11thatheisnotinhabitofwearingtornclothessoalso
wearingapantfoldingit.Headmittedthatarticle1Bwasnottornwhen
itwastakenawaybypolice,asitseemsnow. Whenhisattentionwas
broughttotornpositionofjeanspantarticle1B,hegavespecificanswer
thatitwasnotsofoldedwhenitwasgiventopolice.Aheadhedeposed
thathehimselfhadfoldedbottomofjeanspantwithoutremovingitand
thereaftersurgicaloperationwasperformedintheHospital.Itwasfolded
intheHospitalbeforetheoperation.Itisalsohissaythathehadfolded
saidportioninordertoavoiditfromgettingspoiledwithbloodstain.By
givingsuggestiontohimbyshowingbloodstainsonbothrightandleft
portionofarticle1B,ithasbroughtonrecordbydefencethatbloodstains
arevisibleaftersecondfoldandbloodstainsarealsoseeninsidethejeans
pantonrightlegportion.

...23/

Judgment23MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
26.

On the basis of such material brought on record from mouth of

injuredSohel,itissayofLearnedAdvocateforA3thatwhenbulletinjury
was sustained only on the ankle of left leg and when article1B was
seized,itwasnotfoldedoneandwhenitwasproducedbeforetheCourt,it
isfoldedonehavingbloodstainsonbothlegsofjeanspant,possibilityof
tamperingcannotberuledout.Whileappreciatingabovestatedmaterial
came on record in cross examination of PW2 in the context in which
argumentisadvancedbyLearnedAdvocateforA3,oneimportantthing
can not be forgotten that as per panchanama Ex.44, Jeans pant was
seized.ItwasseizedandforwardedtoFSLforexaminingbloodstainsas
well as hole sustainedtoarticle1Bastowhether itwasdue tobullet
firing,togetherwithbulletandpistolsseizedfromA1,A2andA3.And
thereforeIamofviewthatfurtherconnectingevidencewhileappreciating
submissionsofLearnedAdvocateofA3alsoneedstobeconsideredandit
isinthenatureofreportofChemicalAnalysis(FSL)whichisonrecordas
per Ex.231 through forwarding letter Ex.225 which are produced on
recordbyprosecutionthroughevidenceofPW36.
27.

BeforegoingtodiscussdocumentaryevidenceinrespectofScientific

ExpertnamelyFSLconnectingevidenceinthenatureofspotpanchanama
alsoneedstobelookedinto.FromthemouthofPW14prosecutionplaced
onrecordcircumstancesofspotvideEx.129.AspertestimonyofPW14,
while adducing spot panchanama (of incident dated 1/10/2011) police
seized one live cartridge (bullet) and 2 empty cartridges marked as
article3,4and5.Itisalsohisversionthatbloodstainedsoilwascollected
...24/

Judgment24MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
and all articles were seized and sealed on the spot including left foot
chappal. SpotpanchanamaEx.129isalsohavingsketchshowingactual
placewhereallfourarticleswerelyingonspot.Panchanamashowsthat
photographsofspotwerealsotakenandtoplaceonrecord.Prosecution
examined photographer PW24 who has drawn five photographs as per
article30. Aspertestimonyofphotographer,thoseweredrawnthrough
digitalcamera. Heidentifiedphotographsarticle30whichwerehanded
overtoPSIJagdale.Thereisnomaterialchallengetooralevidenceofspot
panchaPW14andphotographerPW24. Onperusaloffivephotographs
article30inreferencetosketchwhichisattachedwithEx.129,itisseen
thatonspotleftfootchappalisseenalongwiththreecartridgesandone
photographofbloodstainonground.Whenthereisnomaterialchallenge
tooraltestimonyofPW1,seizureofclothesofinjured,PW14panchof
spot panchanama in whose presence aforesaid live cartridge and two
emptycartridgestogetherwithchappalandbloodstainsoilwereseized
and photographs drawn by photographer including evidence of
photographer to prove circumstances on spot, I am of view that direct
evidence is supported by circumstances on spot and in nature of
panchanama and articles seized gives corroboration to oral and direct
evidenceofinjuredPW2,eyewitnessPW27andtosomeextentDr.PW23,
sofarasproofofincidentdated1/10/2011isconcerned.
28.

Now to connect live and empty cartridges seized from spot of

incident through blood stain jeans pant article1B to the injured,


accordingtoprosecution,thereisseizureoffirearmfromaccusednos.1to
...25/

Judgment25MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
3aspertrapofsecondincidentdated14/10/2011.Soevenbeforegoing
toscientificexpertreport(FSL)Ex.231,itisnecessarytoseeevidenceof
PW11fromwhompanchanamaEx.112isprovedbyprosecution.Baring
evidence of panch witness PW11 so far as second incident dated
14/10/2011,thereisevidenceofPW28andfirstI.O.PW35whowere
heading the trap which was arranged on 14/10/2011. While making
discussionaboutincidentdated1/10/2011limitedevidenceadducedby
PW11 needs to be considered which directly touches to seizure of fire
armsseizedfromA2andA3.OnperusaloftestimonyofPW11whichis
inconsonancewithcontentsofEx.112personalsearchofallthreeaccused
inpresenceofPW11,itissufficienttosaythatasperpanchanamaEx.112
andoraltestimonyofPW11beforeCourtfromA2Nilesh,baringother
articlesPistolarticle7andtwocartridgescametobeseizedwhileasfrom
A3PrashantRaoPistolarticle9andthreecartridgeswereseized.Sofar
as seizure of aforesaid articles from A2 and A3, his testimony is
challengedbyaccusedbygivingsuggestionthatsuspectswerestandingin
onelineandofficerinformedhimthattheirsearchwastobeeffected.So
also that cartridges which are present before the Court for purpose of
identificationwerehavingsameconditionwhentheywereseizedatthe
timeofpanchanama.Headmittedthatnoreceiptwasgiventoaccused
whenarticleswereseizedfromthem.
29.

Onbehalfofbothaccusednos.2and3,certainsuggestionswere

giventohimaboutconditionofarticleswhenthosewereshowntohim
beforetheCourtandconditionofthosearticleswhenthosewereseizedas
...26/

Judgment26MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
there was time gap in between two on account of sending articles for
Chemical Analysis. Defence also tried to bring on record material like
polytheneinwhicharticlesareproducedbeforetheCourtasatthetimeof
seizurethosewerekeptincardboardbeforesealingit.Admittedly,asper
storyofprosecutioninformanthadgivensecretinformationtopoliceabout
passingofaccusedfromspotwheretheyweretrapped,butsaidinformant
is not examined. However, as per argument advanced by Spl. P.P. in
supportofindependentwitnessPW11,thereistestimonyofPW28who
wasaccompaniedwithheadoftrapnamelyfirstIOPW35Mr.Dhanawade.
So after going through corresponding oral evidence adduced by both
PW28and35inreferencetotestimonyofpanchawitnessPW11sofaras
seizure of fire arm and cartridges there is sufficientmaterial placed on
record by prosecution to have some basis to connect said seizure to
incidentdated1/10/2011,ofcoursewiththeevidenceofScientificExpert
inthenatureofFSLreportEx.231.
30.

Though Learned Advocate for A1 to A3 during the course of

argumentsubmittedthatprosecutionsimplyplacedonrecordFSLreport
Ex.231 but failed to establish link right from forwarding seized articles
fromPoliceStationtoFSLandviceversa. However,suchisnotcorrect
position.Aspermaterialavailableonrecord,PW35whoisfirstIOgave
evidenceaboutarrangingtraponaccuseddated14/10/2011,seizureof
firearmandammunitionshowninpanchanamaEx.112andregistrationof
LAC No.2220/2011 at Nagpada Police Station which is subsequently
transferredtoDCBCIDasLACno.35/11regardingseizureofallarticlesat
...27/

Judgment27MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
thetimeoftrap.ThereisspecificevidenceofPW35whichiscorroborated
byPW11independentpanchwitness.AsperevidenceofPW36,aforesaid
seized fire arm and ammunition were forwarded to FSL under his
signatureasperforwardingletterEx.225andinduecourse,theyreceived
FSLreportwhichisfiledonrecordwithchargesheetfrompage103to117
which is at Ex.231. So on the basis of aforesaid evidence brought on
recordbyprosecutionrightfromseizureoffirearmandammunitionfrom
accusednos.1to3asperpanchanamaEx.112toprovesaidseizureand
forwardingarticlestoFSLtillreceivingFSLreportEx.231,thereisoral
evidence to PW11, PW35 and PW36. And such sort of oral and
documentaryevidenceinviewofprovisionofsection293ofCr.P.C.(FSL
reportEx.231)maybeusedasevidenceinthepresentcasewithoutasking
furtherprooffromprosecution.
31.

As per Ex.225 forwarding letter to FSL dated 15/10/2011 seized

articlesasperpanchanamaEx.44weresubmittedtoForensicLabandas
perEx.232dated18/10/2011,armsandammunitionwhichareseizedas
per panchanama Ex.112 were forwarded to Scientific Expert for
examination. Ex.231isthereportofFSLaboutarticlesofbothincident
forwardedtotheForensicLabforexamination. Itiscollectivelyasper
pages103to117ofEx.231. ResultofAnalysisofjeanspantarticle4A
showsthatitisstainedwithbloodonbacksideofhumanoriginhaving
bloodgroupinconclusive(Page107).AsperPage117,onexaminationof
Ex.1,onecopperjacketedbullethavingbrushingmarks(ofinjuredSohel)
isfiredfrom7.65mmpistolEx.4whichisarticle9asperpanchanamaEx.
...28/

Judgment28MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
112(SeizedfromA3). Sofarasincidentdated1/10/2011,thismuch
resultofAnalysisofcorrespondingPistolseizedfromA3,bulletwhichwas
taken out from left leg ankle of injured Sohel is sufficient to prove
connecting link of incident right from firing till FSL report, so far as
incidentdated1/10/2011baringotherfindingsofanalysiswhichishaving
connectionwithsecondincidentdated14/10/2011.
32.

ThencomesnextpieceofevidencethatismotorbikeusedbyA2

andA3duringcommissionoffiringincident. Admittedly,wheninjured
PW2 was examined by prosecution, motorbike article28 was not
producedbeforeCourt.ItisfirsttimeproducedduringevidenceofPW21.
AsperevidenceofPW21panchofmemorandumU/sec.27ofevidence
ActandseizureofmotorbikethereafterasperpanchanamaEx.162,A2
NileshaspermemorandumstatementtookhimandpolicetoMiraroad
and discovered red colour Pulsar Company bike which was concealed
under the building of Miraroad and it was seized under seizure
panchanamaEx.162. Asperhistestimony,afterdiscoveryofmotorbike,
A2 Nilesh went to adjacent house and gave call to his brother who
thereaftercametoPoliceandasperdirectionofA2Nilesh,gavekeyof
motorbike (article27). Both article27 & 28 were identified by PW21
beforeCourt.
33.

Defenceinhiscrossexaminationbroughtmaterialtotheeffectthat

hewasnotknowingthebuildingwhereaccusedtookthem.Accusedgave
name of said building. So far as memorandum statement given by
...29/

Judgment29MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
accusedEx.161,incrossexaminationhestatedthatA2gaveconfessionin
his presence to police which was reduced by police and thereafter he
signed before proceeding to Miraroad. So far as colour of motorbike
article28,headmittedthatitishavingredcolouraswellasblackcolour
anditisnotonlyofredorblackcolourbutcombinationofboth,however
accordingtohimmotorbikeseizedissame.Sofarasseizureofkeywhich
wasproducedbyhisbrother,incrossexaminationhestatedthatperson
fromwhomkeywasbroughtfromgroundfloorhavingsomeofficelike
roomandaccusedwholedtosaidpersondidnottalkwiththatperson
fromwhomkeywasseized.Incrossexamination,itishisspecificversion
thatthereisnoidentificationmarkonthekeylikehissignatureorlabelon
it.Buthesaysthatkeyarticle27isthesamekeywhichwasseizedwhen
motorbike was discovered as per panchanama. It may be noted that
motorbike was produced before the Court after evidence of eyewitness
PW2. Neither prosecution nor defence recalled PW2 for purpose of
identificationofmotorbikearticle28.However,PW27whoiseyewitness
identifiedmotorbikearticle28,duringhischiefexaminationbysayingthat
it is the same motorbike which was used by A2 on that day. About
identification of motorbike, the same suggestion were given to him by
defencethatmotorbikebeforeCourtisofredcolouranditcanalsobe
called as red and black colour. In cross examination, defence himself
broughtonrecordcertainidentificationmarkofmotorbikethatatbackside
ofmotorbiketherewasidentificationlike07writtenatmudguardof
backside.

...30/

Judgment30MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
34.

HewassubstantiallycrossexaminedonbehalfofA3aboutnumber

ofmotorbikeseenbyhimonthedayofincidentandaccordingtohim,
when he gave statement to the police that he had given number of
motorbike as MH 04 EN 4263. He was confronted with number of
motorbikementionedinhissupplementarystatementwhichisKH01EN
4263. Sofarasproductionofmotorbike(duringevidenceofPW21) at
belatedstage,itisevidenceoffirstIOPW35thatmotorbikewaskeptin
dumpingyardandasperletterissuedbySr.P.I.UnitIIIdated16/05/2012
filedonrecordwithextractofstationdiaryentryalongwithproductionof
motorbikebeforeCourtasperletterdated17/07/2014(Ex.216).PW35
wascrossexaminedbydefenceaboutthevariationofmakeofmotorbike
whichismentionedinFIRi.e.Unicornmotorbike.
35.

Duringthecourseofargument,LearnedAdvocateforA2andA3

vehementlyarguedaboutdescriptionofmotorbikegiveninFIREx.46and
46A about make of motorbike having red colour only and contents of
seizurepanchanamaEx.162whereindescriptionofmotorbikeisgiventhat
redcolourBajajPulserhavingno.MH04EN4263.Inreferencetoabove
discusseddirectoralevidenceofwitnessesincludingdelayofproductionof
motorbikebeforetheCourtagainwhileappreciatingthispieceofevidence
i.e.motorbikeandkeyseizedbypoliceduringinvestigationandproduced
beforetheCourtthroughabovereferredprosecutionwitnesses,Iamofthe
viewthatthisonepieceofevidencecannotbeconsideredisolation. Of
course,toproveincidentdated1/10/2011,allabovediscussedevidence
whichisinthenatureoforalevidenceandseizureofarticlesonaccountof
...31/

Judgment31MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
injured witness and eyewitness having corroboration through Scientific
evidenceneedstobeappreciatedconjointlytogivefindingastowhether
prosecutionprovedincidentdated1/10/2011.
36.

Evenbeforeappreciatingabovediscusseddifferentpartofevidence,

againthereremainsevidenceastoidentificationofA2andA3withtheir
specificrolewhilecommittingincidentdated1/10/2011.Thereisdirect
evidenceofinjuredSohelaswellaseyewitnessSohelsofarasroleofboth
inincident(PW2and27respectively).Theybothintheredirectevidence
whileadducingbeforetheCourtidentifiedA2asdrivingmotorbikeatthe
timeofincidentandA3firingthreebulletsfromPistol.Sofaraspresence
ofinjuredSohelonspotitishistestimonythathewasworkingasEstate
AgentwithNirbhanBuilderandonthedayofincidentbynoticingSagir,
hecameoutoftheofficeandhiscomingoutoftheofficeisspontaneous
actiononhispart,hisvisittotheofficewasnotforanyspecificpurpose
andtherewasalsonofixedtimetoattendtheofficeeveryday. Hehad
alsonotinformedanybodyabouthisvisittosaidofficeonthatday.Onthe
basisofsuchmaterialcameonrecordincrossexamination,itisarguedby
Learned Advocate forA3that accusedwere notknowing aboutPW2's
presence in the office. He had no enmity with either accused or Ejaj
Lakadawalaandtherefore,therewasabsolutelynoreasonforaccusedto
fire PW2. It is also say of defence that when there was demand of
extortionamountfromAkramNirbhan(PW15)by EjajLakadawalaand
whenhisfatherwaspresentonthesite,firingwouldhavebeenmadeby
targetingfatherofPW15.
...32/

Judgment32MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
37.

Whileappreciatingsuchsubmissionsofdefence,factcannotbeover

looked that even as per material brought on record by defence in the


evidenceofPW27thattherewasnointentionofkillingofPW2,asbullet
was not fired on chest as both injured and assailants were facing each
otherthereforefromsuchmaterialbroughtonrecordonbehalfofdefence
intheevidenceofPW2andPW27,onethingwhichisclearlyseenthat
whilecommittingactoffiringneitheraccusedwasaimingtoanyparticular
person like Akram orhis fatheras argued by defence. So in myview,
presenceofPW2injuredonspotisverynaturaloneandcomingoutofthe
officebyseeingSagirisspontaneousandverynatural.
38.

OnperusalofmemorandumpanchanamaofT.I.ParadeEx.153,itis

seen that out of five witnesses except witness Salauddin who is not
identified by A2, all others have identified A2 and A3 during their
parade amongst five witnesses. As stated above, PW2 and PW27 are
examined by prosecution who identified both A2 and A3 with their
specificroleinincidentdated1/10/2011.TocorroborateevidenceofPW2
andPW27,thereisevidenceofPW19SEOwhoconductedT.I.Paradeand
who is author of memorandum of panchanama Ex.153. Procedure
conductedbyPW19whileperformingT.I.ParadeischallengedbyA2and
A3 on some material grounds. First amongst them is some portion
languagewritteninEx.153vizAmhiPanchaniNayabTahsildar(Page31
of memorandum) Nayab Tahsildar Sahebani Suraksha Rakshkas
SangitalePage32,SahebaniFiryadiyasSwatakadebolaunghetlePage
41. HavingmentionsuchwritinginEx.153accordingtodefencewhen
...33/

Judgment33MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
PW19wasauthorofitsuchthingsshouldnothavebeenmentionand
thereforedoubtwascreatedonholdingT.I.Paradebydefence.Secondly
onaccountofadmissionofPW19thatwhileconductingT.I.Parade,rough
note was prepared but not filed on record according to defence goes
against prosecution. He did not receive FIR, panchanama and other
investigating papers before proceeding to Jail except letter given by
CollectorisanotherlapseonpartofSEO.Soalsothattherewasnoother
documentswithhimwhenheproceededtoJail.Thereisalsosubstantial
cross examination about body features including body built of dummy
personsandtheirfacialdescriptionwithaccused.
39.

Aftergoingthroughsuchandothermaterialcameonrecordincross

examinationofPW19questioniswhetherholdingof T.I.Paradecanbe
doubted.ThoughtherearecertainlatchesinholdingT.I.ParadeofPW19
so far as identification of A2 and A3 as author of incident dated
1/10/2011,IamofviewthatthereisdirectevidencebeforetheCourtthat
ofbothSohelsthattheysawbothA2andA3onthespot,includingtheir
specificrole.SoinsuchacasetheiridentificationinT.I.Paradebecomes
secondary. At the same time when there is positive evidence about
identification of A2 and A3 by PW2 and PW27 before Court having
corroborationfromPW19SEO,merelyonthebasisofsomelacuna/lapses
onthepartofSEOPW19aboutholdingT.I.ParadeofbothA2andA3
evidenceofallthreePWscannotbediscardedsofarasincidentdated
1/10/11isconcerned.

...34/

Judgment34MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
40.

Then comes a last piece of evidence which is in the nature of

confessionofA2Ex.184and186recordedbyPW29DCPKeshavPatil
(ZoneIV)andthatofconfessionofA3Ex.137and138recordedbyPW16
DCP Kishor Jadhav(ZoneIII).Toprove confession of bothA2andA3,
thereisevidenceofPW28andPW32insupportofEx.184and186and
thatofwitnessPW25andPW26togivecorroborationtoPW16.Itistrue
thatA2onthesamedaywhenhisconfessionwasrecordedbyPW29gave
statementbeforeC.M.M.retractinghisconfessionvideEx.190andA3by
forwardingletterEx.3tothisCourtdated27/06/2012bystatingtherein
thatconfession wasextractedbythreatandpressureto release him on
bail.ProsecutionopposedEx.3.A3submittedbytheirreplyEx.3onthe
ground of delay and that of ulterior motive. Evidence of above stated
witnessesproducedonrecordinproofofconfessionincludingabovestated
part of retraction on part of accused will have to be considered while
appreciatingittoprovewholecaseofprosecutionaspercharge.However,
so far as incident dated 1/10/2011 is concerned, both accused gave
admissiononcommissionofincidentdated1/10/2011withtheirspecific
roleasallegedbyprosecution.Sobytakingonlythatmuchmaterialfrom
confessionofbothaccusedwithoutgoingintomuchmeritanddemeritof
confessionofbothaccusedatthisrelevantstage,itissufficetosaythat
part of confession relating to incident dated 1/10/2011 supported the
prosecutiontoprovechainofevidence.
41.

Sowhilegivingfindingtoprovetheincidentdated1/10/2011on

basisofabovediscussedevidencebywayofsummary,itcanbesaidthat
...35/

Judgment35MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
byexaminingtotal8witnesses,prosecutiontriedtoestablishinvolvement
ofA2andA3intheincidentdated1/10/11. InjuredSohelKhanand
eyewitnessSohelDalvigavedirectevidenceaboutfiringincidentagainst
bothofthemincludingspecificroleofeachaccusedintheincidentstated
above. They both identified A2 and A3 before the Court to support
prosecutiononthebasisoftheiridentificationthroughT.I.Paradewhichis
conductedbyPW19.Seizureofclothesofinjured,bulletrecoveredfrom
bodyofinjured,emptycartridgesandotherarticlesseizedfromspotand
supportiveevidenceofDoctorisalsotheretosupportprosecution. Such
piece of evidence can not be discarded merely on account of some
admission given by either injured or eyewitness or even by Doctor as
discussedinrelevantparaofjudgment.
42.

NextpieceofevidenceisFSLreportwhichconnectsbulletrecovered

fromleftlegofinjuredtothepistolseizedfromA3whodidfiringasper
caseofprosecution.Abovediscussedevidenceproducedbyprosecutionin
respectofmotorbikeandkeyrecoveredattheinstanceofA2cannotbe
discardedonreasonofcontradictioninmakeofmotorbikeoritscolouras
blackandredoronlyredaspermemorandumpanchanamaandevidence
beforeCourt.EvidenceinnatureofconfessionalgivenbybothA2andA3
is additional piece of evidence so far as incident dated 1/10/11 is
concerned. Photographs article30 which are produced by prosecution
through evidence of photographer PW24 also supports prosecution to
provethecircumstancesofspotandarticlesseizedfromspotasperEx.
129. Therefore I am of view that when there is direct evidence from
...36/

Judgment36MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
mouthofinjuredSohelKhanandSohelDalvi,theirdirectevidencecannot
be doubted on the basis of certain admission given by them to the
hypotheticalsuggestionbydefencethattoowhentheiroralevidenceis
havingsupportfromweaponseizedfromA2andA3,Doctorevidence,
FSLreportanditsopinion,motorbikeusedinincident,identificationof
both A2 and A3 before the Court which is corroborated by SEO of
T.I.paradeandlastlytheirownconfession. Ultimatelyonthebasisofall
above discussed material on record, I hold that prosecution proved
incidentdated1/10/11asallegedinchargesheetagainstA2andA3.
GroupII

Incidentdated14/10/2011
43.

As per testimony of PW28 and PW35 (API Tawade and PI

Dhanawade)on14/10/11atabout12.30pm.whentheywereinUnitIII
Crime Branch Office, Sr. P.I. Marde called them in chamber where one
informant(Khabari)waspresentandhegaveinformationthatgangster
EjajLakadawala'ssharpshooternamelyPrashantRaoandhisassociates
areexpectedtocomenearBMCbeatchowkiwithfirearmsandtherefore,
asperdirectionofSr.P.I.,oneteamwasformedtoarrangethetrapunder
theheadofPW35. Itistheircorroborativeversiontheybothalongwith
otherpolicemenreachedonspotalongwithinformantandtheysawthree
persons coming towards BMC beat chowki in suspicious condition.
Informanttoldthemthatthosearethreepersonsasperhisinformation
andoneamongstthemisPrashantRao(A3).ItisversionofPW28that
PW35Dhanawadegavesignaltothestaffmembersoftheteamandtook
...37/

Judgment37MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
allthreeincustody. PIDhanawadeaskedpoliceconstableKadamtocall
twowitness.Thosewerecalledandintheirpresencepersonalsearchofall
threepersonswastakenandasperthepanchanamaEx.112twopistols
andfourcartridgeswereseizedfromaccusedno.1RiyazAhamedHussain.,
onepistoleachfromaccusedNileshandPrashantRaoalongwithtwoand
threecartridgesrespectivelyseizedfromthemwithotherarticlesasshown
inpanchanama. Pistolsandcartridgesseizedfromallthreeaccusedare
identifiedbybothPW28andPW35intheirrespectiveevidence.
44.

Sofarasmaterialbroughtonrecordintheircrossexaminationby

defence,itissayofPW28thatinformantwaswiththemonthespotfrom
policestation.Theydidnotfeelnecessarytoverifysecretinformationin
presenceofsomeindependentpersons.Trapwasarrangedbythesideof
roadonfootpath. Theyhadreachedonspotbytheirpolicescorpiojeep
within10minutes.PoliceconstableKadamwasaskedtobringtwopancha
witnesses. Station diary entry is taken before proceeding from Crime
Branch Office to spot. Copy of panchanama Ex.112 is not given to
accused.Whenpistolarticle9wasshowntoPW28headmittedthatlakh
seal is not there on body of pistol. He volunteers that it might have
happened when property was sent to CA. In cross examination it is
specificversionofPW28thathehimselfmadestationdiaryentry.Itishis
admission that he alongwith other officers had proceeded to spot
alongwith their service revolvers. None of the accused resisted to the
personalsearch.Healsoadmittedthatpolicedidnotgivetheirpersonal
search topanchwitnesses. Muddemal seizedfrom all three accused is
...38/

Judgment38MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
deposited to C.P. Office on the same day from N.M. Joshi Marg Police
Station.ItisalsoadmissionofPW28thatnoreceiptwasgiventoaccused
aboutseizureofarticlesfromthem.
45.

SofarasmaterialbroughtonrecordfrommouthofPW35,incross

examination after seizure of articles those were given in possession of


PW28APITawade.SealingmaterialwastakenfromUnitIIIitselfandhe
himselfhadgonetoNagpadapolicestation for registration of LAC no.
2220/11andcomplaintofsaidincidentdated14/10/11wasregisteredat
Nagpada police station by ASI Chalke. It is also evidence of PW35
Dhanawadethatafterseizureofweaponsandarticlesfromaccusedand
registration of LAC no.2220/11 at Nagpada police station, all accused
alongwithseizedfirearmsweretakenincustodyofDCBCIDbyregistering
LACno.35/11asperdirectionofAdditionC.P.Crime.Sofarasseizureof
weaponsandarticlesPW35supportedtheversionofPW28.Inhiscross
examinationdefencehasbroughtonrecordthefactthattwopolicejeeps
andsomebikeswereusedbythemtoreachthespot.Hedeposedabout
numberofpolicejeepasMH01ZA934. Headmittedthathewasnot
knowingaboutinvolvementofaccusedinC.R.No.138/11till19/10/11as
hepersonallydidnotinterrogateaccusedfrom14/10/11to19/10/11.It
ishisversionthatdescriptionwasgivenbyinformantbeforeproceedingto
trap.IncrossexaminationmadebyA3detailsabouthowtheyarranged
trapisbroughtonrecord.Itishisversionthataccusedwerenottakento
NagpadapolicestationwhenCRwasregisteredatNagpadapolicestation.
Itishissayincrossexaminationthattheyinterrogatedwithaccusedabout
...39/

Judgment39MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
theirinvolvementinanyothercrimeinbetweenaforesaidperiod.PW36
haslittleroleabouthappeningofbothincidentsashewasACPhavingrole
after invoking provisions of MCOC Act as per CR No.86/11 i.e. after
1/11/11.Sofarasweaponsandotherarticlesseizedfromaccuseditishis
versionincrossexaminationthathehasnotverifiedpropertywhichwas
seizedbyearlierIO.HehadnotbeentothebeatchowkiorofficeofUnit
IIIofDCBCID.Sofaraspossessionoffirearmsbyaccusednos.1,2and3,
itishisversionthatseparatechargesheetbefore37th A.C.M.M.Courtis
filedagainstthem.
46.

ApartfromabovediscussedtestimonyofPW28andPW35andto

someextentthatofPW36thereisevidenceofindependentpanchwitness
ofpanchanamaEx.112i.ePW11.HegaveevidencebeforetheCourtthat
on14/10/11whenhewaspassingfromPeerkhanstreetinNagpada,he
was stopped by police personnel and told that they caught member of
gangsterEjajLakadawalanamelyPrashantRaoandaskedhiswillingness
to act as panch witness. According to him he agreed to act as panch
witness and therefore he was taken near Mustafa manzil BMC beat
building where three persons were there in custody of police. In his
detailedevidence,hedeposedbeforetheCourtthatfromaccusedRiyaz
AhmedShaikh2pistolsandtwocartridgesalongwithotherarticleswere
seized, from accused Nilesh one pistol and two cartridges and from
accused Prashant Rao one pistol and three cartridges alongwith other
articles were seized and panchanama was prepared about seizure of
articlesfromaccused.Duringhisevidenceheidentifiedall4pistolsseized
...40/

Judgment40MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
fromaccusedpersonsalongwithcartridgesandotherarticlesrightfrom
article4to11asshowninpanchanamaEx.112.Whileadducingevidence
heidentifiedallthreeaccusedpresentbeforetheCourtfromwhomarticles
wereseizedasperpanchanamaEx.112.
47.

His testimony in cross examination shows that prior to this

panchanamaheneveractedaspanchwitnessandthereisnopolicecase
againsthim.Accordingtohimallthreeaccusedwerestandingbytheside
ofroadwhenhereachedonspot.Sofarassuggestionaboutpositionof
cartridgeswhenshowntohim,itishissaythatcartridgeswereinsame
conditionwhenitwereseizedatthetimeofpanchanamaandhedidnot
knowastohowwaxwasaffixedoverthebutt.Headmittedthatthereis
nosealonthepolythenebag.Headmittedthatnoreceiptwasgivento
accusedbypoliceaboutseizureofarticlesfromthem. Headmittedthat
whitecardboardinwhicharticleswerekeptatthetimeofpanchanamais
not before the Court. It is also his version in cross examination that
panchanamawasbeingdrawnasperarticlesshowntohimandhedidnot
handlethearticleswhichwereseizedatthattime.
48.

Onthebasisofabovediscussedevidencecameonrecordspecifically

incrossexaminationofPW28andPW35,itissayofdefencethatwhen
incidentoffiringtookplaceon1/10/11andthereisgapofabout14days
ofsecondincident,socalledrecoveryfromaccusedthatoffirearmand
otherarticlescannotbeusedagainstaccused.AndevidenceofPW28is
silentaboutmuddemalregisterafterseizuretillforwardingittoFSL.Itis
...41/

Judgment41MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
alsosayofdefencethatthereisdiscrepancyintheevidenceofbothpolice
officers about seizure made from accused, taking accused to Nagpada
policestationandhandingoveraccusedaswellasseizedpropertytoDCB
CIDbytransferringLACno.2220/11toLACno.35/11ofDCBCID. Itis
alsosayofdefencethatinabsenceofevidenceofSr.PIMardeandnon
examinationofinformantwhogavesecretinformationtopolice,onecan
notbelievetestimonyofbothpoliceofficers(PW28andPW35)toprove
seizure of firing arms and articles as shown in panchanama Ex.112.
According to defence non production of documents pertaining to the
vehicleusedfortrapisaglaringinfirmityinthecaseofprosecutionwhich
cannotbeovercomeevenbyevidenceofPW11panchofEx.112.Itisalso
arguedonbehalfofaccusedthatseizureoffirmarmsandarticlesfrom
accusedasperpanchanamaEx.112isatthe mostcaseunderArmsact
againsttheaccusedandaspertheadmissiongivenbyPW36saidcaseis
pendingbefore37th A.C.M.M.CourtMumbai. Andthereforeprosecuting
accusedunderArmsactinthepresentcaseisnothingisdoubleJeopardy
U/sec.300ofCr.P.C..
49.

Allabove statedpoints arguedon behalfof defence andmaterial

came on record in the evidence of three police officers and one


independentpanchwitnessneedstobeappreciatedinthecontextwith
storyofprosecutionwhichstartsfromincidentoffiringdated1/10/11.
According to prosecution it connects accused nos. 2 and 3 from first
incidenttonextincidentthatofrecoveryofweaponsusedandpossessed
byaccusednos.2and3rightfromfirstincidenttillitsrecoverybywayof
...42/

Judgment42MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
second incident. Same needs to be seen with other material in their
evidence.
50.

AsperevidenceofPW28aftertrapandseizureoffirearmsand

otherarticlesfromaccusednos.1to3,theyallcametoNagpadapolice
stationalongwithaccusedandonbehalfofstate,ASIChalkelodgedFIR.
HistestimonyiscorroboratedbyPW35DhanawadewhotoldtotheCourt
that ASI Chalke was complainant of said FIR which is registered at
NagpadapolicestationvideLACNo.2220/11againstaccusednos.1to3
whichissubsequentlytransferredalongwithseizedarticlesandaccusedto
DCB CID in LAC no.35/11. To give corroboration to the testimony of
PW28andPW35prosecutionbyexaminingPW33PSIBhosalewhowas
duty officer of Nagpada police station on 14/10/11 placed on record
station diary entry of LAC no.2220/11 in proof of printed FIR about
incidentdated14/10/11whichisregisteredU/sec.3/25,27ofArmsAct.
ItisevidenceofPW33thatasperinformationgivenbyASIChalkewho
wasaccompaniedwithMr.ChavanandothersofCrimeBranchUnitIII,
theycaughtaccusednos.1to3withfirmarmsandotherarticles. He
recordedstatementofASIChalkeandalsofilledupproformaofFIRin
respectofcrime. WhileadducingevidenceaboutprintedFIRofLACno.
2220/11itishissaythattruecopyofFIRishavingsealandsignatureof
Sr.PI.ItisrecordedbyhimaspernarrationofMr.Chalke.Italsobearshis
signatureandsignatureofMr.ChalkeandtruecopyofFIRfiledonrecord
is having signature of Sr.PI of DCB CID, UnitIII. By such evidence
prosecution while proving FIR of LAC no.2220/11 produced on record
...43/

Judgment43MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
stationdiaryentryofLACno.2220/11Ex.201.Incrossexaminationitis
hissaythattheyhavenottakenentryofmuddemalinregisteratNagpada
policestationasitisnotrequiredtobeenteredinmuddemalregisteras
withoutmakingentryintheirregisteritwashandedoverbyhimtoCrime
BranchUnitIII.
51.

SoonthebasisofabovediscussedevidenceofPW28,PW35and

PW33ithastosaythatthesethreepoliceofficersamongstwhoseearlier
twowereheadandmemberoftrap,placedonrecordsufficientmaterialto
proveseizureoffirearms,cartridgesandotherarticlesfromaccusednos.1
to3asperseizurepanchanamaEx.112. Inadditiontooralevidenceof
PW28 and PW35, evidence of PW33 who registered FIR of LAC no.
2220/11atNagpadapolicestationasperstationdiaryentryEx.201about
registrationofLACno.2220/11underArmsActagainstthreepersonsis
proved by prosecution. Their corroborated testimony which supports
prosecution in proving seizure and trap dated 14/10/2011 can not be
discarded and thrown away as per argument of Learned Advocate for
accusedthatseparatechargesheetbeforeC.M.M.37thCourtisfiledagainst
accusedunderArmsActwhichkeptinabeyancebythisCourttilldecision
ofthiscase.Pointwhichisarguedbydefenceaboutapplicabilityprinciple
ofdoubleJeopardywillhavetobeconsideredwhileappreciatingallabove
statedevidenceavailableonrecordaboutincidentdated14/10/11andas
towhetherthisincidentishavingconnectionwithearlierincidentdated
1/10/11 and what is material produced on record by prosecution to
connectseizedarticlesfromaccusedtotheincidentdated1/10/11.Atthis
...44/

Judgment44MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
stageitissufficetosaythatsofarissueofdecidingbothincidentsprinciple
ofdoubleJeopardywillnotcomeinthewayascasebeforeMagistrateby
orderofthisCourtiskeptinabeyance.Soalsothatwhiledecidingthis
casethereisnoquestionoftrialofeitheraccusedforsameoffencesfor
whichtheyareconvictedoracquittedpreviouslyforsuchoffencesasper
requirementofsection300ofCr.P.C.
52.

InnextpieceofevidencePW36deposedaboutsendingofseized

articlesi.e.firearmsandcartridges(asperpanchanamaEx.112)toFSLfor
examinationasperEx.225whichalsoincludesotherarticlesseizedfrom
accusedduringpanchanama. FSLreportEx.231isplacedonrecordby
prosecutionduringevidenceofPW36frompage103to117.Findingand
reportgivenbyFSLaboutfirearms,cartridges,clothesofinjured,bullet
seized from injured and empty cartridges seized from spot of firing
incidentisgivenbyscientificexpertasperreportEx.231. Itisalready
discussed in relevant para of judgment while deciding incident dated
1/10/11.Bykeepingissueastowhetherprosecutionprovedpossessionof
fire arms with accused nos.1 to 3 as per section 3/5 of Arms Act or
whethertheirpossessionoffirearmsandcartridgesistobeconsideredas
per charge under MCOC Actreservesto bediscussedatrelevantstage,
whilegivingfindingaboutIIincident,itissuffixtosayatthisstagethaton
accountofseizureofallthosearticlesfromaccusednos.1to3,caseof
possessionasperseizurepanchanamaEx.112isprovedbyprosecution.
Ultimatelyithastoholdthatprosecutionprovedincidentdated14/10/11.

...45/

Judgment45MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.

GroupIII
TestIdentificationParade
53.

SofarasidentificationofA2andA3isconcerned,theirrolein

incident dated 1/10/11 and identification by injured and eyewitness to


A2,evidenceofPW21panchofseizurepanchanamaofmotorbikeand
KeyalongwithevidenceofPW28andPW35,ithastosaythatthereis
sufficient material on record about their identification by prosecution
witnessesstatedaboveaboutbothincidentdated1/10/11and14/10/11.
Whilediscussingevidenceonrecordinrespectofincidentdated1/10/11
in relevant para of the judgment discussion is already made about
testimonyofPW2andPW27alongwithSEOPW19whoconductedT.I.
parade(MemoEx.153).SofarasT.I.paradeandmemoEx.153isconcerned
it is fact that none of the panch witness is examined by prosecution.
However, there is oral evidence of SEO PW19 to prove memo of T.I.
paradeEx.153.BothinjuredSohelKhanandeyewitnessSohelDalviasper
memoEx.153identifiedA2andA3includingtheir rolein1st incident
dated 1/10/11. On account of evidence of PW2 and PW27 about
identificationofA2andA3includingtestimonyofPW19discussionof
whichismadeinrelevantparasofthejudgmentandreasonsgivenwhile
appreciatingevidenceastotheidentificationofA2andA3,Iamofview
that so far as identification of A2 and A3 is concerned there is no
difficultytoacceptevidenceofprosecutiondiscussedabove.
54.

Sofarasfirearmpistolsandcartridgesseizedfromaccusednos.1
...46/

Judgment46MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
to3isconcerned,evidenceadducedbyPW11aboutpanchanamaEx.112
andcorrespondingevidenceincludinganalysisofscientificexpertfromFSL
videEx.225and231isalreadydiscussedinparanos.28to32ofjudgment.
Toavoidrepetitionofdiscussionofevidenceonpointofconnectingpistols
andcartridgesusedbyA2andA3inincidentdated1/10/11andseizure
ofdated14/10/11thatofarmsandammunitionfromA2andA3,inview
ofdiscussionmadeinaboveparainjudgmentatthispointoftimeitis
sufficetosaythatprosecutionhasproducedonrecordsufficientevidence
tosaythatfirearmspistolsandcartridgesusedandpossessedbyA2and
A3atthetimeof1stincidentarerecoveredbypoliceduringseizuredated
14/10/11.
55.

Sofarasroleofaccusedno.1isconcernedadmittedlyhehasnorole

inincidentoffiringandthereisonlyevidenceaboutseizureof2pistols
and4cartridgesalongwithotherarticlesfromhimasperpanchanamaEx.
112.Andtoproveseizureofarticlesfromhimasstatedinaboveparaof
thejudgment,thereisevidenceofPW11,PW33,PW35andPW36,and
againevidenceinthenatureofreportofFSLrightfromforwardingarticles
seized from all accused vide Ex.225 and FSL Report Ex.231. So far as
identificationofaccusedno.1isconcernedconsideringhisrolefromdayof
seizurei.e.14/10/11thereislimitedevidenceofaforesaidwitnesses.And
inmyviewsofarasseizedarticlesfromA1isconcerned,hisidentification
isnotinmuchdisputelikeA2andA3.Itisalsobecausehisconnection
liesmore in confession given byA2and A3,barringhis identification
aboutincidentdated14/10/11.Thereforenextpointofdeterminationis
...47/

Judgment47MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
confessiongivenbyA2andA3whichisinprecedingparaofjudgment.

GroupIV
ConfessionofA2andA3.
56.

OnconfessionofA2thereisevidenceofPW28&PW32whoserole

is that of taking accused before DCP ZoneIV on 8/11/11. As per oral


testimonyofPW28on8/11/11asperdirectionofACPVatkar(PW36)
andasperletterissuedbyShriVatkar(Ex.176)hetookcustodyofNilesh
andproducedhimbeforeDCPZoneIVi.e.PW29KeshavPatil.Asperhis
crossexaminationnootherinstructionsweregivenbyACPVatkartohim
otherthanproduction ofA2beforeDCPandwhen hetookcustodyof
accusedforhisproductionbeforeDCPaccusedwasinlockupofCrime
Branch. Headmittedthataccusedwasincustodyfromdateoftrapi.e.
14/10/11 till 8/11/11 and he had no occasion to interrogate accused
duringthatperiod. Itis alsohisversionthathehelpedACPVatkarin
investigation and when accused Nilesh was produced before DCP, he
receivedacknowledgmentofproductionofaccused.Sofarasdocumentary
proof about taking custody of A2 from Crime Branch and production
beforeDCPisconcerned,itishissaythatstationdiaryentryistakento
thateffect. PW32inhisevidencestatedthathewasdeputedbySr.PI
alongwithPW28forproductionofaccusedNileshbeforeDCBZoneIV
andwhiletaking accusedfromcustodyofCrimeBranchandproducing
himbeforeDCP,stationdiaryentrywastakenandaccusedwasproduced
on8/11/11. ItishisfurtherversionthatafterproductionofA2before
...48/

Judgment48MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
DCPandaftercompletingworkinhischamber,accusedwasagaingivenin
theircustodywithdirectionofmedicalcheckupandtokeepaccusedin
separatecellinMatungalockupbytakingcarethatnobodyfromCrime
Branch (I.O.) will come in his contact. According to him by following
directionsgivenbyDCPaccusedwastakenbackandreproducedonagain
9/11/11atabout1.30p.m.beforeDCPZoneIVi.e.PW29andstation
diaryentrywasalsotakenof9/11/11. Accordingtohimwhenaccused
was inside the chamber of DCP, he alongwith PW28 and other police
officerswere outside the chamber and at 17.50p.m. DCP called him in
chamberandhandedovertwosealedenvelopesanddirectedthemtotake
accusedbeforeC.M.M.alongwithtwoenvelopes. Accordinglytheytook
accused and sealed envelopes and produced accused as well envelopes
beforeC.M.M.andaftercompletingworkintheofficeofC.M.M.,hetook
accusedintheofficeofACPDIandgavealldetailstoACPShriVatkar.As
perhisfurthertestimonyaftercompletingworkof9/11/11,accusedwas
givenincustodyofDCBCIDUnitIIIandbyreturningtoMatungapolice
station,hetookstationdiaryentry.Byhisevidenceprosecutionproduced
stationdiaryentryofboth8/11/11/and9/11/11Ex.199,insupportof
oraltestimonyofbothPWs28and32. Thereisnomaterialadmission
givenbyPW32inhiscrossexaminationexceptpositionofMatungapolice
station,compoundhavingtwopolicestationi.e.SionandMatungaand
alsohavingACPSionandMatungaDCPofficeinthesamebuilding. He
admitted that accused was kept in lockup which is situated in same
campusofMatungaDivision.

...49/

Judgment49MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
57.

PW29DCPKeshavPatilwhorecordedconfessionalstatementofA2

partIvideEx.184andconfessionalstatementPartIIvideEx.186,while
adducinghisevidencestatedonoaththatwhileworkingasDCPI,hewas
awareaboutprovisionsofMCOCaboutrecordingconfessionofaccused
and asper orderissuedbyC.P.CrimeHimanshu RoyEx.180,he wrote
letterasperEx.181toPIMatungafordeputingoneofficerandotherstaff
forproductionofaccusedNileshon8/11/11.Accordingly,accusedNilesh
wasproducedbeforehiminveil.HeaskedPW28and32togooutofthe
chamberandwiththehelpofComputeroperatorMrs.More,herecorded
answergivenbyaccusedasperconfessionalstatementpartIinMarathi
languagewhichwasknowntoaccused.Itishisspecificversionthatwhile
recordingconfessionalstatementpartIinquestionandanswerform,he
satisfied about readiness and willingness of accused to give confession
whichwasvoluntarilygivenbyaccusedwithoutpressureorpromisefrom
anypoliceofficer.Itisalsohisversionthatheexplainedtoaccusedthatif
confessionisgivenbyhim,itcanbeusedagainsthimintheCourtandhe
maybepunishedonthebasisofconfession. Accordingtohimwithfull
understandingofquestionsaccusedgaveanswersandashewassatisfied
that accused was ready and willing to give confession and it was
voluntarily,hegave24hourstimetoaccusedtorethinkbydirectingPW28
andhisteamtoproduceaccusedagainonnextdayi.e.9/11/11at1.30
p.m.
58.

Itis hisversionthathe haddirectedPW28andotherofficersto

keep accused in Matunga Division in separate cell by taking care that


...50/

Judgment50MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
otheraccusedshallcomeinhiscontact. Itis hisfurtherevidencethat
accused was again produced by same police officer at 1.30 p.m. on
9/11/11. Againbyputtingdifferentquestionsinconfessionalstatement
partII,hesatisfiedthattherewasnoinducement,threatorpromisetothe
accusedforgivingconfessionandheisreadyandwillingtogiveconfession
voluntarily. Onenquirywithaccused,hesatisfiedthataccusedisready
and willing to give confession and therefore, he recorded confessional
statementpartIIandultimatelyactualconfessionalstatementwasgiven
byaccusedinhisownlanguagei.e.MarathiasperEx.186.Accordingto
him,separatecertificateisgiventhroughconfessionalcertificatevideEx.
187.Heidentifiedhissignatureandsignatureofaccusedno.2Nileshfrom
confessionalcertificateaswellasconfessionalstatementpartI&IIstated
above.ItishisfurtherevidencethatconfessionalstatementpartI&II
whichwereseparatelysealedalongwithhislettersenttoC.M.M.videEx.
188.AccordingtohimasperletterEx.189,PW32wasdirectedtohand
overcustodyofaforesaidaccusedtoACPD1i.e.YashwantVatkarofCrime
BranchafterverificationbyC.M.M.
59.

IncrossexaminationheadmittedthatC.M.M.isalsoempoweredto

record confession of accused. He did not inform to accused about the


same.AccordingtohimhishandwritingportionEx.187certificateisnot
partofconfessionandtherefore,itishandwritten. Itisalsohissayin
cross examination that direction given by Joint C.P. for recording
confessionismandatoryonhim.Aboutretractionofconfessionbyaccused
beforeC.M.M.on9/11/11asperEx.190itishissaythathedonotknow
...51/

Judgment51MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
about retracting of confession by accused at the time of verification by
C.M.M. PW28 and his team were directed to return the accused by
keeping him in Matunga lockup and a sealed envelope used to be in
possessionofC.M.M.forforwardingittotheSpl.Court.Infurthercross
examination,ithascomeonrecordthathedidnotmakeanyenquirywith
lockupofficialthataccusedwaskeptinlockupandduringthatperiod
conductandbehaviourofaccusedduringrethinkingperiodof24hours.
60.

Sofarasconfessiongivenbyaccusedno.3,PW25andPW26are

policeofficerswhotookhimfromlockuptoDCPZoneIIIthatisPW16
forrecordingofconfession.AsperevidenceofPW25on8/11/11asper
directionofSr.P.I.Marde,healongwithotherstafftookaccusedPrashant
Rao (A3) to DCPZoneIII as per letter Ex.136 which is having
acknowledgment of production of accused before DCP. In cross
examination,itishissaythattheyusedtomaintainstationdiaryentry
abouttransferringaccusedfromoneUnittootheranditistakenbyhimin
Crime BranchOfficeZoneIIIasthereis nostationdiarymaintainedin
DCPZoneI.PW26NitinPotdarisotherofficerwhowasdeputedtotake
accused no.3 for recording confessional statement before DCPZoneIII
alongwithPW25.Inhisdetailedevidencehedeposedthaton8/11/11at
about12.00p.m.,bypolicejeeptheyproceededA3toDCBZoneIIIand
atabout2.45p.m.DCPcalledhiminchamber.Heproducedaccusedinthe
chamberofDCP.AtthattimestenoMrs.Bhosalewaspresentinthecabin
andhewastoldtowaitoutside.AftercompletingworkofaccusedbyDCP
againcustodywasgiventohimwithallnecessaryinstruction,statedby
...52/

Judgment52MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
himinhisevidence,withdirectiontoproduceaccusedon9/11/11.They
keptaccusedaftermedicalcheckupatSaatRastaPolicelockupbytaking
entryinstationdiaryatNagpadaPolicestation.
61.

On9/11/11,afterproductionofaccusedbeforeDCPZoneIII,they

werewaitingoutsideandatabout10.40p.m.againDCPcalledhimin
chamberandgavecustodyofA3alongwithtwoenvelopesandcovering
lettertohandovertoC.M.M. Theytooksealedenvelopesandaccused
beforeC.M.M.andwaitedoutsideC.M.M.Hall.Aftercompletingworkin
theofficeofC.M.M.,accusedwasgiveninhiscustody.Theteamagain
returnedtoDCPZoneIIIandhandedoverlettergiventoDCPandACP.
AccusedwaslodgedincustodyofCrimeBranch.Againstationdiaryentry
istakeninNagpadapolicestation.Accordingtohimlogbookentryabout
taking accused on both dates is taken. By his evidence prosecution
producedonrecordstationdiaryentryof8/11/11and9/11/11videEx.
173. In cross examination, he admitted that there is no logbook in
Nagpadapolicestationandtherefore,accusedwaskeptinSatRastapolice
lockup.TheyweretoldthataccusedwaskeptinNagpadapolicelockupby
DCP.Itishisversionincrossexaminationthatthereisentryaboutkeeping
theaccusedinseparateroominSaatRastalockupandseparateroomwas
supervisedbyNagpadapolicestation.
62.

So far as testimony of PW16 DCP who recorded confession of

accused no.3 as per order of Joint CP Crime dated 5/11/11 he was


directed to record confession statement of A3 as per letter Ex.134.
...53/

Judgment53MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
Therefore he issued letter to ACP Crime D1 for production of accused
beforehimvideEx.135.On8/11/11atabout12.00p.m.asperletterEx.
136ofACPD1accusedwasproducedbeforehim.Hebyputtingrequired
questions to verify his willingness and voluntariness of confession,
recorded confessional statement of partI. Accused knows Marathi
language.AccordingtohimquestionsandanswersofPartIofconfession
wastypedoncomputerbyhisstenographer. Inhisdetailedevidencehe
gaveiotaofallquestionsputtoaccusedwhicharementionedinPartIof
confession statement Ex.137. According to him accused was given in
custodyofAPIPotdari.e.PW26bydirectinghimtotakeaccusedinveil
andreproducehimon9/11/11.Againaccusedwasproducedbeforehim.
He verified from accused about voluntariness by putting different
questionswhicharerecordedinconfessionalstatementpartII.According
tohimafterrecordinganswersfromaccusedtohisquestionsinpartIIof
confessional statement he was satisfied that there was no pressure or
threat to accused about giving confession and as he was satisfied that
accusedisreadyandwillingtogiveconfessionalstatement,herecorded
actualconfessionofaccusedinMarathilanguage.Afterrecordingsecond
partofconfessionstatementEx.138,asperhisfurtherevidencebothpartI
& II were kept in two different envelopes and sealed envelopes were
forwardedtoC.M.M.forverificationbyaskingPW26toproduceaccused
inveilbeforeC.M.M.
63.

Sofarashiscrossexaminationisconcernedreasonforwritingletter

Ex.139 to Sr.PI Nagpada police station was immediately hand over


...54/

Judgment54MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
custody of accused to Nagpada police station after recording partI, he
admitted that he did not ascertain since how long accused was in his
custody. Accordingtohimhedidnotaskaboutmedicalexaminationof
accused while recording of confession statement partII. It is also his
versionthathedidnotinformtoaccusedthathisconfessioncanalsobe
recorded by Magistrate. He is confronted with bracketed portion of
confessionpartI(Ex.137)whichishandwrittentowhichhestatedthat,it
is in the handwriting of accused including thumb impression below
confession partI. He admitted that there is no mention below thumb
impression that of left hand thumb impression of accused. However he
admitted that below the handwriting of accused which is marked at
portion mark A there is signature of accused. PW36 while in cross
examinationbyA3statedthatifpersonisaccusedoffiringhewouldbe
interrogated. He admitted that after receipt of letter on 6/11/11 he
decidedtorecordconfessionstatementofPartIon8/11/11.Accordingto
him it was his decision to keep custody of accused in Nagpada police
station.PW16gavespecificevidencetothesuggestionofaccusedthatit
isincumbentonthepartofanofficertoensurethattheconfessionshould
bevoluntary.Howeverhecannotsayaboutitstruthfulness.Headmitted
thathedidascertaintruthfulnessofwhathehasrecordedi.e.aboutactual
confessionofaccused.
64.

Whileappreciatingabovediscussedevidenceoftwodifferentpolice

officers who took respective accused from Crime Branch and Nagpada
police lockup before DCP ZoneIII & IV for recording confessional
...55/

Judgment55MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
statementalongwithtestimonyofDCPPW16andPW29oneimportant
aspecttobeconsideredhereisretractionofconfessionbyaccusedno.2.As
perhisstatementrecordedbyC.M.M.onsamedatei.e.9/11/11whichis
forwardedwithletterEx.190(bywhichsealedenvelopesofconfessionwas
forwardedtoSpl.CourtbyC.M.M.) hestatedbeforeC.M.M.thatpolice
threatenhimandrecordedhisstatementandobtainedhissignature.Itis
notvoluntarilystatedandheisnowayconcernedwithcrime.Suchtypeof
retractionofconfessiongivenbyaccusedno.2needstobekeptinmind
whileappreciatingtestimonyofPW28,PW29andPW32sofarasEx.184
and 186 is concerned. Similarly accused no.3 after filing of the
chargesheeton27/6/2012fromjailforwardedoneletterEx.3tothisCourt
statingthereinthathissignatureswereobtainedonconfessionalstatement
bythreatandconsideringhiscontentionsinapplicationEx.3andforother
reasons mentioned in application, he be released on bail. As per said
applicationthoughitisinthenatureof bail,astheresomecontentions
aboutretractionofconfessionwhileappreciatingoralevidenceofPW16,
PW25andP26inreferencetoconfessionofaccusedno.3i.e.Ex.137and
138saidretractionintheformofbailapplicationneedstobekeptinmind
whileappreciatingevidenceinthenatureofconfessiongivenbyA3.
65.

WhileconsideringaforesaidEx.3bailapplicationforwardedbyA3

fromjailwhereinhehasmadeallegationsofthreatbypoliceforgiving
confession which is dated 27/6/2012 is after about 67 month of his
recordingconfessionbyDCP.Sowhileconsideringsuchdelayedretraction
thattoowhileprayingbail,theimportantfactthatwhenhewasproduced
...56/

Judgment56MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
beforeC.M.M.forverificationofconfessionaspermandatoryprovisionsof
section 18ofMCOCAct,his statementis recordedbyC.M.M.whichis
attachedwithforwardingletterdated9/10thNovember,2011whichspeaks
thatbeforeC.M.M.hehasmadenocomplaintaboutthreat,inducementor
pressure by police officer for giving confession. On the contrary his
statement recorded by C.M.M. supports prosecution about his
voluntarinessingivingconfession.
66.

DuringthecourseofargumentLearnedAdvocateforaccusednos.

1,2 and 3 in their respective arguments vehemently argued about


voluntarinessandtruthfulnessoftheconfession.Theyalsoharpenabout
non compliance of procedure of recording of confession bybothDCP's.
LearnedAdvocateforA1reliedonjudgmentandorderpassedbyHon'ble
HighCourtin TheStateofMaharashtraV.SachinG.Shetyeandors.
(BombayHighCourtinCriminalAppealno.191/2010withCriminal
Appeal no.890/2009 with Criminal Application no.752/2013 in
Criminal Appeal no.890/2009 dated 25/4/2014); wherein Their
Lordshipswhiledealingwithpartofevidenceinrespectofconfessionin
said case observed that confessional statements have been recorded
mechanicallyandnotwithinspiritofsection18ofMCOCAct. Itisalso
observedthatnoneoftheDCPswhorecordedconfessionstatementhave
madeanygenuineeffortstoascertainvoluntarinessofaccusedtomake
theconfessionstatement.Itisalsoobservedthatthereisnocorroborative
evidencebyprosecution toguaranteetruthfulness ofconfession. There
wereotherlacunaeinrecordingconfessionasobservedbyTheirLordship
...57/

Judgment57MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
bynotfollowingsomeclausesoutof6ofsection18ofMCOCAct.
Whileplacingmostoftherelianceoftheprosecutioncaseon
confessionofA2andA3,LearnedSpl.P.P.whilerebuttingargumentof
defencethatbyaskingsimilar18questionstobothaccusedbydifferent
DCPsaccordingtohimwillnotminimizeprobativevalueofconfession.He
relied on Manjit Singh @ Mange V. CBI, through its S.P. (AIR 2011
SupremeCourt806),whereinitisheldthatmerelybecauseconfessional
statementofbothaccusedismoreorlesssimilar,itcannotbesaidthat
theyareneithernormalnorunnatural,whichwouldvitiateprobativevalue
ofsuchconfessionalstatement.HealsoreliedonStateofMaharashtraV.
DamuGopinathShinde(AIR2000SupremeCourt1691)onthepoint
of delay in recording confession statement which can be no ground to
doubtvoluntaryconfession.Aforesaidcaseisalsoreliedbyprosecutionon
thepointthatifthereisnoexplanationgivenbyinvestigatingofficerthat
howheknewthataccusedwaswillingtomakeconfessiontohimisofno
consequences. Meaning thereby it is argument of prosecution that if
proceduralaspectofrecordingconfessionisprovedbytheevidenceofDCP
andprosecutionishavingotherpieceofevidencebywayofcorroboration
toevidenceofDCPevenifnoexplanationisgivenbyDCPinhisevidence
astohowheknewthataccusedwaswillingtomakeconfessionvoluntarily,
doesnotaffectevidentialvalueofconfession.
67.

OnperusalofconfessionstatementpartIofA3Ex.137,itisseen

thatDCP(PW16)ascertainedvoluntarinessofA3forgivingconfessionby
...58/

Judgment58MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
putting18questionstofindoutastowhethertherewaspressure,threator
promiseifanyfrompoliceofficer.Onperusalofallthosequestions,itis
seen that in his chamber free atmosphere was created for recording
confessionstatementandquestionsandanswersweretypedoncomputer
for compliance of clause(1) of section 18. There is mention about
signature and thumb impression of accused and certificate of his
satisfactionisgivenunderhissignatureafterexplainingprosandconsof
givingconfessiontoaccused.Certificatealsoshowsthatsufficientcareis
takenbyDCPaboutnotcomingaccusedincontactwithIOorotherpolice
officertocreatepressure,inducementorthreatandcareforkeepinghim
inseparatecellistakenasmentionedincertificate.BothpartI&IIare
recordedinlanguageofaccusedi.e.Marathiinwhichhewascomfortable
incomplianceofclause(2)ofsection18.Sofarasconfessionstatement
partII Ex.138 is concerned, again similar exercise of ascertaining
voluntarinessbyputting11questionstoA3isdonebyDCPandtothelast
question his confirmation was taken by DCP while recording his actual
confessiononcomputer.ActualconfessionpartIIwhichisabout8pages
showsthatitwaswritten/typedonsayofaccusedandasperinformation
given by him including his own endorsement that confession statement
wasreadovertohimandfoundcorrectandisgivenbyhimunderhis
thumbimpression.Againcertificatewhichisrequiredasperclause(3)of
section18isgivenbyDCPtotheactualconfessionwhichisrecordedvide
Ex.138.BothconfessionstatementpartI&IIsealedandenvelopeswere
forwardedtoC.M.M.asperletterEx.140onsamedatei.e.9/11/11and
onnextdayasperaboveletterC.M.M.forwardedbothsealedenvelopes
...59/

Judgment59MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
alongwith statement of accused no.3 who had sticked up with his
confessiontoSpl.JudgeunderMCOCAct.Meaningtherebythereisfull
complianceofclause(4)&(5)sofarasforwardingconfessionofaccused
fromDCPtoC.M.M.isconcerned.
68.

Aftergoingthroughconfessionalstatement partI&IIofA2Ex.

184and186,certificategivenatthetimeofbothconfession,oralevidence
adduced by PW29 in proof of both confession statement partI & II
includingactualconfessionrecordedbyDCPthatofaccusedNileshdated
9/11/11 shows that like DCP (PW16) second DCP (PW29) followed
procedureofrecordingconfessionwhichisgiveninsection18ofMCOC
Act.A2wasalsoexplainedbyDCP(PW29)aboutprosandconsofgiving
confession including that it may be used against him and he may be
punishedifconfessionisgiven. ItistruethatasperEx.19forwarding
letterofC.M.M.toSpl.judgeMCOCCourtstatementofaccusedNilesh
recordedbyC.M.M.abouthis forciblyobtainingsignatureonstatement
andthathehasnotgivenconfessionvoluntarilyisforwardedtothisCourt.
HoweversuchretractionofA2istobeconsideredinreferencetoother
substantiveandcorroborativepieceofevidenceavailableonrecord.Itis
alsobecause on pointofretractedconfession LearnedAdvocate for A3
duringthecourseofargumentplacedrelianceon ParmanandPegu V.
StateofAssam,(2004SupremeCourtCase(Cri)2081),whereinitis
held that confession which was retracted by accused received no
corroboration from any other evidence and also contradicted medical
evidenceasregardingtodeathofdeceasedwhichwasanimportantaspect
...60/

Judgment60MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
ofconfession,insuchcaseitwouldbeunsafetoconvictaccusedsolelyon
thebasisofretractedconfession.ItisobservedbyHon'bleSupremeCourt
insupraCasethatCourtshouldalsohaveregardtocorroborationfrom
otherevidencesoastoassureoftruthofconfession.Inmyviewargument
advancedbylearnedAdvocateforA3onthebasisofsuchobservation
madebyHon'bleSupremeCourtcaseincaseofretractedconfessionwhich
isalsoinourcase,asthereisfirmconfessionofA2whichisverifiedby
C.M.M.discussedabove,whileappreciatingretractionofconfessionofA2
andaforesaidconfession ofA2andothercorroborative andsubstantial
pieceofevidenceinourcaseinrespectofbothincidentdated1/10/11and
14/10/11needstobeconsideredasitisnotonlycorroborativepieceof
evidencebutdirectandsubstantivepieceofevidence.
Onthesamepoint,LearnedAdvocateforA3alsoreliedon
Kashmira Singh V. State of Madhya Pradesh (1952MADLJ1754,
1952AIR(SC)0159), whereinitisheldthatproperwaytoapproacha
case of this kind of confession is first to marshall the evidence against
accused excluding the confession altogether from consideration and see
whether,ifitisbelieved,aconvictioncouldsafelybebasedonit.Itisalso
observedbyTheirLordshipinsupracasethatifthereisevidenceagainst
coaccusedsufficientifbelievedtosupporthisconviction,thenthekindof
confession may be thrown into the scale as an additional reason for
believingthatevidence.LearnedAdvocateforA1alsoreliedonStateof
Rajasthan V. Ajit Singh and others [(2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases
(Cri)287],whereinitisobservedthatwecannotstretchthelanguageof
...61/

Judgment61MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
sectionsoastobringtheconfessionofthecoaccusedwithinthefoldof
admissibility.Suchstretchingofthelanguageoflawisnotatallwarranted
especially in the case of law which visits a person with serious penal
consequences.ItisobservedbyTheirLordshipwhiledecidingsupracase
thatconfessionofcoaccusedcanonlybeusedascorroborativepieceof
evidencethattooagainstmakeronly.
Therecanbenotwowaythinking aboutobservationand
findinggivenbyHon'bleSupremeCourtandHon'bleHighCourtinsupra
casesaboutuseofconfessionagainstcoaccused.Howeversection18of
MCOC Act clearly speaks that certain confession made to police officer
shallbeadmissibleintheevidenceoftrialofsuchpersonorcoaccused
abettor or conspirator, provided that coaccused, abettor/conspirator is
chargedandtriedinthesamecasetogetherwiththeaccused.Meaning
therebyprovisionscontendinsection18makestheconfessionmadeby
oneaccusedadmissibleduringtrialagainstcoaccusedifsuchcoaccusedis
charged and tried in same case. Of course other parameters like
voluntarinessandtruthfulnessinconfessionofaccusedarealwaysthere.
While rebutting above stated argument in reply argument
Learned Spl.P.P. on point of retracted confession relied on Pyare Lal
BhargavaV.TheStateofRajasthan(AIR1963SupremeCourt1094(V
50 C 164)), wherein it is observed that if corroboration is there and
original statement is found voluntarily, retraction can be ignored as
retractiondonotwipeoutitsevidentialvalue.Onsamepointprosecution
...62/

Judgment62MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
alsoreliedonPeriyasamiS/oDuraisamiNovanagarV.State(2004AIR
SCW2223), onthepointoftakingprecautionbyDCPtoascertainthat
confession was voluntarily. Prosecution also relied on Abdulvahab
AbdulmajidShaikh&Ors.V.StateofGujrat((2007)4SupremeCourt
Cases257)andsubmittedthatifthereisevidencebeforeCourtfromDCP
stating therein that confession is recorded after complying with all
procedural formalities and this fact is incorporated in confessional
statementandbeforeMagistrateaccusedhasnotstatedaboutpressureand
thirddecreemethodusedagainsthimtoextractconfession,insuchcase
confessionneedstobeheldvoluntary,truthfulandadmissibleinevidence.
Ifratiolaiddowninaforesaid3casesonpointofretractedconfessionisto
beappreciatedtotheconfessionofA2,thoughhehasretractedconfession
beforeCMMonsameday,originalstatementthatofconfessionbeforeDCP
havingseenprovedbyprosecutionbycomplyingallproceduralformalities
as observed in supra case by Hon'ble Supreme Court and as there is
supporttothecaseofprosecutionbywayofcorroborationfromconfession
of A3 and other material evidence discussed in above para of the
judgment,sofaraspresentcaseisconcerned,Iamofviewthatsubsequent
retractionbyA2willnotbefataltothecaseofprosecution.
69.

ToascertainvoluntarynatureofconfessionofbothA2&A3onthe

basis of above stated material on record both oral and documentary


evidence,IamofviewthatsomesubmissionmadebyLearnedAdvocate
for A1 and A3 so far as not following the procedure established for
recordingconfessionisnotasperactualpositionandexhibiteddocuments
...63/

Judgment63MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
onrecord. Becausenatureofconfessionalstatementpart I&IIofboth
A2&A3referredinaboveparasinmyopiniondemonstratesvoluntary
nature of confession given by A2 & A3. As A2 has retracted his
confessiononthesamedaysothereislittlespacetocreatedoubtabouthis
voluntariness. However the retraction of confession again needs to be
appreciatedonthebasisofsubstantiveandcorroborativepieceofevidence
availableonrecordandproofofbothincidentsdiscussedinrelevantpara
of the judgment. It is also because A2 and A3 are main accused in
commissionoffirstincidentoffiringandsofarassecondincidentthatof
recoveryoffirearmsandammunitionisconcernedthereisagainroleof
bothA2andA3andinadditionthatofA1.
70.

Sotofindouttruthfulnessintheconfessiongivenbyaccuseditis

necessarytoseewhattheyhavestatedintheiractualconfessionrecorded
inpartIIsoastoconnectitwithstoryofprosecutionnotonlyaboutboth
incidents referredabovebutthatofconspiracywhichisallegedagainst
accusednos.1to3.ThegistofactualconfessionofA3recordedatEx.138
showsthatoneAkhilLakadawalaisknowntohimandinthemonthof
January,2011hereceivedcallofsaidAkhilLakadawalaonhismobileand
whenhedidnotpickupsaidcall,secondtimesaidAkhilbycallinghim
toldthathisbrotherEjajLakadawalaisreadytohelphimifrequiredand
asA3wasinneedofmoneyagreedtoworkwithEjajLakadawala. His
further statementshows thatthereaftermanytimes he camein contact
withEjajLakadawalawhoresidesinabroadinrespectofhiswork.There
is also reference in his statement that on say of Ejaj Lakadawala twice
...64/

Judgment64MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
pistolswereprovidedtohimforgivingthreattosomepersonsonaccount
of extortion money. In his statement he also stated role of A1 who
providedhimSIMcardsofdifferentcompaniesforpurposeofusingit.So
farasincidentdated1/10/11hehasgivenspecificroleofA1whowas
knowingsiteoffiringwhichwasshowntohimandA2,andalsoprovided
twopistolsandcartridgesforfiringincidentdated1/10/11.Hisfurther
statementalsoshowsthatafterfiringincidentA3collectedpistolwhich
waswithA2andhandedoverthesametoA1andforthepurposeof
completingincidentoffiringA1paidRs.20,000/toA2.
71.

So far as actual confession statement of A2 is concerned he has

corroborated to confession statement of A3 regarding incident dated


1/10/11includingmotorbikeusedinincidentofhisbrotherMangeshand
accompanying with A3 to the spot of firing by driving motorbike and
aiding A3 in committing firing incident and thereafter amount of Rs.
20,000/ was paid to him by A1 through his friend Jignesh. While
ascertaining truth of confession given by both A2 and A3 substantive
pieceofevidencefromthemouthofinjuredSohelKhanandeyewitness
SohelDalviaboutincidentshowsthatthereistruthfulnessinconfession
givenbybothaccusedwhichcorroboratestothecaseofprosecution.There
isalsoothercorroborativepieceofevidencewhichisdiscussedinrelevant
paras of the judgment while deciding incident dated 1/10/11 and
14/10/11. So far as other corroboration about truthfulness in the
confessionofA2isconcernedthereisevidenceofPW12JigneshPandya
whodeposedonoaththatRiyazbhai(A1)hadgivenhimoneenvelope
...65/

Judgment65MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
containingRs.20,000/tohandoverittoAnnu(A2)nearHotelRamdev
atBorivali.ItmaybenotedthatthisPW12JigneshPandyhasalsogiven
hisstatementU/sec.164ofCr.P.C.beforeC.M.M.whichalsospeaksabout
abovestatedfact.OralevidencegivenbyPW12whichsupportsthecase
ofprosecutioninviewofhisstatementU/s164ofCr.P.C.(Ex.125)gives
corroboration to confession and its truthfulness about payment of Rs.
20,000/madebyA1toA2asstatedabove.
72.

Inadditiontoallabovediscussedevidencethereisonemorepiece

ofevidenceadducedbyprosecutionwhoisPW15whosestatementisalso
recorded U/sex. 164 of Cr.P.C. before Magistrate. PW15 Mohd. Akram
Nirbhan is proprietor of Nirbhan Construction site of development at
Kamruddinstreetwherefiringincidentdated1/10/11tookplaceinwhich
SohelKhansonofhistenantMajidKhanreceivedbulletinjury. Barring
information received by him about firing incident and his statement
recordedin J.J.Marg police station bycallinghim on 2/10/11he also
statedbeforetheCourtthaton22/12/2011hehasgivenstatementU/sec.
164of Cr.P.C.beforethe M.M.whichis filed onrecord by prosecution.
Apartfrominformationreceivedaboutincidentdated1/10/11fromone
Nabeelhisemployeeofcompanyontelephone,itishisversionbeforethe
Courtthatonnextdayoffiringincidenti.e.2/10/11hereceivedcallon
hismobileno.9819859787frommobileno.9022362450givingthreatthat
inspiteoffiringincidentwhyheisnotreceivinghisphonecallandhaving
known firingincidenton his construction site dated1/10/11. It ishis
specificversionthatsaidthreatandmessagewasmentioningsendername
...66/

Judgment66MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
as Ejaj Lakadawala and number 0015856414447. According to him
thereafter again from other mobile, caller Ejaj Lakadawala many times
repeatedly called him and demanded Rs.3 crores on account of his
constructionbusiness.Againon3/10/2011samedemandisrepeatedby
callerEjajLakadawalafromhim. Itishisspecificversionthatpriorto
2025 days of firing incident he had received one call from unknown
numberhavingbeginningwith+910000000000.
73.

Hewascrossexaminedbydefenceonabovestatedthreateningcall

onhismobilebymentioningsenderasEjajLakadawalaanddemandingRs.
3croresandalsoonhisstatementrecordedbypoliceon2/10/11ashe
hadreceivedthreatbefore2025days of firing incident. Hewas cross
examinedbydefencebygivingsuggestionthatafterreceivingthreaton
suchearlierdateswhyhedidnotlodgereporttopolicestation,towhich
herepliedthathedidnotfeelnecessary.Headmittedthatheheardname
ofEjajLakadawalaasBhaifromelectronicmedia.Healsoadmittedthat
evenpriorto9/9/11heusedtoreceivesuchthreateningcall.Itisalsohis
version that when he received first call of threat in the name of Ejaj
Lakadawala,hedidnotfeelthatitwasthreatofextortion.Tothequestion
whyhedidnotapproachtopolicestationimmediatelyafterfiringincident,
herepliedthathewasscaredatthattimeandalsobecausehehadscared
duetothreateningSMSandwasinstateofshock.Hedeniedsuggestion
ofdefencethatheextendedthreatofimplicatingsomecomplainanton
account of property dispute in MCOC case and therefore, those threats
werefromsuchcomplainantandnotfromunknownpersonsbynameEjaj
...67/

Judgment67MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
Lakadawala.
74.

WhileappreciatingabovestatedevidenceofPW15adducedbefore

the Court if one perused his statement U/sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. recorded
beforeMagistrate,itisseenthatwhateverstatedbyhimbeforepolicein
his statement U/s 161 of Cr.P.C. and deposed before Court so far as
informationreceivedaboutfiringincident,threateningcallspriortofiring
incidentandafterincidentunderthenameofEjajLakadawalaevenby
mentioningnumberbelowtheSMS,ifreadinreferencetostatementU/s
164ofCr.P.C.,itisseenthathegavecorroborationtoprosecutionevidence
adduced in respect of firing incident from mouth of PW2 and PW27.
SimilarlyifweappreciatetestimonyofPW15whichisinconsonancewith
hisstatementU/s164ofCr.P.C.andwithconfessionstatementofA2and
A3, it is seen that PW15 supports to the prosecution about theory of
threatofextortionfromEjajLakadawala.Sofarasfindingcorroboration
byPW15totheconfessionofA2andA3aboutthreatofextortionfrom
EjajLakadawalaandtofindouttruthfulnessinconfessionofA2andA3,
it can be said that evidence adduced by PW15 is additional piece of
corroborationfortruthfulnessofconfessiongivenbyA2andA3. Now
having seen above discussed evidence produced on record on behalf of
prosecution in the nature of confession of A2 and A3 and witness
examined in proof of same together with evidence of PW12 and 15
discussedabove,toprovefurtherlinkofprosecutionevidenceithastosay
thatprosecutionbroughtonrecordsufficientevidenceaboutvoluntariness
ofconfessionofA3soalsothatofA2thoughhisretractionisimmediate
...68/

Judgment68MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
beforeC.M.M.. Nowitisfurthernecessarytomakescrutinyofevidence
availableonrecordinrespectofelectronicrecordinthenatureofCDRand
Computer print out. Prosecution adduced oral as well as documentary
evidence in this regard and same is being discussed separately in next
groupofevidence.
GroupV

EvidenceaboutMobile&CDRprintout.
75.

While discussing evidence about incident dated 14/10/2011(in

groupII)referenceaboutevidenceadducedbyPW11,sofarasseizureof
fire arms and ammunition is already made in the relevant para of the
judgment.SofarasthisgroupisconcernedseizureofmobilehavingSIM
ofAircelCompanyhavingno.8898341106fromaccusedno.1Riyazand
fromA3abouttwomobileshavingSIMofAircelcompanyhavingmobile
no. 8286582406 and 8286242768 needs to be discussed in connection
with oral evidence of Nodal officers PW5 to PW10 and PW31. It is
alreadyheldinrelevantparasofthejudgmentthatseizureofaforesaid
three mobiles from A1 and A3 is proved by prosecution vide Ex.112.
Barringaforesaidthreemobilesanddetailsofthereseizureasdiscussedin
groupIV regarding confession of A2 and A3, so far as this group of
evidenceisconcernedinconfessionofA2thereisreferenceofmobileno.
9768784412 and in confession of A3 there is reference of in all five
mobilenumbers. Thoseare9987328649(inthenameoffatherinlaw)
mobileno.9125170495(UninorcompanyseizedfromMiraRoad),third
...69/

Judgment69MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
SIM cards of Reliance company no.8080863533, 7666293682,
9022462350.BarringhavingreferenceallabovestatedfiveSIMcardstime
totimeusedbyA3,asperhisconfessionthereisalsoreferenceofmobile
numberofEjajLakadawalafromabroadonwhichthereareoutgoingand
incomingcallsasperconfessionofA3.Thosenumbersare16503604678,
16467367532 and 1585641447. Further link up evidence is through
mobileno.9819859787thatofPW15AkramNirbhantowhomtherewere
threatening calls from bothA3and Ejaj Lakadawala. As per PW15's
statement U/sec.164 of Cr.P.C. and evidence before this Court on his
mobilethereareincomingandoutgoingcallsfromdifferentnumbersand
those are 910000000000, 34340000000000, 0015856414447 and
34444256845. In addition to above stated mobile to prove connection
amongstA1,A3,PW15andEjajLakadawalathereisevidenceofPW12
who has also given statement U/sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. (Ex.125) before
Magistratebymentioninghismobileno.9324030307andmobilenumber
ofA1Riyazas9898341106.
76.

Toprovelinkandcontactinbetweenabovestatedmobilesmostlyin

betweenA3andEjajLakadawalaatonehandandAkramNirbhan(PW15)
onotherhandaboutthreatofextortionatotherside,thereisevidenceof
abovestatedNodalOfficersofdifferentcompaniesnamelyAirtel,Aircel,
Vodafone,Idea,Reliance,Uninor,andLoopCompanies.NodalOfficersin
their respective evidence by giving oral testimony placed material on
recordaboutnameofpersonsinwhosenameabovereferredSIMcardsare
registered in their companies. They also produced on record customer
...70/

Judgment70MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
applicationformshavingphotographsofthecustomerstowhomrespective
SIM cards were sold either by their dealer or subdealer. All those
documentaryproofisplacedonrecordbyprosecutionrightfromEx.64to
108includingprintoutofcalldetailsofincomingandoutgoingcallsfrom
abovereferredmobiles.Admittedlyexceptmobileno.9819859787andits
printout(Ex.90)asperevidenceofPW8inthenameofPW15Akram
Nirbhan,mostofthemobilesareinthenameofotherpersonsandnotin
thenameofeitheraccused.
77.

Ithascomeonrecordintheirrespectiveevidencethatasperrequest

and application submitted by ACP Vatkar, their companies have issued


relevantCDRfortheperiodfrom1/1/2011to30/11/11andcontentsof
computerprintoutaretakenoutfromtheirsystemwhichismaintainedas
perrulesandaccordinglycertificatesareissuedbythemwhilesupplying
said information including documents about original subscribers
applicationformsetc. ByexaminingaforesaidNodalofficersprosecution
notonlyproducedonrecordCDRandcomputerprintout,butalsooriginal
customerapplicationformsofmostofthosemobileholdersanddocuments
suchasaddressandresidentialproofonthebasisofwhichcompanyissued
SIM cards to them. Nodal officers while adducing their evidence gave
specific evidence about certificate issued to police officer ACP Vatkar
(PW36)asperrequirementofsection65(B)ofEvidenceAct.Certificate
underEvidenceActissuedbyallNodalofficersgotprovedbyprosecution
by giving respective exhibits in their evidence which are included in
exhibitsrightfromEx.64to109.
...71/

Judgment71MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
78.

Sofaraspartofcrossexaminationisconcerneddefencehasbrought

on record some material to say that they were asked by police about
locationofcallsandlocationofnumberslike000+401,501+500which
canbetracedout. TheydeniedsuggestionthatcallsmadefromInternet
can not be located in their system. Most of them denied most of the
suggestionsofthedefence.Sofarascopiesofcustomerapplicationforms,
it is evidence of Nodal officers that those are scanned and copies are
submitted under their certificate. Some had brought original customer
applicationformswhileadducingevidencetoprovesuchcertifiedcopies
issuedbythem.
79.

During the course of argument Learned Advocate for A1 to A3

submittedthatCDR'snowheredemonstratefactthatphonescallswere
madeby EjajLakadawalabeforeincidentandCDRproducedonrecord
throughNodalofficereventhoughprovedandexhibitedisnotusefulto
proveconspiracy. ItisalsoargumentofdefencethatbothIOshavenot
deposedaboveconspiracyorCDR.Itisalsotheirargumentthatnoneof
the mobile is in the name of accused. No interception is proved by
prosecution.Itisalsoargumentonbehalfofthedefencethatthereisno
investigationbypoliceaboutincomingandoutgoingcallsfrommobiles
seized.SofarascomputerprintoutandCDRareconcerneditistheirsay
that such nature of documentary evidence will not help prosecution to
proveconspiracy.
80.

LearnedAdvocateforA1vehementlyarguedaboutnonproduction
...72/

Judgment72MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
ofcertificatebyNodalOfficersinprovingcontentsofCDR,computerprint
outasperrequirementofsection65(B)ofEvidenceAct.LearnedAdvocate
forA1onsamepointalsoreliedonP.V.AnvarV.Basheer&others(CDJ
2014SC790),whereinitisheldthatinabsenceofcertificateintermsof
section65(B),suchcomputerprintoutcannotbeadmittedinevidenceas
itissecondaryevidencepertainingtoelectronicrecord.Whileappreciating
suchsubmissiononbehalfofdefence,ifoneperusecomputerprintoutof
abovereferredmobiles,itcanbesaidthatnotonlycustomerapplication
forms but CDR and computer print out is proved by prosecution by
adducingoralevidenceofPW5toPW10andPW31butmobilenumbers
givenbyA1andA3intheirconfessionandPW12andPW15intheir
statementU/sec.164ofCr.P.C.SofarasargumentadvancedbyLearned
AdvocateforaccusedthatIOhasnotdeposedaboutsuchelectronicrecord
thoughproducedonrecordthoughNodalOfficers.Howeversuchisnot
fact.SofarasPW35isconcerned,inhisevidencehespecificallydeposed
notonlyaboutmobileseizedbutalsoaboutcompaniesofSIMcardsand
statement of Nodal officers recorded during the course of investigation
including certificates issued by Nodal officers as per section 65(B) of
EvidenceAct,(referencetopara7ofPW35).NotonlythatIIndIOPW36
inhisevidenceatparano.6specificallydeposedthaton15/12/2011as
per his instruction PW35 recorded statement of some Nodal Officers.
Similarlyinparano.9hehasspecificallygivenevidenceaboutinformation
givenbyNodalOfficersbyprovidingCDRaboutlocationofthemobileof
AkramNirbhan(PW15)and EjajLakadawalaandthatofA3Prashant
Rao.Inparano.16,PW36specificallydeniedsuggestionofdefencethat
...73/

Judgment73MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
CDRofmobileandSIMcardshasnoconcernwithaccused.
81.

By above referred oral evidence of Nodal officers as it is

accompaniedbycertificateU/sec.65(B)oftheEvidenceActmentioning
specificcontentsthatelectronicrecordandprintouti.e.CDRandCAFof
mobile have been retrieved from computer which was in possession of
eachNodalofficer,ithastosaythatthereisdirectoralevidencebeforethe
Court in proof of CDR and CAF which is produced on record by
prosecution in two volumes i.e. partI and partII. By their respective
evidenceprosecutionexhibitedcomputerprintoutofeachmobile about
incoming and out going calls in between PW15 Akram Nirbhan Ejaj
LakadawalaandA1,A3.Andthereforecomputerprintoutswhicharein
thenatureofsecondaryevidencewhichareprovedaspercertificateissued
byeachNodalOfficersbytheiroralevidencewillhavetobereadinthe
evidence.
82.

OncarefulscrutinyofcomputerprintoutEx.196itisseenthaton

2/10/11atabout12.16pm.therewascallfrommobileofA3havingno.
9125170495toEjajLakadawalaonhisnumber0015856414447(Page81).
It may be noted that this call is of second day of firing incident i.e.
1/10/11.Anothercallatpage85isofdated8/10/11.AsperEx.109from
anothernumberofA3i.e.9987328649therearetwocallsonmobileof
Ejaj Lakadawala having number 16503604678 on 19/7/11, second call
wason20/7/11andthirdon26/7/11.Nextthreecallswereon27/7/11.
On2/8/11thereareagaintwocallsandon10/8/11again2calls.Asper
...74/

Judgment74MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
Ex.90on9th September2011,therewasonecallfrom EjajLakadawala
havingnumber0000000000andmobilenumberis9819859787ofPW15
AkramNirbhan.Fromsamemobiletherewasanothercallonsamemobile
ofPW15AkramNirbhanon15thSeptember,2011.Asperpage85ofEx.90
there was call from Ejaj Lakadawala from his mobile number
34440000000000 on aforesaid mobile of PW15 Akram Nirbhan on
2/10/11at13.66p.m..AndfromPW15AkramNirbhanfromhisaforesaid
mobilenumber9819815787therewascallto EjajLakadawalaat21.32
p.m.on2/10/11onhismobilenumber0015856414447.Thereisanother
callon3/10/11fromAkramNirbhan(PW15)fromhisaforesaidmobile
number on same mobile of Ejaj Lakadawala at 23.05 p.m. Ex.97
(Page113)showsthaton1/10/11at19.43p.m.,therewasphonecall
from 7666293682 on mobile of Ejaj Lakadawala 15467367532 and
locationofsaidcallis(asperlastcolumn)wasMiraDesaiRoad,Andheri.
Onsamedate1/10/11atabout20.26p.m.therewasanothercallfrom
A3PrashantRaofromhismobilenumber7666293682onabovereferred
mobileofEjajLakadawala16467367532.AsfarascomputerprintoutEx.
101isconcernedA3PrashantRaofromhismobilenumber9819815787
madeaphonecalltoPW15AkramNirbhanonhisabovereferredmobile
number9819815787.EMEInumberofhismobilewas358251042534900.
Onsamedate3callsweremadebyA3PrashantRaoonaforesaidmobile
ofPW15AkramNirbhaaround12p.m.fromMiraRoadlocation.Itmay
benotedthataspermemorandumandseizurepanchanamaEx.52and53
mobilehavingabovereferredEMIisseizedfromwifeofaccusedA3from
hishousehavinglocationMiraRoad.AgainasperEx.97asperentrydated
...75/

Judgment75MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
24/9/11at17.56p.m.locationofmobileofA37666293682andthatof
A1Riyazofmobilenumber8898341106wasnearJ.J.Hospitalflyover
fromwhichsitetheymadecalltoeachother,datepriortoincidentdateof
firing.
83.

Having gone through the above discussed relevant entries from

computerprintoutswhichareexhibiteddocumentsinrespectofwhich
there is also direct evidence from mouth of Nodal Officers and two
investigatingofficers,ithastosaythatpriortofiringincidenttherewere
phonecallstoPW15AkramNirbhanfromdifferentInternetmobilecalls
andalsopriortoandafterincidentasperabovereferredincomingandout
going calls. Therewas also talk inbetweenA3and Ejaj Lakadawala
duringaforesaidperiodaspercomputerprintout.Aftergoingthroughthe
relevantdatesandtimeofincomingandoutgoingcallsfrommobilesof
PW15,A3andEjajLakadawala,itisseenthatpriortoincidentoffiring
whichisdated1/10/11andafterdateoffiringi.e.2/10/11and3/10/11,
therewasconstantcommunicationinbetweenA3andEjajLakadawala.
SofarasoralevidencegivenbyPW15specificallyaboutthreateningcalls
receivedbyhimon2/10/11andbefore1520daysoffiringincidentfrom
A3 is concerned, there is evidence in the nature of call details, from
locationofmobilesandphonecallsonbehalfofA3fromhisMiraRoad
residence to PW15 Akram Nirbhan on 2/10/11 goes to show that
conspiracywashatchedinbetweenA3and EjajLakadawalabygiving
threateningcallstoPW15bothpriortofiringincidentandafterincident.
Ex.197whichishavinglocationofJ.J.Flyoverareadated24/9/11shows
...76/

Judgment76MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
thatasperconfessiongivenbyA3,rekiofspotofincidentoffiringwas
donebyA1andA3whichismuchpriortodateofincidenti.e.1/10/11.
Five mobile numbers which are given by A3 in his confession and 3
mobilenumbersofEjajLakadawalagivenbyhimconnectsthroughabove
discussedCDRandcomputerprintoutsonrelevantdatesdiscussedabove.
ThereisadditionalpieceofevidencebywayoforalevidenceofPW15
whichisalsoinconsonancewithstatementU/sec.164ofCr.P.C.sofaras
mobilenumberof EjajLakadawalafromwhomhereceivedthreatening
callsthatofdemandofextortionamountandinreplyphonecallsgivenby
himto EjajLakadawalaon2/10/11seconddayofincidentasperCDR
andcomputerprintoutdiscussedinaboveparainthejudgment.
84.

So on the basis of above stated oral and documentary evidence

aboutprintoutandCDR,ithastosaythatprosecutionprovedthefactthat
A1toA3wereinconstanttouchwitheachotherpriortoincidentdated
1/10/11andafterincidenttilltheirarrestintrapdated14/10/11.There
were calls between A3 and Ejaj Lakadawala at one hand and PW15
Akram Nirbhan on other hand and during aforesaid period there was
demandofextortionandthreatfromA3andEjajLakadawalatoPW15.
Abovediscussedevidenceofcalldetails,ifappreciatedinthecontextwith
othercorroborativeevidenceavailableonrecord,ithastosaythatsofaras
hatching of conspiracy for commission of incident dated 1/10/11 in
betweenleaderofgangEjajLakadawalaandhissharpshooterA3atone
handandPW15AkramNirbhanatanotherhandincludingroleofaiding
andabettingbyofA1andA2,evidenceavailableonrecordinrespectof
...77/

Judgment77MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
incident dated 14/10/11 and called details as per CDR and print outs
supportstheprosecutioncasetoproveconspiracy.
85.

On point of conspiracy Learned Spl.P.P. by relaying on State

ThroughSuperintendentofPolice,CBI/SITV.Nalini&Ors((1999)5
SupremeCourt Cases253) submittedthatin case of conspiracy,there
maybekindofumbrellaspokeenrolment,whereasinglepersonatthe
centredoestheenrollingandalltheothermembersareunknowntoeach
other,thoughtheyknowthattherearetobeothermembers. Theseare
theoriesandinthepractice,itmaybedifficulttotellwhichconspiracyina
particular case calls intowhichcategory.Itmayhowever,evenoverlap.
Butthentherehastobepresentmutualinterest.Personsmaybemembers
ofsingleconspiracyeventhougheachisignorantoftheidentityofmany
otherswhomayhavediverserolestoplay.Itisnotapartofthecrimeof
conspiracythatalltheconspiratorsneedtoagreetoplaythesameoran
activerole.Fromaboveobservationregardingconspiracyfromsupracase,
itissayofprosecutionthatthoughA1andA2havenotplayedactiverole
infiringofincident,bytheiractofabettingandaidingtoaccusedno.3and
ultimately to leader of gangster Ejaj Lakadawala conspiracy towards
commissionoftheoffenceinthepresentcaseisprovedbyprosecution.
While rebutting on aforesaid argument of prosecution, Learned
Advocate for A1 by relaying on Dipti Prakash Banerjee V. Satyendra
NathBoseNationalCentreforBaisSciences,Calcutta&Ors.((1999)3
SupremeCourtCases60) submittedthatincaseofcriminalconspiracy
...78/

Judgment78MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
U/sec.120(B)ofI.P.C.,prosecutionmustestablishaconnectionbetween
allegedcrimeandactdonepursuanttothesameconspiracy.Itisobserved
byHon'bleSupremeCourt,inthiscasethat itisnodoubttruethatitis
difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence and therefore, from
established fact an inference could be drawn but there must be some
material from which it would be reasonable to establish a connection
between the alleged conspiracy and the act done pursuant to the said
conspiracy. While applying such observation and finding of Hon'ble
SupremeCourttothefactofourcase,itmaybestatedthatinthepresent
case, there is direct evidence so far as firing incident is concerned.
Pursuanttothefiringincident,thereisrecoveryofweapons,firearmsand
bullet from injury of injured. Together with these two important facts,
thereisevidenceintheformofconfessionalstatement.Soonthebasisof
suchestablishedfact,ithastosaythatwithconnectingevidencebetween
allegedconspiracy(whichisprovedbyprosecutionwiththehelpofCDR),
actdonepursuanttothesaidconspiracyisprovedinthepresentcase.By
goingonestepaheadsofarascaseinhandisconcerneditcanbesaidthat
conspiracyisestablishedbyprosecutionwiththehelpofdirectevidence
discussedabove.

GroupVI
Evidenceofinvestigatingofficers.
86.

SofarasFIRofincidentdated1/10/11Ex.46&46Aisconcerned,

there is evidence of PW34 ASI Bondre who was attached to J.J. Marg
...79/

Judgment79MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
policestationandtookFIRof injuredSohelKhanbyregisteringCR.NO.
138/11 U/sec.307, r/w 34 of IPC and 3/25,27 of Arms Act. By his
evidencestationdiaryentryofsaidFIREx.203isalsoplacedonrecord.
AdmittedlyEx.46wasinthenameoftwounknownpersonsaboutfiring
incident. Oral evidence of PW34 is corroborated by 1st IO PW35 PI
Dhanawade by deposing on oath that on 1/10/11 CR no.138/11 was
registeredatJ.J.Margpolicestation. AsregardtoFIREx.46aboutfiring
incidentanditsproofthereisdetaileddiscussioninrelevantparasofthe
judgment. AsperevidenceofPW33Bhosalewhowasworkingasduty
officer at Nagpada police station on 14/10/11, Crime Branch UnitIII
officer Mr.Chavan andothershadcome toNagpada police stationand
gaveinformationbyASIChalkeaboutseizureoffirearmsfromA1toA3.
He registered FIR as per statement of ASI Chalke as LAC no.2220/11
U/sec.3/25,27ofArmsact.AstruecopyofFIRwasfiledonrecord,byhis
evidenceprosecutionproducedonrecordstationdiaryentryofLACno.
2220/11videEx.201aboutregistration ofFIRandseizureoffirearms
fromaccusedno.1to3asperLACno.2220/11.OraltestimonyofPW33
iscorroboratedbyPW35.SofarasFIRlodgedbyASIChalkeasperLAC
no.2220/11statedaboveisconcerned,itisevidenceofPW35thatfurther
investigationofaccusedandseizedarmsasperdirectionsofAdditional
CommissionerwastransferredfromLACno.2220/11toLACno.35/11of
DCBCIDandAPITawadeofUnitIIIfiledchargesheetofLACno.35/11
whowasalsoinvestigatingofficer.
87.

PW28APITawadebygivingcorroborationtoPW33and35inhis
...80/

Judgment80MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
evidence in para no.8 deposed that after seizure and preparing
panchanama,accusedno.1to3werebroughttoNagpadapolicestation.
ASIChalkelodgedFIRandafterregistrationofFIR,specialLACno.35/11
wasregisteredatCrimeBranchdetectionBranch.Incrossexamination,he
statedthathehimselfmadestationdiaryentryofspecialLACno.35/11.
SofarasregistrationofLACno.2220/11is concerned, itisversion of
PW35incrossexaminationthatafterpanchanamaEx.112,hehadgoneto
NagpadapolicestationforregistrationofLACno.2220/11.Itishisfurther
version that parallel investigation in CR registered of J.J. Marg police
stationandDCBCIDUnitIIIwasgoingonafterincidentdated14/10/11.
Healsoadmittedthathewasnotknowingaboutinvolvementofaccusedin
CRNo.138/11till19/10/11fromtheirarrestasmatterwasunderparallel
investigationinbothLACs.
88.

After going through above statedevidence adduced by PW28,33,

34,35and36,sofarasinvestigationpartisconcerned,theyproducedon
recordoralaswellasdocumentaryevidencetosaythatLACno.2220/11
registeredatJ.J.MargpolicestationwasbeingconductedalongwithCR
no.138/11whichwasinitiallyregisteredatDCBCIDatspecialLACno.
35/11.ItisadmittedfactthataftertransferofCRNo.138/11toDCBCID,
it was registered at CR no.86/11 after invoking Sec. 3(i)3(ii)3(iv) of
MCOCAct. Sofarasevidenceavailableonrecordinproofofincident
dated1/10/11isconcerned,alreadydiscussionismadeinrelevantparas
ofthejudgmentincludingevidenceofPW34discussedabove.Soalsoas
regard to incident dated 14/10/11, discussion is also made in relevant
...81/

Judgment81MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
parasofthejudgmentaboutevidenceofPW28andalsothatofPW35.So
far as further evidence of PW35 is concerned, he gave evidence about
lettercorrespondencevideEx.208to210abouttransferofinvestigation
papersfromJ.J.MargpolicestationtoDCBCIDandalsoabouthanding
overinvestigationofCRno.138/11tohimbySr.PI.Marde.Byadducing
evidenceaboutinterrogationmadewithA1toA3aboutseizedfirearms,
he completed chain of evidence by giving corroboration to most of the
prosecutionwitnessesexaminedinproofofdocumentaryevidence.Henot
onlygaveevidenceaboutmemorandumandseizurepanchanamavideEx.
52and53aboutmobileandSIMcardseizedfromhouseofA3fromMira
Gaobutalsogavecorroborationaboutseizure,othermobilesandSIMcard
fromA1aswellasaccusedno.5.Byhisevidence,prosecutionproduced
onrecordprintoutandCDRwhichareprovedbyevidenceofPW5to10
and 31. According tohim,he recorded statementof all Nodalofficers
includingsupplementarystatementofsomeofthem,asperevidencein
parano.7to10ofhisevidence.
89.

Inhiscrossexaminationdefencehasbroughtonrecordsomelapses

andlacunaeonpartofprosecutionaboutspotofincidentdated14/10/11
andhowsuspectcameonspot,aboutnatureofseizureincludingpacking
materialusedatthetimeofseizureandhowtheyproceededtoeffecttrap.
Headmittedthatafterseizureoffirearmsfromaccused,thoseweregiven
inpossessionofAPITawade(PW28).Headmittedthatpersonalsearchof
panchwitnessesweretakenandsoalsotheirpersonalsearchwasgivento
panch witnesses and it is also mentioned in panchanama Ex.112. He
...82/

Judgment82MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
admitted that signature of either accused was not obtained in
panchanamaEx.112.Hewasalsocrossexaminedaboutlogbookentryand
vehicleusedinincidentdated14/10/11.
90.

So far as oral evidence of PW36 IInd IO Yashwant Vatkar is

concerned,accordingtohim,on1/11/11investigationcametohimasper
orderofJointCommissionervideEx.219afterinvokingMCOCActfrom
PW35PIDhanawade.Hisevidenceismostlyoninterrogationmadewith
accusedno.2and3andtheirdesireandvoluntarinessingivingconfession.
SofarasconfessiongivenbyA2andA3isconcerned,byhisevidence
prosecutionplacedonrecordcorrespondencemadebyhimtoDCPZoneIII
and IV vide Ex.220,224 which also includes letter Ex.223 and 224
demandingcopiesofconfessionstatementfrombothDCPs.Accordingto
him, after going through confession of both accused, he revealed that
PrashantRaowasinconstanttouchwithEjajLakadawalaheadofCrime
Syndicateandbywayofconspiracycommittedincidentdated1/10/11.
Therefore,onthebasisofinterrogationwithA3,involvementofaccused
Zakariya Khan @ Jiki was revealed. He also gave evidence of letter
correspondencewithSEOforT.I.ParadeEx.226.Inhisfurtherevidence,
heproducedonrecordcertifiedcopiesofchargesheetswhicharepending
againstEjajLakadawalaandaccusedPrashantRaopriortobothincident,
aboutapprovalgivenbyCommissionerofPoliceandsanctiontoprosecute
accusedunderMCOCAct.Incrossexaminationheadmittedthatthereis
no chargesheet filed against accused in between and no documentary
evidenceiscollectedinrespectofmobileofinternationalcall. Healso
...83/

Judgment83MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
admitted that there is no documents about point of telecommunication
allegedagainstaccusedEjajLakadawala.Inhisfurtherevidence,itishis
saythatpermissionofMagistrateisnotobtainedforvoluntarilyrecording
confessionofaccusedandsofaraspossessionofarmsbyaccusednos.1to
3inincidentdated14/10/11hesubmittedchargesheetbeforeM.M.37th
Courtisfiled. Furthermore,headmittedthatproposalofpriorapproval
wasnotfiledwithchargesheet.HeadmittedthatinbothchargesheetEx.
229and230EjajLakadawalaisshownaswantedaccused.Ifoneperused
chiefaswellascrossexaminationoftwomaininvestigatingofficerPW35
and 36 together with PW28,33 & 34 alongwith documentary evidence
produced by them on record, it has to say that by their evidence
prosecutionprovedchainofevidencerightfromlodgingforFIREx.46and
LACno.2220/11(Ex.201)tillprosecutingaccusednos.1to5bywayof
chargesheet before Special Court. Having seen all above discussed
evidence,thenremainsimportantaspectaboutnatureofabovediscussed
evidenceandproofrequiredunderMCOCAct,ArmsActandIPCtoprove
chargeslevelledagainstaccusednos.1to5.
91.

SofarasconfessionofA2andA3Ex.184186andEx.137138is

concerned,thereisevidenceofDCP(PW16)andDCP(PW29).Asper
evidenceofPW36,asperorderofJointCommissionerofPolice,above
DCPsZoneIII&IVwererequestedtorecordconfessionofbothaccused
and as per letter correspondence discussed in relevant para of the
judgment on 8 and 9/11/11 and aforesaid two DCPS recoded their
confession. ItisevidenceofPW36thatasperletterEx.219,JointC.P.
...84/

Judgment84MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
grantedapprovalU/sec.23(1)(a)ofMCOCActandaspersaidapproval,
permission was granted to apply provisions to MCOC Act and to
investigate the case with further directions that PW36 shall obtain
sanctionfromCommissionerofPolicetofilechargesheet. Itisalsohis
evidence that after completing investigation, he forwarded investigating
papersforobtainingsanctionunderMCOCalongwithtwocertifiedcopies
of chargesheets filed against accused Ejaj Lakadawala as head of
Syndicate and other members vide Ex.229 and 230 and Magistrate has
taken cognizance of those chargesheets. According to him, after
completinginvestigation,hesubmittedproposaltoCommissionerofPolice
throughJointC.P.videEx.193.HemadediscussionwithCommissionerof
Police by submitting all necessary documents and ultimately as per
sanction grantedU/sec. 3(i)(ii),3(2),3(4)of MCOCAct, chargesheeetis
filedagainstinalleightaccusedincludingthreewantedaccused.
92.

ByaforesaidevidenceofPW36prosecutionprovedcertifiedcopies

oftwochargesheetsEx.229and230inwhichEjajLakadawalaisaccused
inCRno.27/05ofVersovapolicestationofoffenceU/sec.387,307,120(B)
ofIPC,3/25,27ofArmsActand3(i)(ii),3(2),3(4)3(5)ofMCOCAct.Ex.
230certifiedcopyofchargesheetfiledbefore37thACMMCourtofCRno.
205/04ofJuhupolicestationfortheoffencesU/sex.387r/w34ofIPC
against Ejaj Lakadawala and others including Mohd. Jafar one of the
accused of the present case. On the basis of previously instituted two
chargesheetsEx.229and230filedonrecordinsupportoforalevidenceof
PW36andwhencognizancewastakenbyMagistrateof37thACMMCourt
...85/

Judgment85MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
andanothercasewhichisunderMCOCActofwhichcognizanceistaken
bySpecialCourt,ithastosaythatincompliancewithSec.2(d)ofMCOC
Act, sufficient material is brought on record by prosecution so far as
continuinglawfulactivitybyheadofOrganizeCrimeSyndicateoronhis
behalf members prior to commission of present incident is concerned.
PW30AnupPatnaikwhohadaccordedsanctionEx.193inhisevidenceat
Ex.192deposedthatACPYashwantVatkarwasinvestigatingofficerofCR
No.86/11underMCOCAct.Hetabledallinvestigationpapersbeforehim
foraccordingsanction.Onperusalofpapersanddiscussionwithhimand
otherSr.officers,hewassatisfiedtoaccordsanctiontoprosecutearrested
as well as wanted accused and others (Ex.193). He admitted in cross
examinationthatconfessiongivenbyA2andA3wasnotpartofsanction
orderandthereisnowherementioninorderthatheperusedconfession
statementofaccused.Tosaidsuggestion,itishissaythathedidnotfeel
necessarytomakementionaboutconfessionalstatementperusedbuthis
sanctionedorderisafterperusalofconfessionstatementofaccused.
93.

During the course of argument, Learned Advocate for A1 to A3

submittedthatatthetimeofgrantingapproval,copiesoftwochargesheets
werenotbeforeCommissionerofPolice.Tothateffect,thereisadmission
givenbyPW36inhiscrossexaminationthatthereisnoreferenceabout
detailsofchargesheetinapprovalEx.219.Healsoadmittedthatpriorto
approval,proposalwassentbySr.PI.Mardethroughhimwhichisnotfiled
withchargesheet.LearnedAdvocateforA1andA3duringthecourseof
argumentvehementlyarguedaboutevidencerequiredtoproveactswhich
...86/

Judgment86MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
arementionedinsec.2(d)ofMCOCActi.e.continuingunlawfulactivity,
2(e)OrganizedCrimeand2(f)OrganizedCrimeSyndicate.Onthebasis
definitionofaforesaidthreeprovisionsandrequirementofsection3(i)(ii),
3(2),3(4)ofMCOCAct,itisargumentonbehalfofdenfencethatthere
must be evidence in respect of gaining pecuniary benefit by Organized
Crime Syndicate, its head or on his behalf anymember such Syndicate
whichmaybegroupoftwoormoreactingeithersingularorcollectively.
Accordingtothedefence,evidencewhichisrequiredtobeprovedallsuch
actsaspersection3oftheActiscompletelymissingintheprosecution
case.
94.

SuchargumentofdefenceiscounteredbySpl.P.P.bysubmittingthe

argumentthatforthepurposeofprovingcontinuingLawfulactivitiesby
headofSyndicatenamely EjajLakadawalabeforeperiodof10yearsof
incident,chargesheetEx.229and230cognizanceofwhichisalreadytaken
by MCOC Court and 37th ACMM Court together with oral evidence of
PW30 and 36 is sufficient compliance of section 2(d) of the Act.
AccordingtohimasperconfessionofA2and3,evidenceinthenatureof
computerprintoutandCDRwhichareprovedbyNodalofficerstogether
withevidenceofPW15andsubsequentlycommissionofincidentoffiring
on PW2 goes to show that head of Organized Crime Syndicate Ejaj
LakadawalaofhisownandthroughA3gavethreatofextortiontoPW15
andonhisfailuretocomplydemandthroughmemberofhisSyndicateA3
withaidofA2didactoffiring.Itisalsohissubmissionthatsubsequent
recovery of fire arms and other related evidence which proved both
...87/

Judgment87MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
incidentsupportsprosecutioninprovingrequirementof2(e)and2(f)of
theAct.LearnedSpl.P.P.byrelayingonMohd.FarooqAbdulGafur&Anr.
V.StateofMaharashtra(2010AIRSCW2574)submittedthatconviction
canbebasedsolelyonthebasisofconfessionalstatementofmainaccused
itself. Similarly,convictionmaybeawardedonthebasisofconfessional
statementofcoaccusedwhichcouldbeusedandrelieduponforpurpose
ofconviction. Goingaheadonthebasisofsupracitationwhichisunder
MCOCActitself,itishissaythatconfessionalstatementofcoaccusedis
admissibleasapieceofsubstantiveevidence.Furthermore,accordingto
him,inpresentcase,thereisnotonlyconfessionofaccusedno.3butalso
confessionofcoaccusedA2whichsupportscaseofprosecutioninproving
initialingredientofsection2(e)oftheActnamelyunlawfulactivityby
CrimeSyndicatewithobjectofgainingpecuniarybenefit. Accordingto
him,inconfessionofbothaccused,aftercompletingincidentoffiring,Rs.
20,000/ was paid by accused no.1 to accused no.2 through his friend
Jignesh,soalsoRs.50,000/paidbywantedaccusedChachatoA3asper
confession.
95.

AsperargumentadvancedbySpl.P.P.conspiracyamongstaccused

no.1,2and3for committing incidentof firing is asper requirementof


section120(B)ofIPC,definitionofwhichisgiveninsec.120(A)ofIPC.As
per observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in already cited case
Statethroughsuperintendentofpolice,CBI/SITV.NaliniandOrs.,itis
notapartofcrimeofconspiracythatalltheconspiratorsneedtoagreeto
playthesameoranactiverole.Onthebasisofsuchobservationmadeby
...88/

Judgment88MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
Hon'bleSupremeCourtregardingoffenceofcriminalconspiracy,according
tohim,inthepresentcaseactofcriminalconspiracyamongstaccusedno.
1to3istobederivednotonlyfromconfessionofA2andA3butalso
fromothercircumstancesthatofincidentdated1/10/11,14/10/11and
evidenceproducedbyprosecutioninproofofbothneedstobetakeninto
consideration. Ultimately,itis his saythatconspiracywhich was done
amongstaccusednos.1to3wasforanbehalfofheadofSyndicateEjaj
Lakadawalawhichultimatelyculminatedbyoveractofincidentoffiring
which is substantiated by way of recovery of fire arms as per second
incidentdated14/10/11.

Findings
96.

From all above discussed submissions made in the argument on

behalfofLearnedAdvocateforA1toA3aswellasLearnedSplP.P.and
after going through oral evidence of all relevant prosecution witnesses
coupled with the documentary evidence proved by prosecution in the
presentcase,IcametotheconclusionthatoffencesofconspiracyU/sec.
120(B) of IPC is proved by prosecution against accused nos.1,2 and 3.
Similarly as discussed in relevant paras of the judgment about both
incidentdated1/10/11and14/10/11,ithastoholdthatbothincidents
are proved by prosecution with clinching evidence, most specifically
incidentoffiringdated1/10/11againstaccusedno.2and3andpossession
offirearms,cartridgesandotherarticlesrecoveredfromA1toA3asper
panchanamaEx.112.Thereafternextquestioniswhichclausesofsection
...89/

Judgment89MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
3ofMCOCActcanbesaidasprovedbyprosecutionagainstwhichaccused
andasperchargeEx.31.Soalsoevidenceavailableonrecordinproofof
chargeunderArmsactinreferencetorecoveryoffirearmsfromaccused
nos.1to 3 and its connection with incidentof firing, of course within
meaningofcriminalconspiracy.
97.

As per evidence of PW20, she gave sanction order Ex.158. After

goingthroughFIR,panchanama,FSLreportandrequestletterissuedby
ACPD1South,CrimeBranchandafterapplyingmind,shefoundprima
faciecasefrommaterialonrecordtoaccordsanctiontoprosecuteaccused
PrashantRao,whowasfoundinpossessionofcountrymadepistoland
cartridgeswithoutrequisitelicense.Byherevidence,prosecutionproved
sanctiontoprosecuteA3U/sec.3/25,27ofArmsact. Nextconnecting
evidence brought on record by prosecution is regarding unauthorized
possession of Arms by A1 to A3 and contravention of section 37 of
BombayPoliceAct. BytheevidenceofPW35prosecutionproducedon
recordstationdiaryextractaboutpromulgationoforderpassedbyDeputy
Commissioner of Police dated 22/9/11 alongwith gazette notification
whichisfiledonrecordintheevidenceofPW35collectivelymarkedas
Ex.214. Station diary entry shows that order passed by Deputy
CommissionerofPoliceaboutunauthorizedpossessionofArmsU/sec.37
ofBombayPoliceActispromulgatedinareaofincidenton22/9/11.This
oral evidence ofPW20and PW35is tobe appreciatedin reference to
above referred sanction order Ex.158 and station diary entry about
promulgationoforderdated22/9/11U/sec.37ofBombayPoliceActin
...90/

Judgment90MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
proofofbothchargesunderArmsActandBombayPoliceAct.
98.

Duringthecourseofargument,LearnedAdvocatesforA1andA3

onthebasisofchargeU/sec.3r/w25ofArmsActsubmittedthatEx.158
isinrespectofsanctiontoprosecuteagainstA3only.Accordingtothem
sanctionaccordedU/sec.39ofArmsActspeaksthatnoprosecutionshall
beinstitutedagainstanypersoninrespectofoffencesU/sec.3without
previous sanction of District Magistrate. Charge Ex.31 also shows that
onlyaccusedno.3ischargedU/sec.3r/w25ofArmsAct.Itistruethatas
per story of prosecution accused no.2 and 3 were involved in firing
incident and found in possession of fire arms and cartridges. As per
subsequentincidentdated14/10/11allthreewerefoundinpossessionof
fire arms and cartridges. It is also true that as per oral as well as
documentary evidence produced on record on behalf of prosecution
discussedinrelevantparasofthejudgmentaccusedno.3usedfirearm
pistol inthe incidentoffiring. ThoughchargeframedunderArmsAct
coversonlyaccusedno.3asthereismentioninthechargethatrestofthe
accusedandwantedaccuseddidpossessfirearmsandammunitionlike
pistolcartridges,itisfactthataspersection39previoussanctionisonly
againstaccusedno.3asperEx.158.LearnedAdvocateforA3hasdrawn
my attention towards initial ingredient of section 3 and 5 which are
punishablebywayofsection25ofArmsAct.Inabsenceofspecificcharge
framedagainstaccusedno.1and2undertheArmsAct,ithastosaythat
sofarasaccusedno.1and2isconcernedthoughchargesheetisalsofiled
U/sec.27ofArmsActandthoughprosecutionbroughtonrecordevidence
...91/

Judgment91MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
againstthemunderArmsActinabsenceofchargesaidevidencecannotbe
appreciatedsofarasroleofA1andA2isconcerned.
99.

Onthebasisofdiscussionoforalanddocumentaryevidencemade

in group I to VI in above paras of the judgment including argument


advancedbyLearnedSpl.P.P.andLearnedAdvocateforA1toA5,while
givingfindingtopointnos.1to8ithastosaythat

confessiongivenbyA2andA3isprovedbyprosecutionon

thebasisoforalevidenceofPW16,25,26andPW28,29and30.Approval
toinvestigateEx.219andsanctiontoprosecuteEx.193underMCOCAct
togetherwithpreviouslyinstitutedtwochargesheetsagainstheadofCrime
Syndicate or its member is proved by prosecution by filing two
chargesheetsEx.229andEx.230intheevidenceofPW30,35and36.
OnthebasisofconfessionofA3andoralevidenceofPW15
andPW12thereissufficientevidenceonrecordtosaythatactoffiring
was done by A2 and A3 and it was nothing but unlawful activity by
memberofOrganizedCrimeSyndicateundertheheadofEjajLakadawala
withobjectofgainingpecuniarybenefit.Whilegivingaffirmativefindings
in compliance of section 2(d),2(e) and 2(f) punishment of which is
providedinsection3ofMCOCAct,ithastosaythatprosecutionproved
relevantchargesframedagainstaccusedno.1to3statedabove.
To prove offences of conspiracy, there is corroboration to
...92/

Judgment92MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
aforesaidevidencethroughmobilenumbers,CDRandcomputerprintout
fromNodalofficerPW5toPW11and31.Overtactoffiringincidentas
per above discussed points can be said as ultimate culmination of
conspiracy by accused no.1,2 and 3. It is also supported by way of
recoveryoffirearmsandammunitionfromA1toA3inproofofwhich
evidence is discussed in group II under the head incident dated
14/10/11.Ofcoursetoproveincidentoffiringthereisdetailedevidence
discussedingroupIundertheheadofincidentdated1/10/11.
100. SofaraschargeU/sec.307,r/w120(B)ofIPConthebasisof
materialevidencecameonrecordintheevidenceofinjuredSohelKhan
andeyewitnessSohelDalviandmedicalofficerPW23,duringthecourse
ofargumentLearnedAdvocateforA1toA3raiseddoubtaboutcaseof
prosecutioninfiringincidentaswellasinjuryreceivedbyPW2. Asper
material in cross examination of PW2 injured after first bullet he
immediatelyductedandtookactiontosavehimself.However,hereceived
bulletathisleg.Healsostatedinhiscrossexaminationthatassailantwas
pointingweapontowardshischestwhilefiringofallthreeshouts.When
suchwasmaterialincrossexaminationofinjured,evidencefrommouthof
eyewitnessPW27broughtonrecordspeaks hewitnessedthatassailant
wasinfrontofinjured.Tospecificquestionwhetherhefeltthatassailant
wastryingtokillinjured,itwashissaythattherewasnointentionof
killing of assailant. On the basis of such material brought in cross
examination of injured and eyewitness, from mouth of Doctor PW23
defence has brought on record admission that if assailant was facing
...93/

Judgment93MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
towardsinjured,injurymentionedincertificateisnotpossible.Havingall
suchsortof material broughtonrecordin evidenceofthreewitnesses,
duringthecourseofargumentLearnedAdvocateforaccusedsubmitted
thatpossibilityofreceivingbulletinjuryatlegisnotthereanditcreates
doubtinfiringincident.Itistruethatintheevidenceofbothinjuredand
eyewitness,ithascomeonrecordthatbothPW2andassailant(A3)who
wassittingonbikewithA2werefacingtowardseachotherandinfrontof
each other. However, while appreciating such position of assailant and
injuredthoughthere is aforesaid admission given byDoctor thatinjury
mentioned in certificate is not possible, if assailant was facing towards
injured, it may be noted that both A2 and A3 were at higher
position(level)than injuredastheybothwereonbikeandinjuredwas
ducked.OneimportantfactwhichwastoldbyinjuredbeforetheCourt
statedaboveisthatafterfirstbullethetookactiontosavehimselfandhe
immediately ducked. Having such version of injured on record, in my
opinion, whatsoever stated by eyewitness and Doctor about facing of
injuredandassailantagainsteachothercannotbegivenmoreimportance
asPW2injuredspecificallydeposedthatheimmediatelyduckedafterfirst
bulletandreceivedthereafteroneamongsttwobulletathisleg.
101. IdentityofA1toA3isprovedbyprosecutiononthebasisofT.I.
paradeEx.153whichisheldbyPW19inwhichPW2and27identified
A2andA3.AndwhileprovingpanchanamaEx.112,thereisidentification
ofA1alongwithothertwo. Ofcourseinadditiontoabovestatedoral
evidenceofwitnesses,thereiscorroborationtoevidenceofcomplainant
...94/

Judgment94MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
fromPW34andinproofofLACno.2220/11,thereisevidenceofPW33.
Sofarassecondincidentdated14/10/11isconcerned,bothIstandIIndIO
i.e.PW35andPW36ultimatelycompletedchainofevidencerightfrom
lodgingFIRandLACno.2220/11inrespectofbothincidenttillproducing
on record medical evidence, forensic expert i.e. FSL report, sanction to
prosecuteunderArmsAct,approvaltoinvestigateCR underMCOCAct
andultimatelysanctiontoprosecuteaccusedU/sec.23(2)ofMCOCAct.

Conclusion.
102. Inviewoffindinggiveninaboveparaofthejudgmentsofaras
point no.1 is concerned, I hold that prosecution proved the fact that
accusednos.1,2and3bywayofconspiracyagreedtodoillegalactofthat
extortionbythreateningPW15onbehalfofheadofCrimeSyndicateEjaj
Lakadawala and accused no.2 and 3 by committing firing incident and
ultimatelyoffencesU/sec.120(B)r/w387ofIPC.
103. So far as point no.2, though prosecution proved the fact that
accusedno.1to3infurtheranceoftheircommonintentionandpursuant
toactofcriminalconspiracycommittedIst incident;howeversofaras
offenceofcriminalintimidationthatofthreateningtoPW15Mohd.Akram
for extortion amount offence U/sec. 506II r/w 387 r/w 34 of IPC is
provedonlyagainstaccusedno.3
104. SofarasessentialingredienttoproveoffenceU/sec.307ofIPCis
concerned, prosecution has to prove act done by assailant with such
intentionorknowledgeandundersuchcircumstancesthat,ifassailantsby
...95/

Judgment95MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
thatactcauseddeath,hewouldbeguiltyformurder.Ifsuchcircumstance
isprovedbyprosecutionasperearlierpartofsection307,punishment
may be to the extent of 10 years and subsequent ingredient of section
showsthatifbysuchactandundersuchcircumstancesifhurtorinjuryis
caused,thenoffendershallbeliableforimprisonmentforlife. Meaning
thereby if by such act of assailant, if injury is caused, there is severe
punishmentfortheoffenceofattempttomurder.Andifinjury/hurtisnot
causedandassailantwashavingonlyintentionorknowledgethatunder
suchcircumstances,ifhebythatactcauseddeath,hewouldbeheldguilty
ofmurder,thenasperearlierpartof307,punishmentprovidedissome
whatlesser.Ifonehastoappreciatenatureoffiringincidentcoupledwith
allrelatedevidencebroughtonrecordbyprosecutioninproofofincident
dated 1/10/11 discussed in groupI of evidence, in my view aforesaid
material brought on record by defence will not affect the case of
prosecutiontosayincidentoffiringisgotupandpreparedbyprosecution.
UltimatelyIholdthatprosecutionprovedthefactthataccusednos.2and
3areguiltyforoffencesU/sec.307r/w120(B)ofIPC.
105. Inviewofdiscussionmadeinrelevantsubparaoffinding,itis
alreadyheldthatthereisonlymaterialonrecordtoproveoffencesU/sec.
3r/w25ofArmsActagainstaccusedno.3.Ultimatelywhilegivingfinding
topointno.4,ithastoholdthataccusedno.3isguiltyfortheoffences
U/sec. 3 r/w 25 of Arms Act. So far as offence U/sec. 37 r/w 135 of
BombayPoliceActisconcerned,itisalreadyheldinrelevantparaofthe
findingthataccusednos.2and3werenotonlyfoundinpossessionbut
...96/

Judgment96MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
there is transfer of pistol and use of pistol by accused no.3 and it is
contraventionoforderpassedbyDeputyCommissionerofPolicewhichis
published in Government Gazette of State of Maharashtra as filed on
recordvideEx.214.Hence,Iholdthatpointno.5isprovedbyprosecution
againstaccusedno.2and3only.Atthisstage,itmaybenotedthatthough
there is also material against accused no.1 so far as offences under
Bombay Police Act is concerned on account of non framing of charge
againsthimnofindingcanbegivenagainstaccusedno.1
106. SofarasoffencespunishableU/sec.3(i)(ii),3(2),3(4)ofMCOCAct
is concerned, already detailed discussion about oral evidence and
documentaryismadeinrelevantparasofevidencefromgroupItogroup
IVincludingparagraphsoffinding.Onbasisofallthoseobservationand
findingultimately,Iholdthataccusednos.1,2and3sometimesinglyor
sometimejointlyworkedforandonbehalfofEjajLakadawalaheadof
CrimeSyndicatewithobjectofgainingpecuniarybenefitandbywayof
firingincidentconspiracywhichwashatchedwithwantedaccused Ejaj
LakadawalaandA3wastakeninactionwiththehelpofA1andA2who
aided and abetted in commission of organized crime. Firing arms and
ammunition recovered by from A1 to A3 is supporting evidence of
prosecution to prove act preparatory is organized crime in the present
case.Ultimately,Iholdthataccusednos.1,2and3areguiltyforoffences
U/sec.3(i)(ii),3(2),3(4)ofMCOCAct.
107. Sofarasroleofaccusedno.4and5isconcerned,onscrutinyof
...97/

Judgment97MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
whole evidence discussed right from PW1 to PW36 including
documentaryevidenceavailableonrecord,ithastosaythatexceptmobile
seizedattheirinstancethattoointhenameofthirdpersonandrelated
CDR,thereisnomaterialagainstthem.Thereisalsonoevidenceagainst
A4andA5toshowthattheywerehavinganyconnectionorcontractwith
eitherA1,A2orA3. Sohavingtheirconnectionwithwantedaccused
EjajLakadawalaisfarawayfromcaseofprosecution.Duringthecourseof
argument, Learned Spl. P.P. plainly admitted that there is no evidence
againstaccusedno.4and5. LearnedAdvocateforA5inthecourseof
argumentalsosubmittedthatasperEx.49onlytwomobilesandtwoSIM
cardsfromhousesearchofA5thattoointhenameofothersareseized.
Andexceptsuchseizureofmobiles,thereis noconnectionofA5with
eitherA1,A2orA3orwantedaccusedEjajLakadawala.Itisalsohis
saythatthereisnoreferenceofnameofeitherA4andA5inconfession
ofeitheraccused.Heisnotpartofanymeetingorconspiracyandcall
details alsodo not supportprosecution to prove connecting link of A5
withA1toA3orwantedaccused.Therefore,on thebasisofsuchand
othermaterialavailableonrecord,ithastoholdthatprosecutionfailedto
proveanyofthechargesagainstaccusednos.4and5.
108. From all above discussion and evidence available on record
includingfindinggiventoeachpointinrelevantparasofthejudgment,
ultimatelyIholdaccusednos.1to3guiltyforrespectivechargesdiscussed
above. By giving finding to each point accordingly, I stop here to hear
accusednos.1,2and3onpointofsentence.
...98/

Judgment98MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.

Date:17/11/2014

109.

(P.R.DESHMUKH)
SpecialJudge,
UnderMCOCAct,
GreaterMumbai.

Accusedno.1is explainedthathe is held guiltyforoffence

U/sec.120(B)r/w387 of IPC and for offence U/sec. 3(1)(ii),3(2)and


3(4)ofMCOCAct. Accusedno.2isexplainedthatheisheldguiltyfor
offenceU/sec.120(B)r/w387,307r/w120(B)ofIPC,U/sec.37/135of
BombayPoliceActand andforoffenceU/sec.3(1)(ii),3(2)and3(4)of
MCOCAct.Accusedno.3isalsoexplainedthatheisheldguiltyforthe
offenceU/sec.120(B)r/w387,U/sec.506IIr/w387,307r/w120(B)of
IPC,andU/sec.3/25ofArmAct,r/w120(B)ofIPCandforoffenceU/sec.
3(1)(ii),3(2)and3(4)ofMCOCAct. TheirAdvocatesareabsent. They
areinformedthattheirsubmissiononpointofsentencewillbeheardat
1.30p.m.
110. Heardaccusedno.1onpointofsentence.Hesubmittedthatheis
having aged parents, young children and wife whose both hands are
handicap Heprayedforleniency. LearnedAdvocateforaccusedno.1
submittedthatthereisnopreviousconvictionandconsideringprovisions
contendintheActforeachoffences,minimumpunishmentbeawarded.
111. HeardAccusedno.2onpointofsentence.Hesubmittedthatheis
having young children and wife. There is no earning member for his
...99/

Judgment99MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
family. He prayed for leniency. Learned Advocate for accused no.2
submittedthatthereisnopreviousconvictionorcriminalrecordagainst
A2.Consideringnatureofoffencesminimumpunishmentbeawarded.
112. HeardAccusedno.3onpointofsentence.Hesubmittedthatheis
havingtwochildrenandwife.Heprayedforleniency.LearnedAdvocate
foraccusedno.3submittedthatthereisnopreviousconvictionorcriminal
record against A3. Considering the same minimum punishment be
awarded.
113. HeardSpl.P.P.onpointofsentenceonbehalfofprosecutionhe
submittedthatbyconsideringobjectofMCOCActandnatureofoffence
committedbyAccusednos.1to3maximumpunishmentbeawardedto
them.
114. UponhearingaccusedandtheirrespectiveAdvocatesonpointof
sentenceaswellasSpl.P.P.forStateandhavinggonethroughpunishment
providedforeachoffenceinrespectiveActs,inmyviewfollowingorder
willmeetstheendofjustice.
ORDER
1.

Accusedno.1RiyazAhmadHussainShaikh@Bhaiji,accusedno.2

NileshWilliamJatanna@Annuandaccusedno.3PrashantPrasadRao@
Sunnyareherebyconvictedasunder;
1(a). Accused no.1 Riyaz Ahmad Hussain Shaikh @ Bhaiji is
...100/

Judgment100MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
herebyconvictedfortheoffencespunishableU/sec.120Br/w387ofIPC
andheissentencedtosufferR.I.for5yearsandtopayfineofRs.5000/.
IndefaultofpaymentoffinehehastosuffermoreR.I.for1years.
1(b). HeisalsoconvictedfortheoffencepunishableU/sec.3(1)(ii)
ofMCOCAct1999andheissentencedtosufferR.I.for10yearsandto
payfineofRs.5lakh.IndefaultofpaymentoffinehehastosufficerRIfor
2years.
1(c). HeisalsoconvictedfortheoffencespunishableU/sec.3(2)of
MCOCAct1999andheissentencedtosufferR.I.for10yearsandtopay
fineofRs.5lakh.IndefaultofpaymentoffinehehastosufficerRIfor2
years.
1(d). HeisalsoconvictedfortheoffencepunishableU/sec.3(4)of
MCOCAct1999andheissentencedtosufferR.I.for10yearsandtopay
fineofRs.5lakh.IndefaultofpaymentoffinehehastosufficerRIfor2
years.
2.

Accusedno.2 NileshWilliamJatanna@Annuisherebyconvicted

for the offences punishable U/sec. 120B r/w 387 of IPC and he is
sentencedtosufferR.I.for5yearsandtopayfineofRs.5000/.Indefault
ofpaymentoffinehehastosuffermoreR.I.for1years.
2(a). HeisalsoconvictedfortheoffencespunishableU/sec. 307
r/w120BofIPCandheissentencedtosufferR.I.for10yearsandtopay
fineofRs.5000/.IndefaultofpaymentoffinehehastosuffermoreR.I.
for2years.
2(b). HeisalsoconvictedfortheoffencepunishableU/sec.37/135
...101/

Judgment101MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
ofBombayPoliceAct,andheissentencedtosufferR.I.for6monthsand
topayfineofRs.1000/. Indefaultofpaymentoffinehehastosuffer
moreR.I.for2months.
2(c). HeisalsoconvictedfortheoffencepunishableU/sec.3(1)(ii)
ofMCOCAct1999andheissentencedtosufferR.I.for10yearsandto
payfineofRs.5lakh.IndefaultofpaymentoffinehehastosufficerRIfor
2years.
2(d). HeisalsoconvictedfortheoffencespunishableU/sec.3(2)of
MCOCAct1999andheissentencedtosufferR.I.for10yearsandtopay
fineofRs.5lakh.IndefaultofpaymentoffinehehastosufficerRIfor2
years.
2(e). HeisalsoconvictedfortheoffencepunishableU/sec.3(4)of
MCOCAct1999andheissentencedtosufferR.I.for10yearsandtopay
fineofRs.5lakh.IndefaultofpaymentoffinehehastosufficerRIfor2
years.
3.

Accusedno.3PrashantPrasadRao@Sunnyheisherebyconvicted

fortheoffencespunishableU/sec.120Br/w387andheissentencedto
sufferR.I.for5yearsandtopayfineofRs.5000/.Indefaultofpayment
offinehehastosuffermoreR.I.for1years.
3(a). HeisalsoconvictedfortheoffencepunishableU/sec.506II
r/w387ofIPCandheissentencedtosufferR.I.for3yearsandtopayfine
ofRs.1000/.IndefaultofpaymentoffinehehastosuffermoreR.I.for6
month.
3(b). Heisalsoconvictedforthe offencepunishableU/sec. 307
...102/

Judgment102MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
r/w120BofIPCandheissentencedtosufferR.I.for10yearsandtopay
fineofRs.5000/.IndefaultofpaymentoffinehehastosuffermoreR.I.
for2years.
3(c). HeisalsoconvictedfortheoffencepunishableU/sec.3r/w
25ofArmsActr/w120(B)ofIPCandheissentencedtosufferR.I.for3
yearsandtopayfineofRs.1000/.Indefaultofpaymentoffinehehasto
suffermoreR.I.for6month.
3(d). HeisalsoconvictedfortheoffencepunishableU/sec.37/135
ofBombayPoliceAct,andheissentencedtosufferR.I.for6monthsand
topayfineofRs.1000/. Indefaultofpaymentoffinehehastosuffer
moreR.I.for2months.
3(e). HeisalsoconvictedfortheoffencespunishableU/sec.3(1)(ii)
ofMCOCAct1999andheissentencedtosufferR.I.for10yearsandto
payfineofRs.5lakhIndefaultofpaymentoffinehehastosufficerRIfor
2years.
3(f). HeisalsoconvictedfortheoffencespunishableU/sec.3(2)of
MCOCAct1999andheissentencedtosufferR.I.for10yearsandtopay
fineofRs.5lakh.IndefaultofpaymentoffinehehastosufficerRIfor2
years.
3(g). HeisalsoconvictedfortheoffencespunishableU/sec.3(4)of
MCOCAct1999andheissentencedtosufferR.I.for10yearsandtopay
fineofRs.5lakh.IndefaultofpaymentoffinehehastosufficerRIfor2
years.
4.

All sentences awarded to accused nos.1,2 and 3 for offences in


...103/

Judgment103MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
respectiveActsshallrunconcurrently.
4(a). AccusedNos.1,2and3areincustodyfrom14/10/2011.They
areentitledforsetoffforundergoneperiod.
5.

Accused no.4 Mohammad Jafar Esak Madhwala @ Chacha and

accusedno.5ZakariyaBashirKhan@Jiko@Salimareherebyacquitted
fromoffencesU/sec.120Br/w387ofIPC,506(II)r/w387ofIPC,307
r/w120(B)ofIPCandoffencesU/sec.3(1)(2),3(2),3(4)ofMCOCAct.
6.

Bailbondsofaccusednos.4and5standsdischargedandtheybeset

atlibertyforthwith,ifnotrequiredinanyothercase.
7.

Seizedmuddemalpropertyarticle1to30asperlistofarticlebe

preservedfortrialofwantedaccused.
8.

IssuestandingNBWagainstwantedaccused.
DCBCIDisdirectedtofiledseparatechargesheetagainstwanted

accusedaftertheirarrest.
9.

Certifycopyofjudgmentbegiventoaccusednos.1,2and3freeof

cost.
10.

JudgmentpronouncedinopenCourttodayon17/11/2014.

Date:17/11/2014

(P.R.DESHMUKH)
SpecialJudge,
UnderMCOCAct,

GreaterMumbai.
...104/

Judgment104MCOCPl.CaseNo.2/12.
Dictatedon :1st,5th,10th,13th,14th,17thNovember2014.
Transcribedon:3st,6th,11th,14th,15th,17thNovember2014.
Signedon :

.../