Shaikh Kalam vs The State Of Maharashtra
2011 Latest Caselaw 195 Bom

                                      1                                 cria93.11

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY,
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                          
                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 93 OF 2011




                                                  
     Shaikh Kalam S/o Shaikh Nabi
     Age : 30 years, Occ : Nil,
     R/o Pushpa Garden,




                                                 
     Chikalthana, Aurangabad.                      ..APPELLANT

           -VERSUS-




                                      
     The State of Maharashtra                    ..RESPONDENT
                         ig    .....
     Shri Satej Jadhav holding for Smt. S.S. Jadhav, advocate for the
     appellant.
     Smt. S.D. Shelke, A.P.P. for respondent/State.
                       
                               .....

                                       CORAM : S.B. DESHMUKH AND
                                               A.M. THIPSAY , JJ.

DATE : 9th December, 2011

JUDGMENT : (PER A.M. THIPSAY, J)

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order

dated 25.10.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-2 at

Jalna, in Sessions Case No. 143 of 2009, convicting the appellant,

who was the sole accused in the said case, of the offence

punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and

sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of

Rs. 1,000/-.

2 cria93.11

2. The prosecution case can be best stated from the

`brief facts of the case', as mentioned in column no.15 of the

printed prescribed proforma of the charge sheet/Final Report. It is

as follows :

That, on 03.06.2009, the accused and one Shaikh

Sattar S/o Shaikh Sardar (the deceased) left Aurangabad by a

vehicle bearing no. MH-20 AA-8955 belonging to Sarda Logistic

Company for going to Vijaywada, Andra Pradesh. The said vehicle

was a Container, carrying Refrigerators of Videocon Company.

The accused was driving the said vehicle. Even the deceased

Shaikh Sattar was a driver. For some time, the accused was to

drive the said vehicle and for some time, said Shaikh Sattar was to

drive it.

At about 1.45 a.m. on 04.06.2009, the accused was

sleeping in the cabin of the said vehicle, which had been parked on

the road at Mantha. He was woken up by the Police. The dead

body of Shaikh Sattar was lying on the road near the said vehicle

which had been noticed by the Police. When questioned by the

Police, the appellant stated that he had been sleeping in the

Container and that, said Shaikh Sattar was driving the same and

that, he did not know when the vehicle came at Mantha and when

3 cria93.11

it was stopped. As such, he did not know what had happened to

Shaikh Sattar. The accused however identified the dead body as

that of Shaikh Sattar. The dead body was fully naked. There were

injuries on the dead body and more particularly, there was a very

serious injury on the head of dead body. The underwear and the

pant of said Shaikh Sattar had been lying by the side of naked

dead body. The accused lodged a report with the Police, on the

basis of which, the crime was registered and investigation

commenced.

3. In the course of investigation, statements of Shaikh

Sardar-father of deceased Shaikh Sattar-and two brothers of

Shaikh Sattar were recorded. It was learnt from them that about

two months prior to the incident, a quarrel had taken place

between the accused and the deceased; and that, during that

quarrel, the accused had threatened to kill Shaikh Sattar. It was

also revealed that the accused had urged said Shaikh Sattar to

accompany him to Vijaywada, in the said Container vehicle. Father

and brothers of Shaikh Sattar, therefore, expressed suspicion

against the accused, and as such, the accused came to be

arrested.

4. In the course of the investigation, the weapon of

4 cria93.11

offence i.e. Tommy was recovered, pursuant to the information

disclosed by the accused. The Investigating Agency concluded that

the accused himself had killed Shaikh Sattar and had pretended to

be sleeping. In consequence of formation of this opinion, the

accused was prosecuted.

5. The prosecution examined totally 11 witnesses during

the trial. The Police Head Constable-Shankar Mahadeo

Bhandalkar (PW-1), Constable-Tukaram Chatru Rathod (PW-7)

and P.S.I.-Shirish Devising Rathod (PW-10) are the persons who

had seen the Container standing on the road at Mantha and who

had noticed the dead body lying by its side. Shaikh Gaffar Shaikh

Sardar (PW-2) is the brother of the deceased and Saminabee

Shaikh Sattar (PW-5) is the wife of the deceased. These two

witnesses have been examined for establishing that there had

been a quarrel between the accused and the deceased,

suggesting that as a motive behind the offence. Chandkhan

Sharifkhan Pathan (PW-3) is a panch witness in respect of the spot

panchanama (Exhibit-20) as well as the memorandum

panchanama in respect of the statement made by the accused

leading to the recovery of the `Tommy' (Article-5), stated to be the

weapon of the offence. Dr. Kailas Dattatraya Awate (PW-4) is the

Medical Officer, who performed post-mortem examination on the

5 cria93.11

dead body of Shaikh Sattar. The Head Constable-Raju Jagbir

Rana (PW-6) is the person who had carried the `Mudemal' articles

seized in the course of investigation, to Forensic Science

Laboratory, Aurangabad. Prakash Dinkar Bhatane (PW-8) is the

person who works at the Toll Tax Collection Centre, Kendhali

situate at Mantha-Jalna road. Bhagwan Kondiram Kale (PW-9) is

the owner of a hotel at Watur Phata. These two witnesses have

been examined to show that the Container in question had come to

the toll tax collection center and the hotel, respectively, and that,

two persons were travelling by the said vehicle and that, one of

them was the accused. P.S.I. Syed Asif Syed Mohammad (PW-11)

is the person, who had carried out the investigation into the

offence. He is the one, to whom the information was allegedly

given by the accused, pursuant to which the Tommy (Article-5) was

recovered.

6. The defence of the accused is of denial.

7. We have heard Mr. Satej Jadhav, the learned

Advocate for the appellant. We have also heard Smt. S.D. Shelke,

the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

With the assistance of the learned counsel, we have gone through

the entire evidence adduced before the trial Court and other

6 cria93.11

relevant record. We have carefully gone through the impugned

judgment.

8. It is contended by Mr. Satej Jadhav, the learned

Advocate for the appellant that there was no evidence against the

accused so as to hold him guilty. According to him, the

circumstance on which the prosecution placed reliance to establish

the guilt of the accused were not satisfactorily proved. He

contended that the evidence regarding the recovery of the weapon

of offence was unreliable and further that the Tommy, that was

recovered, was the weapon of assault, had, itself, not been

established. He submitted that the evidence trying to attribute a

motive to accused to do away with the deceased could not be

relied upon, as there was other evidence, which contradicted it.

He, lastly, submitted that in any case, the circumstance relied upon

by the prosecution, even if held to be proved, were hardly sufficient

to come to the conclusion that the offence in question had been

committed by the accused himself.

9. It would be necessary to carefully examine the

evidence showing as to how the incident first came to light. In that

context, the evidence of Police Head Constable-Shankar Mahadeo

Bhandalkar (PW-1), Constable-Tukaram Chatru Rathod (PW-7)

7 cria93.11

and P.S.I.-Shirish Devising Rathod (PW-10) is relevant.

10. The evidence of Police Head Constable-Shankar

Bhandalkar (PW-1), Constable-Tukaram Rathod (PW-7) and

P.S.I.-Rathod (PW-10) shows that they and other police staff were

on petrolling duty in Mantha town and that, at about 1.30 to 1.45

a.m. they were proceeding towards Talni road by a vehicle. That, at

that time, they noticed one Container stationed in front of the

Indian Oil Petrol Pump belonging to one Borade. They also

noticed, a person lying near the Container in naked condition. On

noticing this, the Police vehicle was stopped and the witnesses got

down from the vehicle. They noticed that the said person was

dead. They also noticed that the driver of the Container i.e. the

accused, was sleeping in the said vehicle. He was woken up. On

enquires, it was learnt from him that the dead body was of his co-

driver Shaikh Sattar. That, the accused also disclosed that they

were coming from Aurangabad and were to proceed to Andhra

Pradesh.

11. The evidence of these witnesses is fully consistent

with the evidence of one another. In fact, not only there is no

challenge to this evidence, but that is the case of the accused also.

                                         8                                      cria93.11

     12.           It is, therefore, very clear that :




                                                                                 
                                                         
              a.         The Container was found stationed by the side
                         of the road.

              b.         The dead body of Shaikh Sattar was lying near




                                                        
                         rear wheel of the said Container.

              c.         The police party that was petrolling, noticed the
                         said dead body.




                                        
              d.         At that time, the accused was sleeping inside the
                         vehicle.
              e.
                        

The accused, who was sleeping, was woken up by the police.

f. The accused identified the said dead body as of his colleague Shaikh Sattar Shiakh Sardar.

g. The accused stated that the accused had been

sleeping and that Shaikh Sattar had been driving the vehicle; and that, he did not know, when the

vehicle had come to that place and had stopped there.

h. The accused stated that he did not know who had killed Shaikh Sattar (as he had been

sleeping).

These facts, which are sufficiently and satisfactorily

proved, are actually not in dispute at all.

13. That, there were injuries on the dead body and more

particularly, a serious injury on the head is also satisfactorily

established, apart from being not in dispute at all. The evidence of

9 cria93.11

Dr. Kaikash Awate (PW-4), who performed the post-mortem

examination on the dead body, which is supported by the notes of

the post-mortem examination prepared by him (Exhibit-24) shows

that there were following injuries on the dead body :

i. Incised wound due to hard and sharp object of size approximately 20 cm. in length x 3 cm. deep x 5 cm width at left forehead exposing left eye with frontal bone

extending upto vertex.

ii.

Evidence of fracture at left superomedial orbital rim.

iii. Evidence of fracture at left lateral orbital wall.

iv. Evidence of expose of left eyeball.

According to this witness, these injuries were ante mortem.

In the opinion of this witness, the death was caused `due to head

injury due to hard and sharp object'. From the evidence of this

witness, that Shaikh Sattar died an unnatural death and that, the

death was homicidal, is clearly established. In fact, even this

aspect of the matter is not only not in dispute, but it is the case of

the accused himself also.

14. We may now examine the evidence of the brother of

Shaikh Sattar. It may be recalled that it is on the basis of the

suspicion expressed by the relatives of Shaikh Sattar, that the

accused, who himself had lodged the F.I.R. and who was till then

10 cria93.11

not suspected to be the culprit, came to be suspected and arrested

by the Investigating Agency. In his evidence, Shaikh Gaffar Shaikh

Sardar (PW-2), brother of Shaikh Sattar stated that after getting

telephonic message from Mantha Police Station that his brother

Shaikh Sattar had been murdered, the witness himself, his father

and brother went to the Police Station and that, the Police took

them to the Government Hospital, Mantha, where the dead body of

Shaikh Sattar was lying. When this witness, his father and brother

returned to the Police Station, he asked the accused outside the

Police Station about the incident, when the accused told him that

as he was in sleep, he did not know what had happened. This

witness has then stated the grounds of his suspicion against the

accused. According to him, the accused had insisted that Shaikh

Sattar should accompany him to Vijaywada though Shaikh Sattar

was not initially ready to go with him, and that he had taken Shaikh

Sattar with him `forcibly'. The witness has then spoken about an

incident of quarrel which had taken place between Shaikh Sattar

and the accused about two months prior to the incident, and that,

at that time, the accused had threatened Shaikh Sattar that he

would kill him.

The evidence of Saminabee (PW-5), the wife of

Shaikh Sattar is also similar. According to her, on 03.06.2009, the

11 cria93.11

accused had come with the truck to her house and had asked her

husband i.e. the deceased to come with him on the said truck

going to Vijaywada. She stated that there had been a quarrel

between the accused and Shaikh Sattar about two months before

the incident, but added that she had neglected the same. She also

stated that her husband was not ready to go with the accused, but

the accused had insisted, and therefore, her husband went with

him on his truck.

15. By the evidence of these witnesses, an attempt has

been made to suggest that because of the quarrel that had been

taken place between the accused and Shaikh Sattar, the accused

intended to kill Shaikh Sattar and that, therefore, he had taken

Shaikh Sattar with him on his trip to Vijaywada. We are not

impressed by this attempt, which in our opinion, has totally failed.

In the first place, though one may accept that there had been a

quarrel between the accused and Shaikh Sattar, it is not possible

to hold that the said quarrel was serious, or of such a nature as

would generate so much anger or rage in the mind of the accused

so as to kill Shaikh Sattar by pre-planning. Secondly, Shaikh

Gaffar (PW-2) has admitted in the cross examination that after the

said quarrel, the accused had once taken Shaikh Sattar with him at

Vishakhapatannam. The evidence of Saminabee shows that the

12 cria93.11

association between the accused and Shaikh Sattar had been for

quite some time and that, previously the accused was working as a

cleaner with Shaikh Sattar. Saminabee has clearly stated that she

neglected the quarrel, which again indicates it was not perceived

by her to be of a serious nature. In examination-in-chief itself she

has stated that after the quarrel, the relations between the accused

and deceased had again become cordial. We accept and believe

this as true, as, otherwise, the accused would never ask the

deceased to come with him to Vijaywada, and in any case, the

deceased would never think of going with him. Neither Shaikh

Gaffar (PW-2) nor Saminabee (PW-5) suspected that the accused

had any ill motive when Shaikh Sattar was taken by him with him

and a reference to the previous quarrel-which had been clearly

neglected by them earlier- was made only because of the

subsequent death of Shaikh Sattar. The way things had

happened-as narrated by Saminabee-the relationship between the

accused and the deceased appears to be quite close and it is clear

that there is no substance in the claim of Shaikh Gaffar that the

deceased was taken `forcibly'. Merely because he has agreed to

accompany the accused on insistence of the accused, it cannot be

said that he was `forced' to go with the accused. The force, if any,

was of the friendship and good relations. The grief reaction of the

close relations of the deceased, over the unexpected death might

13 cria93.11

have resulted in a bona-fide suspicion against the accused, but

such suspicion felt by them, would be subjective and cannot be

treated as a fact showing the involvement of the accused in the

offence.

16. Considering all these aspects and the fact that after

the quarrel in question (which is expected to be believed to be the

motive on the part of the accused) Shaikh Sattar had gone with

accused on a long distance trip at least once, we are of the opinion

that the evidence of Shaikh Gaffar and Saminabee does not

advance the case of the prosecution in any manner.

17. We may now examine the evidence in respect of other

circumstance :- namely, the recovery of `Tommy'-which is said to

be weapon of offence-at the instance of the accused. This aspect

is sought to be proved by the evidence of Chandkhan Pathan

(PW-3) and Syed Asif Syed Mohammad (PW-11). It may be

recalled that Chandkhan Pathan (PW-3) had also acted as a panch

witness in respect of the spot panchanama (Exhibit-20), that was

drawn on 04.06.2009. Without commenting on the selection of the

same person as a panch for another panchanama drawn after two

days, we proceed to examine his evidence. According to him, on

06.06.2009, he was called at Police Station, Mantha and that, the

14 cria93.11

accused who was in custody at that time made a statement to the

effect that he would find out the Tommy, which he had thrown in

bushes on Jalna-Jintoor road. That, pursuant to the said statement,

he, one Shankar and the accused were taken by the Police behind

the petrol pump situated at Jalna-Jintoor road, by Police vehicle

and that, the accused took out an iron Tommy from the thorny

bushes. He has identified the Tommy (Article-5) produced before

the Court as the same that was recovered at the instance of the

accused and seized by the Police under panchanama (Exhibit-22).

In the cross examination, he has stated that Tommy was lying in a

bush at a distance of 10 feet from the road.

18. The evidence of Syed Asif Syed Mohammad (PW-11)

is also to the same effect and if the evidence of these witnesses is

believed, it would, indeed, show that the Tommy (Article-5) was

recovered in the course of investigation pursuant to the information

disclosed by the accused. In the view that we are taking, we find it

unnecessary to go deeper into this evidence, for judging its

reliability and value.

19. The contention advanced by Mr. Satej Jadhav, the

learned Advocate for the accused that there is no evidence to show

that the said Tommy was the weapon, with which the deceased

15 cria93.11

was assaulted, deserves serious consideration. It was emphasised

before us that the injury that was caused to the head of the

deceased, which resulted in his death, was caused by `hard and

sharp object'. Mr. Satej Jadhav submitted that the Tommy was not

a sharp object at all and it was not capable of causing an incised

wound. He also pointed out that, admittedly, there were no stains

of blood on the said Tommy.

20.

Indeed, we find great substance in the submission

made by the learned Advocate for the accused. In fact, the

evidence of Syed Asif Syed Mohammad (PW-11) shows that he

also thought it fit to make enquiries with the Medical Officer as to

whether the injury sustained by the deceased was possible by an

iron Tommy and obtain expert opinion on this point. Dr. Kailas

Awate (PW-4), who had performed the post-mortem examination

on the dead body stated in his evidence about the receipt of the

weapon from the Investigating Officer for examination. He has

described the weapon as `Iron rod' and has given its description as

`metallic, solid approximately having length 111 cm and gird 8 cm,

both edges rounded with tapering one side'. He stated that he

gave his report (Exhibit-25) on examination of the said rod, which

is to the effect that the injuries found on the dead body could be

caused/possible by the said weapon. He identified the iron

16 cria93.11

rod/Tommy (Article No.5) as the same. In the cross examination,

he admitted that the rod was not a sharp object. He, however,

denied that the injuries on the dead body could not possibly be

caused due to the said rod. Ordinarily, an incised wound cannot

be caused by a blunt object, and therefore, we find it difficult to

accept the opinion of this witness as correct. However, the cross

examiner has not carried the matter further and had left it at that.

We therefore decline to express the opinion that the injuries

sustained by the deceased could not have been caused by said

Tommy /iron rod. We however add that merely because such

injuries could have been caused, or it was possible to cause such

injuries, by the said weapon, it cannot be said that it was the very

weapon that had been used in the assault. It may be recalled that

there were no blood stains on the said Tommy / iron rod.

21. The aspect of recovery of the weapon would be

relevant only if the same is established to be the weapon of

assault. Such opinion cannot be formed merely on the claim that

the accused produced the same. There is no evidence as to from

where the accused had secured the said Tommy/ iron rod. Tommy

is usually kept in the vehicle, but there is no evidence to show that

such Tommy/rod was in the vehicle when the accused and the

deceased left Aurangabad and that, it was missing when the dead

17 cria93.11

body was noticed and the offence was registered. Thus, this

evidence :- namely, recovery of Tommy/ iron rod pursuant to the

disclosure statement made by the accused, does not advance the

case of the prosecution against the accused.

22. The evidence of Prakash Bhatane (PW-8) shows that

the vehicle had gone to the Toll Tax Collection Center at Kendhali

and at that time, it was occupied by two persons. That, the

accused was the person, who was driving the vehicle at that time.

The evidence of Bhagwan Kale (PW-9) shows that the vehicle had

come to his hotel at about 11 to 11.30 pm. and that, two persons

got down from it and had meals in the hotel. The witness identified

the accused as one of the said two.

23. It is contended by the learned Advocate for the

appellant that the evidence of these persons about the identity of

the accused cannot be accepted, as the accused was not put in

test identification parade. Since, that the accused and the

deceased were together in the said vehicle and that, the accused

was driving the same is not in dispute, the discussion on this

aspect would be purely academic and uncalled for. In the

circumstances, we proceed on the basis that the vehicle had gone

to the Tax Collection Center when accused and one more person

18 cria93.11

was inside it and that, it had gone also to the hotel of Bhagwan

Kale (PW-9) when also there were two persons in the said vehicle,

one of whom was the accused.

24. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. The

rules regarding the appreciation of the circumstantial evidence are

well known. The two primary and most fundamental of them are:-

(i)

the circumstances on the basis of which the requisite inference is expected to be drawn must be clearly and

satisfactorily established and

(ii) that such circumstances not only must be consistent

with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, but

further must be wholly inconsistent with the theory of innocence of the accused.

25. In this case, the version of the accused is clearly on

record in the form of First Information Report (Exhibit 40), that was

lodged by him. This version has also been brought on record

through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses themselves.

Thus, the stand of the accused is very clear; namely, that `Shaikh

Sattar was driving the vehicle and that, the accused had fallen

asleep, that the accused did not know when the vehicle was

stopped, and that, it is only when the Police woke him up, he

19 cria93.11

learnt about the death of Shaikh Sattar and of the dead body

lying near the rear side of the vehicle'.

26. In our opinion, whatever has been proved by the

prosecution, is not incompatible with what the accused states. In

other words, it has not been shown at all that the things could not

have happened the way the accused had stated.

27.

It was contended by the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor that the accused and the deceased were last seen

together, and therefore, the accused would be liable to explain as

to what had happened to the deceased. We are not impressed by

this submission. The accused has claimed that something had

happened while he was sleeping and that, the fact that he was

sleeping when the Police arrived, is clearly established. The

incident had taken place in or near the Container which was

travelling on a public road. It is not that the murder had taken

place in a closed premises, where except the accused and the

deceased nobody else had any access. Apart from this, there are

a number of other circumstances, which create a doubt about the

theory of the prosecution.

28. Admittedly, the dead body was lying just near the

20 cria93.11

vehicle and the accused was found to be sleeping inside the

vehicle. It is unthinkable that the accused would, after killing

Shaikh Sattar, leave his body just near the Container and go for a

sleep in the vehicle itself. It is nobody's case that the accused was

merely pretending to be sleeping and that he was not actually

sleeping. We are conscious of the fact that merely because the

accused did not react in a way in which ordinarily, a culprit would

have reacted, it cannot be said that he might not be guilty of the

alleged offence, but the fact remains that this behaviour of the

accused which cannot be said to be consistent with his guilt, is also

required to be taken into consideration alongwith other

circumstances.

29. Another significant aspect of the matter is that the

body was found to be naked. Underwear and pant of the accused

were lying just near the body. Other clothes on the body were not

found nearby. There has been no investigation into the aspect as

to why the clothes were removed and the body was made naked.

The device of removing the clothes on the body is usually adopted

by the culprits to avoid the identity of the dead body from being

known. In the instant case, the accused remained with the dead

body and disclosed its identity immediately on being asked by the

Police. How and why the dead body was in naked condition, has

21 cria93.11

not been investigated into. This remains a mystery.

30. Where the other clothes-that were supposed to be on

the person of Shaikh Sattar had gone, has also not been

investigated into.

31. Where the assault on Shaikh Sattar had taken place,

and whether it was at the very place where the dead body was

found to be lying, is also not indicated. There is no evidence that

attack had taken place inside the vehicle. No stains of blood, were

said to have been noticed in the vehicle.

32. Another curious aspect of the matter is that no stains

of blood were found or noticed either on the clothes of the

accused, or that of the deceased. Considering the nature of injury

sustained by the deceased one would expect the clothes-at least of

the deceased-to be stained with blood, but whatever clothes of the

deceased were found, did not contain any blood stains.

33. We also find that one more person by name, Shaikh

Salam-brother of the present accused-was also accused and

arrested in this case. Investigating Officer-Shirish Rathod (PW-10)

has admitted this. Apparently, the said person was discharged and

22 cria93.11

not prosecuted. In the story put forth by the prosecution, what was

the occasion to suspect and arrest the said Shaikh Salam, what

was suspected to be done by him in respect of the present offence

and what led to the belief of his not being involved in the matter (as

indicated by the fact that he was not prosecuted), has not been

stated by the Investigating Officer. It is clear, therefore, that the

prosecution has not chosen to disclose certain features of the

present case. Being a case based on circumstantial evidence, all

the relevant circumstances ought to have been placed before the

Court. Non-availability of all the material facts from which an

inference of guilt or innocence of an accused would be drawn, can

lead to the danger of the Court arriving at an incorrect conclusion.

34. In our opinion, there are various aspects of the matter

on which no light has been thrown by the prosecution. Apparently,

the investigation was not done in proper and satisfactory manner.

The accused was booked on the basis of the suspicion expressed

by the father and brother of the deceased and no real efforts to

clear the mystery appear to have been made.

35. In our opinion, merely because the accused and

deceased were travelling together in the said vehicle, the

explanation offered by the accused cannot be discarded. The

23 cria93.11

circumstances on which the reliance has been placed by the

prosecution are, even if held to be proved, are insufficient to

exclude the theory of innocence of the accused as put forth by the

accused.

36. It is well settled that it is only when the circumstances

satisfactorily established by the prosecution would be wholly

inconsistence with the hypothesis of the innocence of the accused,

that the accused can be held guilty of the offence in question.

Since such is not the case here, the accused was entitled to be

acquitted.

37. The judgment of conviction recorded by the Special

Judge is neither proper nor legal.

38. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the

impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 25.10.2010,

recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Jalna, in Sessions

Case No. 143 of 2009.

39. The appellant-accused, Mr. Shaikh Kalam Shaikh Nabi,

stands acquitted. He be set at liberty forthwith, unless required to

be detained in connection with some other case.

24 cria93.11

40. Fine amount, if paid, be refunded to the appellant.

        (A.M. THIPSAY, J.)                        ( S.B. DESHMUKH, J.)




                                                  
     sga/cria93.11