Bombay High Court
Mohammad Munna Sardar Khan vs State Of Maharashtra on 26 October, 2013
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani, V.L. Achaliya
SKN 1/31 932.08-apeal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 932 OF 2008
1. Mohammad Munna Sardar Khan.
Age 38 Yrs. Occ: Business [Shop]
residing at Ambedkar Nagar,
Cuffe Parade, R.No.367,
Colaba, Mumbai.
2. Shehnaz Banu Mohd.Khan,
Age 35 Yrs., Occ: Shop [Kirana]
residing at Ambedkar Nagar Zopadpatti,
Cuffe Parade, R.No.367, Near Saibaba
Mandir, Waswani Marg, Mumbai- 5. ... Appellants.
V/s.
State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent
D.G.Khamkar for the appellants.
Smt.V.R.Bhonsale, APP for the State.
CORAM: MRS.V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
MR.V.L.ACHLIYA, JJ.
DATED: 25/26th October 2013.
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J)
The appellants- original accused Nos.1 and 2 have directed
this appeal against the judgment and order dated 11 th July 2008 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case
No.959/2006. By the said judgment and order the learned Sessions
SKN 2/31 932.08-apeal
Judge has convicted both the appellants under section 302 and 201
read with section 34 of I.P.C. For the offense under section 302 of I.P.C.,
the appellants were sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of
Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer R.I. for one year and for the offence
under section 201 read with section 34 of I.P.C. the appellants were
sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in
default to suffer R.I. for one year. The learned Sessions Judge directed
that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
2. Appellant No.1 is the husband of appellant No.2.
Deceased Mehnaz was the daughter of the appellants. She was
approximately 18 years old at the time of incident. They were residing
in a hut in Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Nagar Zopadpatti at Cuffe Parade,
Mumbai. The appellant No.1 owned grocery shop which was situated
close to his residence. In the grocery shop appellant No.1 used to
keep various articles of food like Masoor Dal etc. The name of the
shop was "G.N.Stores". The house of P.W.9- Vidyanand was also
situated near the house of Mehnaz. Mehnaz fell in love with P.W.9-
Vidyanand. On 29 th June 2006, Vidyanand went to house of Mehnaz.
Appellant No.1- Munna Khan was present in the house. Vidyanand
told him that he loved his elder daughter Mehnaz and she also loves
him and they want to get married. Thereupon appellant No.1
threatened Vidyanand to go away. After Munna Khan went to the
shop, Mehnaz came out of the house and met Vidyanand. She told him
that as her parents came to know about their affair, they should run
away from the house. Both of them then went to CST Railway
Station. They boarded a train to go to Panvel where the maternal aunt
of Vidyanand, namely, Hashibai was residing. During the journey,
SKN 3/31 932.08-apeal
Mehnaz showed Vidyanand her left palm on which letters "V" and "M"
were written by Mehandi. Mehnaz explained to Vidyanand that V
stands for Vidyanand and M stands for Mehnaz and told him that she
loves him a lot. Vidyanand and Mehnaz reached the house of maternal
aunt of Vidyanand at about 11.30 p.m. His aunt enquired who the girl
was. Thereupon Vidyanand informed his aunt that she is his
girlfriend. After taking dinner Vidyanand slept in the outer room and
Mehnaz slept in the inner room with his grandmother. On the next day
i.e. 30th June 2006, in the morning, Vidyanand and Mehnaz made a
phone call to the shop of appellant No.1- Munna Khan. The younger
brother of Mehnaz attended the phone. He handed over the phone to
appellant No.2 i.e. the mother of Mehnaz. She asked Mehnaz whether
she is okay and told her to come home. Mehnaz told her mother that
she is okay and her mother should not worry. She also told her mother
that she would return home only after her mother consents to their
marriage. Her mother told Mehnaz that they would consent to the
marriage and requested her to come back. Mehnaz expressed a doubt
that her father would not agree to the marriage. Thereupon her
mother told her that she would convince her father. Mother of Mehnaz
then handed the phone to the mother of Vidyanand. Vidyanand's
mother told that the parents of Mehnaz have agreed and hence they
should return home. They then returned back to Cuffe Parade at about
12.30 p.m. Vidyanand suggested Mehnaz to come to his house and
said that they should call her parents to his house and talk with them.
However, Mehnaz asked him to go home and told that she would talk to
her parents and thereafter contact him. Mehnaz then went to her
house. On the same day i.e. 30 th June 2006, in the night at about 8.00
p.m., appellant No.2 i.e. mother of Mehnaz came to the house of
SKN 4/31 932.08-apeal
Vidyanand and told him that Mehnaz would never meet him and has
forgotten him. Appellant No.2 also told Vidyanand that he should also
forget Mehnaz and should not meet her. Vidyanand told her that she
is speaking lie and Mehnaz would never forget him. On the next day
i.e. 1st July 2006, at 9.30 a.m., Vidyanand received a call from Mehnaz
on his cellphone. She asked him to meet her near the public toilet.
When he met her at the said place, Mehnaz told Vidyanand that her
parents had cheated them and that they did not consent to the
marriage. Saying so, Mehnaz told him that they should immediately go
and get married, to which Vidyanand agreed. Mehnaz and Vidyanand
again went to Panvel. They purchased Mangalsutra, Kumkum and
green bangles. They then went to the Shankar Temple at Panvel. In
the temple, Vidyanand tied Mangalsutra on the neck of Mehnaz and
put Kumkum on her head. Thereafter they went to the house of
maternal aunt of Vidyanand at Panvel. They called up the shop of
appellant No.1- Munna Khan i.e. father of Mehnaz. Appellant No.1
was not in the shop and brother of Mehnaz was in the shop. They
informed him that they got married. Vidyanand also informed his
parents about the marriage. His parents told him that they are coming
to Panvel. At about 7.30 p.m, the parents of Mehnaz i.e. the
appellants; P.W.3- Merry who was residing in the neighbourhood of
Mehnaz and one Issan Chacha, who was the friend of Munna Khan,
came there. The parents of Vidyanand also arrived there.
Immediately after the parents of Mehnaz came there, her parents i.e.
the appellants said that they would take Mehnaz back with them right
now. Appellant No.1 caught hold of the hand of Mehnaz and started
pulling her. The persons accompanying the appellants questioned
appellant No.1 as to why he was doing so when he had promised while
SKN 5/31 932.08-apeal
leaving the house that he would perform the marriage of Mehnaz and
Vidyanand. However, appellant No.1 did not listen and continued
pulling Mehnaz in spite of the fact that she was not ready to go with
him. Mehnaz told her father that she would not go with him even if he
chopped her hands. Mehnaz was scared of her parents and said that
they should send an application to the Cuffe Parade Police Station.
P.W.12- Rajendra, the cousin of Vidyanand wrote the application
(Exh.30). In the said application, it was written that Mehnaz and
Vidyanand love each other and wanted to marry but the parents of
Mehnaz opposed the marriage on the ground of religion and, if
anything happens to them, it would be the responsibility of the parents
of Mehnaz. Appellant No.1- Munna Khan signed the application.
Appellant No.2 was also asked to sign the application, but she told that
she is not able to sign and as a stamp pad was not available her thumb
impression also could not be obtained. P.W.5- Alka Jadhav signed the
said application. At about 8.45 to 9.00 p.m., all of them reached near
Cuffe Parade Police Station. Appellant No.1- Munna Khan said that
Mehnaz is his daughter and there is no danger to her life from him. He
said that however if the application is given to the Police Station, he
would be humiliated and there would be difficulty in performing the
marriage of the other children. Appellant No.1- Munna Khan said that
they would arrange the marriage of Mehnaz and Vidyanand within a
month. On account of this, the application was not given to the Cuffe
Parade Police Station and the said application was handed over to
Vidyanand. They all then went to their respective houses. Mehnaz
went with her parents to her parents' home. This occurred on 1 st July
2006 at about 11.30 p.m.
SKN 6/31 932.08-apeal
3. On 2nd July 2006, at about 10.00 a.m., the pieces of dead
body of Mehnaz were found near Byculla Bridge in Mumbai in two
plastic bags. P.W.1- A.S.I.- Ghorpade of Nagpada Police Station
received information that body of a person is lying near Byculla Bridge
under a Maruti Car, hence he reached the spot. He found one bag near
the rear wheels of a Maruti Car. There was one more gunny bag. Both
the bags were next to each other. On opening the gunny bags, in one
bag two hands up to fore arms, two legs below knee, head with neck,
face disfigured by removing nose and right ear were found. In the
second bag, one piece from pelvis to chest, one piece from chest to
neck, two upper arms, two thigh pieces were found. On this gunny bag
it was written in Gujrathi script "Uttam Darjyachi Masoor Dal". The
letters "G. N." were also found written on this gunny bag. P.W.1- A.S.I.
Ghorpade then lodged FIR on behalf of the State. Thereafter
investigation commenced. The photographs of the pieces of the dead
body were also taken. P.W.34- Abdul took out the photographs of the
said dead body. P.W.3- Merry, P.W.4- Annu and P.W.9- Vidyanand
identified from the photographs that the pieces of the body were of
Mehnaz. The appellants came to be arrested on 17 th July 2006 along
with their daughter Gulnaz. As Gulnaz was juvenile in conflict with
law she was sent before the Juvenile Justice Board. The dead body of
Mehnaz was sent for postmortem. P.W.27- Dr.Chikhalkar performed
postmortem on the dead body of Mehnaz. In his opinion, all pieces of
dead body were that of a woman. They arranged all the pieces in
anatomical position and found that all the parts of the body were
present. Dr.Chikhalkar found following injuries on the dead body of
Mehnaz:
SKN 7/31 932.08-apeal
1) Contused Abrasion on anterior middle
aspect of neck. Left lateral side 3 cm. away from
midline in number of varying sizes: 0.5 cm to 1
cm. o.5 cm. away from each other.
2) Contused abrasion on Rt. anterior middle
part of neck. Rt. lateral side 3 cm. away from
midline 0.5 cm. size.
3) Ligature mark around neck, transverse
below thyroid cartilage blackish brown in colour
running anterior side to posterior deficient in left
lateral side of neck of size 15 cm. x 0.4 cm. to
right from midline extending on Rt.side upto the
anterior part of sternomastoid.
4) Nail abrasion marks 2 in numbers on chin.
5) Contused abrasion on back of neck (lower
part) oblique. 4 x 0.5 cm.
Internal injuries on dissection of neck-
Soft tissue of neck and and muscles showed in
filtration of blood at the site of contusion and
ligature mark. Fracture of greater cornu of
hyoidbone on left side.
Postmortem injuries-
1) Disfigurement of face, skin, flesh over left
and Rt.side of cheek, tip of nose, both lips,
mandible and Rt. Ear.
2) Decapitation of neck.
3) Complete cutting of Trunk of mid
abdominal level.
4) Complete Amputation of Rt. and Lt.
shoulder joint at anatomical joint level.
5) Amputation of Rt. & Lt. elbow joint.
6) Amputation of Rt. & Lt. hip joint.
7) Amputation of Rt. & Lt. Knee joint.
All extremities are separate at anatomical joint
level.
According to Dr.Chikhalkar, injury Nos.1 to 5 were anti-mortem and
injury Nos.1 to 7 were postmortem injuries. The postmortem report
also shows that the tongue was caught in between the teeth. It further
SKN 8/31 932.08-apeal
shows that during postmortem on the left palm of the deceased, the
initials V and M were found written in Mehandi. According to
Dr.Chikhalkar, death was caused due to Asphyxia due to compression of
neck. Thus from the postmortem notes it is seen that Mehnaz was first
strangulated to death and thereafter her body was cut into pieces, put
into gunny bags and the bags were thrown near Byculla Bridge. After
completion of investigation, chargesheet came to be filed. In due
course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
4. Charge came to be framed against the appellants under
section 302 read with section 34 of I.P.C. and under section 201 read
with section 34 of I.P.C. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the said
charge and claimed to be tried. Their defence is that of total denial
and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in
this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the
appellants as stated in para-1 above, hence this appeal.
5. We have heard the learned advocate for the appellants-
original accused Nos.1 and 2 and the learned A.P.P. for the State. We
have carefully perused the evidence in this case as well as the judgment
and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. After carefully
considering the matter, for the reasons mentioned hereinbelow, we are
of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal.
6. There is no eye witness in the present case and the case is
based entirely on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances against
the appellants are as under:
(i) Motive
SKN 9/31 932.08-apeal
(ii) Last seen. The deceased was last seen alive going with
her parents to their house. Thereafter on the next day her
dead body was found near Byculla Bridge.
(iii) The pieces of dead body of Mehnaz were found in two
bags. One of the bags had the words "Uttam Darjyachi
Masoor Dal" and initials "G.N." written on it and the evidence
of P.W.15 to 19 and P.W.21 shows that this bag was delivered
to the shop of appellant No.1.
(iv) Conduct of the appellants.
7. As far as motive is concerned, the prosecution has relied on
the evidence of P.W.9- Vidyanand, P.W.10- Stephan and P.W.12- Rajendra.
P.W.9- Vidyanand was in love with deceased Mehnaz. He was also
residing in Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Nagar at Cuffe Parade where
Mehnaz was residing with her family and where appellant No.1- Munna
Khan was running a grocery shop. The grocery shop was next to the
house of Vidyanand. The house of the appellants was situated about 2-
3 houses away from the shop of appellant No.1. Vidyanand has stated
that he used to go to the shop of appellant No.1. Due to this he got
acquainted with Mehnaz as Mehnaz also used to sit in the shop. They
both fell in love. On 29th June 2006, Vidyanand went to house of
Mehnaz. Appellant No.1- Munna Khan was present in the house.
Vidyanand told Munna Khan that he loved his elder daughter Mehnaz
and she also loved him and they want to get married. Thereupon
appellant No.1 threatened Vidyanand and asked him to go away. After
Munna Khan went to the shop, Mehnaz came out of the house and met
Vidyanand. She told him that as her parents had come to know about
their affair, they should run away from the house. Both of them then
went to CST Railway Station. They boarded a train to go to Panvel
where the maternal aunt of Vidyanand, namely, Hashibai was residing.
SKN 10/31 932.08-apeal
During the journey, Mehnaz showed Vidyanand her left palm on which
letters "V" and "M" were written by Mehandi. Mehnaz explained to
Vidyanand that V stands for Vidyanand and M stands for Mehnaz and
told him that she loves him a lot. Vidyanand and Mehnaz reached the
house of maternal aunt of Vidyanand at about 11.30 p.m. His aunt
enquired who the girl was. Thereupon Vidyanand informed his aunt
that she is his girlfriend. After taking dinner Vidyanand slept in the
outer room and Mehnaz slept in the inner room with his grandmother.
On the next day i.e. 30th June 2006, in the morning, Vidyanand and
Mehnaz made a phone call to the shop of appellant No.1- Munna Khan.
The younger brother of Mehnaz attended the phone. He handed over
the phone to appellant No.2 i.e. the mother of Mehnaz. She asked
Mehnaz whether she is okay and told her to come home. Mehnaz told
her mother that she is okay and her mother should not worry. She also
told her mother that she would return home only after her mother
consents to their marriage. Her mother told that they would consent
to her marriage and requested her to come back. Mehnaz expressed a
doubt that her father would not agree to the marriage. Thereupon her
mother told her that she would convince her father. Mother of Mehnaz
then handed over the phone to the mother of Vidyanand. Vidyanand's
mother told that the parents of Mehnaz have agreed and hence they
should return home. They then returned back to Cuffe Parade at about
12.30 p.m. Vidyanand suggested Mehnaz to come to his house and
they should call her parents to his house and talk to them. However,
Mehnaz asked him to go home and told him that she would talk to her
parents and thereafter contact him. Mehnaz then went to her house.
On the same day i.e. 30 th June 2006, in the night at about 8.00 p.m.,
appellant No.2 i.e. mother of Mehnaz came to the house of Vidyanand
SKN 11/31 932.08-apeal
and told him that Mehnaz would never meet him and has forgotten
him. Appellant No.2 also told Vidyanand that he should also forget
Mehnaz and should not meet her. Vidyanand told her that she is
speaking lie and Mehnaz would never forget him. This shows that
appellant No.2 was totally against the idea of Mehnaz and Vidyanand
getting married and she was doing her best to break the relationship
between Mehnaz and Vidyanand. Therefore, when both of them got
married she due to being enraged had strong motive to cause the death
of Mehnaz. On the next day i.e. 1 st July 2006, at 9.30 a.m.,
Vidyanand received a call from Mehnaz on his cellphone. She asked
him to meet her near the public toilet. When he met her at the said
place, Mehnaz told Vidyanand that her parents had cheated them and
that they did not consent to the marriage. Saying so, Mehnaz told him
that they should immediately go and get married, to which Vidyanand
agreed. Mehnaz and Vidyanand again went to Panvel. They
purchased Mangalsutra, Kumkum and green bangles. They then went
to the Shankar Temple at Panvel. In the temple, Vidyanand tied
Mangalsutra on the neck of Mehnaz and put Kumkum on her head.
Thereafter they went to the house of maternal aunt of Vidyanand at
Panvel. They called up the shop of appellant No.1- Munna Khan i.e.
father of Mehnaz. Appellant No.1 was not in the shop and brother of
Mehnaz was in the shop. They informed him that they got married.
Vidyanand also informed his parents about the marriage. His parents
told him that they are coming to Panvel. At about 7.30 p.m, the
parents of Mehnaz i.e. the appellants; P.W.3- Merry who was residing in
the neighbourhood of Mehnaz and P.W.5- Alka Jadhav neighbour of the
appellants and others came there. The parents of Vidyanand also
arrived there. Immediately after the parents of Mehnaz came there,
SKN 12/31 932.08-apeal
her parents i.e. the appellants said that they would take Mehnaz back
with them right away. Appellant No.1 caught hold of the hand of
Mehnaz and started pulling her. The persons accompanying the
appellants questioned appellant No.1 as to why he was doing so when
he had promised while leaving the house that he would perform the
marriage of Mehnaz and Vidyanand. However, appellant No.1 did not
listen and continued pulling Mehnaz in spite of the fact that she was
not ready to go with him. Mehnaz told her father that she would not
go with him even if he chopped her hands. Mehnaz was scared of
her parents and said that they should give an application to the Cuffe
Parade Police Station. P.W.12- Rajendra, the cousin of Vidyanand wrote
the application (Exh.30). In the said application, it was written that
Mehnaz and Vidyanand love each other and wanted to marry but the
parents of Mehnaz opposed the marriage on the ground of religion and,
if anything happens to them, it would be the responsibility of the
parents of Mehnaz. Appellant No.1- Munna Khan signed the
application. Appellant No.2 was also asked to sign the application, but
she told that she was not able to sign and as a stamp pad was not
available her thumb impression also could not be obtained. P.W.5- Alka
Jadhav signed the said application. At about 8.45 to 9.00 p.m., all of
them reached near Cuffe Parade Police Station. Appellant No.1-
Munna Khan said that Mehnaz is his daughter and there is no danger to
her life from him. He said that however if the application is given to
the Police Station, he would be humiliated and there would be difficulty
in performing the marriage of the other children. Appellant No.1-
Munna Khan said that they would arrange the marriage of Mehnaz and
Vidyanand within a month. On account of this, the application was not
given to the Cuffe Parade Police Station and the said application was
SKN 13/31 932.08-apeal
handed over to Vidyanand. They all then went to their respective
houses. Mehnaz went with her parents to her parents' home.
8. Thus, the evidence of Vidyanand shows that he and
Mehnaz were in love with each other and they wanted to get married.
However, the appellants i.e. the parents of Mehnaz were against the
marriage. The appellants gave false assurance that they would get
Mehnaz and Vidyanand married and requested Mehnaz to return home.
Due to this Mehnaz and Vidyanand returned back to Cuffe Parade.
However, when they returned back, on the very same night, appellant
No.2 went to the house of P.W.9- Vidyanand and told him that Mehnaz
would not meet him again and has forgotten him. She also told
Vidyanand that he should also forget Mehnaz and should not meet her.
Vidyanand told appellant No.2 that Mehnaz would never forget him.
On the very next day i.e. 1st July 2006 at about 9.30 a.m., Mehnaz met
Vidyanand and told him that her parents had cheated them and that her
parents did not consent to their marriage. Saying so, Mehnaz told him
that they should immediately go and get married and, accordingly, they
ran away on 1st July 2006 and got married. They informed the brother
of Mehnaz that they had got married at Panvel. At about 7.30 p.m.,
the parents of Mehnaz along with others came to Panvel and told that
they would take Mehnaz back with them right away. The appellant
No.1 caught hold of the hand of Mehnaz and started pulling her.
Mehnaz was not ready to go with the appellants. However, the
appellants falsely stated that they would get Vidyanand and Mehnaz
married within a month and on this false promise they brought Mehnaz
back with them. Thereafter the dead body of Mehnaz was found the
next day morning. From the evidence of Vidyanand it is seen that the
SKN 14/31 932.08-apeal
appellants were dead against the marriage of Vidyanand and their
daughter Mehnaz and due to this they murdered her.
9. There is an application (Exh.30) written by P.W.12-
Rajendra. In the said application, it was written that Mehnaz and
Vidyanand love each other and wanted to marry but the parents of
Mehnaz opposed the marriage on the ground of religion and, if
anything happens to Mehnaz and Vidyanand, it would be the
responsibility of the parents of Mehnaz. Appellant No.1- Munna Khan
signed the application. Appellant No.2 was also asked to sign the
application, but she told that she is not able to sign and as a stamp pad
was not available, her thumb impression also could not be obtained.
P.W.5- Alka Jadhav signed the said application. At about 8.45 to 9.00
p.m., all of them reached near Cuffe Parade Police Station. Appellant
No.1- Munna Khan said that Mehnaz is his daughter and there is no
danger to her life from him. He, however, said that if the application is
given to the Police Station, he would be humiliated and there would be
difficulty in performing the marriage of the other children. Appellant
No.1- Munna Khan said that they would arrange the marriage of
Mehnaz and Vidyanand within a month. On account of this, the
application was not given to the Cuffe Parade Police Station and it was
handed over to Vidyanand. They all then went to their respective
houses. Mehnaz went with her parents to her parents' home. This
occurred on 1st July 2006. The application (Exh.30) shows that the
appellants were dead against the marriage of Mehnaz and Vidyanand.
10. On 1st July 2006, when the appellants i.e. the parents of
Mehnaz gave false promise that they will arrange the marriage of P.W.9-
SKN 15/31 932.08-apeal
Vidyanand and Mehnaz, due to earlier incident, Mehnaz did not believe
her parents and hence she suggested that they should go to the Police
Station and give the said application (Exh.30) written by them. The
evidence of P.W.3- Merry clearly shows that Mehnaz did not trust her
parents and she still apprehended that her parents would cause her
some harm. P.W.12- Rajendra wrote the said application (Exh.30).
Rajendra has stated that on 1st July 2006, when he was present at home
at Panvel, P.W.9- Vidyanand and Mehnaz came to his house. Vidyanand
informed him that he and Mehnaz got married in Shankar Temple at
Panvel. Vidyanand also told him that despite the opposition of the
parents of Mehnaz he came there with Mehnaz and got married with
her. Vidyanand told him that parents of Mehnaz opposed the
marriage because they were Muslim and he was Hindu by religion.
P.W.12 further stated that the said girl had worn pink colour sari and
Mangalsutra. He also noticed Sindur and Kumkum on her forehead.
P.W.12- Rajendra has further stated that on the same day i.e. 1 st July
2006 at about 6.30 p.m., the parents of Mehnaz came there. He has
identified both the appellants before the Court. The parents of Mehnaz
were telling that they would take away their daughter and started
pulling Mehnaz. Mehnaz was not ready to go with her parents. The
woman accompanying the parents of Mehnaz was scolding the parents
of Mehnaz saying that when they had agreed in Mumbai that they
would perform the marriage of Vidyanand and Mehnaz then after
coming to Panvel why they were changing their words. Vidyanand and
Mehnaz were asking the appellants to give in writing in the Police
Station that if anything wrong happens to them, the appellants would
be responsible. The appellants agreed to accept such responsibility.
Thereafter P.W.12- Rajendra wrote the application (Exh.30) addressed
SKN 16/31 932.08-apeal
to Cuffe Parade Police Station. The application was dated 1 st July
2006. In the said application, it was written that Mehnaz and
Vidyanand love each other and wanted to marry but the parents of
Mehnaz opposed the marriage on the ground of religion and, if
anything happens to them, it would be the responsibility of the parents
of Mehnaz. Appellant No.1- Munna Khan signed the application.
Appellant No.2 was also asked to sign the application, but she told that
she is not able to sign and as a stamp pad was not available her thumb
impression also could not be obtained. P.W.5- Alka Jadhav signed the
said application. At about 8.45 to 9.00 p.m., all of them reached near
Cuffe Parade Police Station. Appellant No.1- Munna Khan said that
Mehnaz is his daughter and there is no danger to her life from him. He,
however, said that if the application is given to the Police Station, he
would be humiliated and there would be difficulty in performing the
marriage of the other children. Appellant No.1- Munna Khan said that
they would arrange the marriage of Mehnaz and Vidyanand within a
month. On account of this, the application was not given to the Cuffe
Parade Police Station and the said application was handed over to
Vidyanand. They all then went to their respective houses. Mehnaz
went with her parents to her parents' home.
11. Thus, the evidence of P.W.9- Vidyanand and P.W.12-
Rajendra shows that the appellants had strong motive to do away with
their daughter. They were totally against the marriage of their
daughter Mehnaz with Vidyanand and they were very angry and due to
this they wanted to bring their daughter Mehnaz back with them.
However, their daughter was not wiling to come back with them unless
they promised to get Vidyanand and Mehnaz married. P.W10- Stephen
SKN 17/31 932.08-apeal
is the other witness who has deposed on this aspect. His evidence
shows the motive for the appellants to commit the crime. This witness
has stated that he was informed that Mehnaz had eloped with
Vidyanand. He went to appellant No.1 i.e. father of Mehnaz and
suggested that appellants should lodge complaint with the Police
Station. Mehnaz's father, however, did not lodge complaint and said
that as his daughter has eloped, even if she returns back he would not
take her in the house and she was dead for him. This shows that the
appellants were furious because of the act of their daughter Mehnaz of
running away with Vidyanand and getting married. Thus, the evidence
of these three witnesses i.e. P.W9, P.W.10 and P.W.12 shows the motive
for the appellants to commit the crime.
12. The next circumstance against the appellants is of last seen.
P.W.3- Merry, P.W.5-Alka, P.W.9- Vidyanand, P.W.10- Stephen and P.W.12-
Rajendra have deposed on the aspect of last seen. It is pertinent to note
that Mehnaz was last seen alive on the night of 1 st July 2006 at about
11.30 p.m. Thereafter the dead body of Mehnaz was seen on the next
day at about 10.00 a.m. The dead body was found cut into pieces and
stuffed into gunny bags which were found near Byculla Bridge. P.W.3-
Merry has stated that on 1 st July 2006 when she went along with the
parents of Mehnaz to Panvel, she noticed that Mehnaz had performed
marriage as she noticed Sindur on her head and green colour bangles.
The parents of Mehnaz i.e. the appellants asked Mehnaz to accompany
them. However, Mehnaz refused to accompany them. Appellant No.1
told Mehnaz that he would perform their marriage within a month.
Still Mehnaz was not ready. Then the application (Exh.30) was
written. P.W.3 and others signed the application. Merry has identified
SKN 18/31 932.08-apeal
the application Exh.30. P.W.3- Merry has stated that thereafter they
returned back to Cuffe Parade. She has stated that appellant No.1 did
not allow them to give that application to the police station. Thereafter
parents of Mehnaz went to their house at 11.30 p.m with Mehnaz. On
the next day, at about 6.00 to 7.00 p.m. P.W.3- Merry made enquiries
about Mehnaz with the appellants. They told her that she had gone to
her maternal uncle's place. Thus, according to this witness, Mehnaz
was last seen at 11.30 p.m. on 1 st July 2006 when she went with her
parents to their house.
13.
P.W.5- Alka is the next witness who has deposed on the
aspect of last seen. This witness has also deposed about going to
Panvel along with appellants, P.W.3- Merry and others. She noticed
that Mehnaz had got married. She also deposed about the application
(Exh.30). She has further deposed that appellant No.1 was requesting
not to file complaint, hence they did not file any complaint. Thereafter
Mehnaz went to the house of appellant No.1 and Mehnaz was not seen
alive thereafter. The evidence of P.W.9- Vidyanand also shows that
they all returned back to Cuffe Parade from Panvel, at 11.30 p.m. and
thereafter Mehnaz was taken to the house by her parents. The
evidence of P.W.10- Stephen also shows that Mehnaz, appellants and
others had returned back at 11.30 p.m. This shows that Mehnaz was
last seen on 1st July 2006 at 11.30 p.m. with her parents. The evidence
of P.W.12- Rajendra also shows that on 1 st July 2006 Vidyanand came to
Panvel with Mehnaz and informed him that they got married. On the
same day, at about 6.30 p.m. The parents of Mehnaz i.e. the appellants
came there along with some other persons. He has identified the
appellants as the parents of Mehnaz. He stated that he wrote the
SKN 19/31 932.08-apeal
application (Exh.30). In the said application, it was written that
Mehnaz and Vidyanand love each other and wanted to marry but the
parents of Mehnaz opposed the marriage on the ground of religions
and, if anything happens to them, it would be the responsibility of the
parents of Mehnaz. At about 8.45 to 9.00 p.m., all of them reached
near Cuffe Parade Police Station. Appellant No.1- Munna Khan said
that Mehnaz is his daughter and there is no danger to her life from him.
He, however, said that if the application is given to the Police Station,
he would be humiliated and there would be difficulty in performing the
marriage of the other children. Appellant No.1- Munna Khan said that
they would arrange the marriage of Mehnaz and Vidyanand within a
month. On account of this, the application was not given to the Cuffe
Parade Police Station and was handed over to Vidyanand. They all
then went to their respective houses. Mehnaz went with her parents to
her parents' home. Thus, the evidence of P.W.12- Rajendra also
shows that Mehnaz went to her home along with her parents at
approximately about 11.30 p.m. on 1st July 2006 and thereafter her
dead body was found on the next day at 10.00 a.m. The evidence of
P.W.3, P.W9, P.W10, P.W.12 taken together establishes that the appellants
and Mehnaz went to their house at 11.30 p.m. on 1 st July 2006 and
thereafter Mehnaz was not seen alive by anybody.
14. Mr.Khamkar, learned advocate for the appellants submitted
that the evidence of the witnesses on last seen cannot be relied upon
because the evidence of P.W.3- Merry shows that after Mehnaz was
brought back on 1st July 2006, that night at 12.30 a.m. Mehnaz was
seen going away with one Issan whose whereabouts are not known. It
is to be noted that the prosecution had preferred an application for
SKN 20/31 932.08-apeal
declaring P.W.3- Merry hostile. However, the said application was not
allowed. Moreover, the evidence of P.W.10- Stephen who is the husband
of P.W.3- Merry is material. Stephen has admitted that his wife has
been threatened in relation to giving evidence in this case and due to
this she has also lodged complaint in the police station. It is on
account of these factors we are not inclined to place reliance on the
solitary statement of P.W.3- Merry that at about 12.30 a.m. she had seen
Mehnaz going away with one Issan.
15. The appellants were residing in one room in Cuffe Parade
Zopadpatti. It is a room of 10 ft. x 10 ft.. Appellants i.e. husband and
wife were living there with Mehnaz and minor children. The fact that
Mehnaz was murdered, cut in 11 pieces and then packed in two gunny
bags and then thrown near Byculla Bridge shows that it was not the
handy work of one person but more than one person were involved in
the crime. Both the appellants had strong motive to commit the
crime. If appellant No.2 was against the idea of appellant No.1 of
committing murder of her daughter Mehnaz, she would have put up
resistance and protected her daughter. However, it is seen that at the
time of arrest neither appellant No.2 nor appellant No.1 had any injury
on their person. This shows that both the appellants shared the
common intention to murder Mehnaz and thereafter cut her dead body
into pieces and threw it near Byculla Bridge.
16. Mr.Khamkar submitted that in a case of last seen, the time
gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were
last seen alive and the deceased is found dead should be so small that
the possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of
SKN 21/31 932.08-apeal
the crime was ruled out. He has placed reliance on the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy v.
State of A.P., 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1533 (SC) wherein the above
observations have been made. In the present case, P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.9
and P.W.12 have stated that they had seen deceased Mehnaz going with
the appellant to their house at about 11.30 p.m. on 1 st July 2006 and
the next morning at 10.00 a.m. the dead body of Mehnaz was found cut
in 11 pieces and packed in two gunny bags. Thus, the time gap
between the point of time when the accused and deceased were last
seen and the deceased was found dead and the circumstances in the
present case are such that it would exclude the possibility of any other
person than the appellants being the authors of the crime.
17. The decision in the case of Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna
Reddy (supra) was also relied upon to submit that the motive is not
sufficient to prove the crime. We are in respectful agreement with this
proposition. However, in the present case, we are not relying only on
motive to uphold the conviction but we are also relying on the
circumstances of last seen and other circumstances which would be
discussed hereinafter.
18. The dead body of Mehnaz was found on 2 nd July 2006 cut
into pieces and packed into two gunny bags which were found near
Byculla Bridge. One of the bags in which the pieces of dead body of
Mehnaz were kept was found bearing the words "Uttam Darjyachi
Masoor Dal" and had initials "G.N." written on it. The evidence of
P.W.15 to P.W.19 and P.W.21 taken together shows that the said gunny
bags were delivered to the shop of appellant No.1. P.W.15- Lala Yadav
SKN 22/31 932.08-apeal
has stated that he was working as Supervisor with Pradhan Transport.
The nature of his work was to supply goods to the customers as per
their orders. He possessed a truck bearing No.MH-4 BG 4582. On
17th April 2006 he loaded goods in their truck for delivery in Colaba.
They parked their vehicle in Ambedkar Nagar, Cuffe Parade on that day.
There was Masoor Dal in a jute bag which was to be delivered to the
shop named G.N.Stores. Alphabets G.N. were written on the said jute
bag. The said jute bag was handed over to coolie named Hasmatali
(P.W.17) for being delivered in the shop along with bill No.810. The
said coolie- Hasmatali delivered the said bag at the shop. This witness
has identified the muddemal article No.5 jute gunny bag as the same
bag. He has also identified the muddemal article-G as the same bill
No.810 which was sent along with the bag of Masoor Dal.
19. P.W.17- Hasmatali was working as a coolie with Pradhan
Transport at Vashi. He has stated in his evidence that the nature of his
work was to carry goods by transporting them to the shop of customers
as per the directions of the supervisor. Hasmatali has further stated
that on 17th April 2006 he was working as coolie on Truck No.MH-4 BG
4582. P.W.15- Lala was the Supervisor. On that day, they had gone to
Colaba Cuffe Parade area for delivery of the goods. They made
delivery of the goods i.e. Masoor Dal at G.N.Stores in Colaba Cuffe
Parade area. Hasmatali had personally delivered Masoor Dal to the
said G.N.Stores. At that time, appellant No.1- Munna Khan was
present in the shop. Masoor Dal was delivered to Munna Khan on that
day. He has identified the gunny bag as well as the bill as the very
same bag and bill which was delivered by him on 17 th April 2006 to
appellant No.1.
SKN 23/31 932.08-apeal
20. P.W.16- Mahipatsingh was the Salesman in Navneet Trading
Company at Vashi. He has stated that the nature of his work was to
sell the goods on behalf of the company. His company sells articles
such as Dal, rice, and wheat. His company purchased goods from one
agent- Karsandas Kangi in the month of April 2006. The company had
purchased Masoor Dal from the above agent. Masoor Dal was the
product of Uttam Dal Mill, Indoor. His company had purchased 13
bags of Masoor Dal. Thereafter his company sold the said goods to
various customers. Mahipatsingh has stated that on 15th April 2006
their company had sold Masoor Dal to G.N.Stores, Colaba. One bag of
Masoor Dal was sold to the said shop under bill No.810. The goods
were sent through Truck No.MH-4 BG 4582. Mahipatsingh has further
stated that they put the letters "G.N." for identification of the said
gunny bag at the time of dispatch of the goods. He has identified the
gunny bag as well as bill No.810.
21. P.W.18- Kishor was working in Navneet Trading Company
as a Delivery Boy. He has stated that whenever a customer receipt
comes to their company from the coolie working on the vehicle, he put
the marking on the consignment to be dispatched by verifying the
name of the customer from the receipt. He put marking on the
consignment with green colour. He has stated that the marking "G.N."
seen on article-5 i.e. gunny bag, in which pieces of Mehnaz were found,
was made by him and it was sent for delivery in Colaba area on 15 th
April 2006 against bill No.810 in Truck No. MH-4 BG 4582. He has
identified the gunny bag as well as the bill No.810 as the very same
articles.
SKN 24/31 932.08-apeal
22. P.W.21- Suresh was working as broker in MBNC market at
Vashi. He has stated that in the month of February 2006, Munnabhai,
the owner of G.N.Stores had come to him to purchase goods. He has
identified the appellant No.1 as the same person. He has further stated
that the shop of Munnabhai was located in Cuffe Parade. On 15 th April
2006, proprietor of Sohan Stores and Munnabhai had come to him to
purchase goods. The proprietor of G.N.Stores i.e. Munnabhai had
purchased Masoor Dal weighing 50 kgs. while proprietor of Sohan
Stores had also purchased same types of goods. Munnabhai had
purchased Masoor Dal against bill No.810 and the proprietor of Sohan
Stores had purchased goods under bill No.809. He delivered the goods
at the above shops through Pradhan Transport. The letters "G.N." were
written on the consignment to be delivered to G.N.Stores. The Delivery
Boy Kishor had made the marking "G.N." on the said bag. This witness
has identified the gunny bag article-5 as the same bag in which Masoor
Dal was sold to appellant No.1. He has also identified bill Nos.809 and
810. He has also identified article-G as the same bill No.810. He has
stated that the name was mentioned in both bills as Hitesh Suresh.
Hitesh is his partner.
23. P.W.19- Gulab was also running grocery shop in Ambedkar
Nagar in Colaba by name Sohan Kirana Stores. He has stated that the
shop named G.N.Stores was adjacent to his shop. One Munnabhai was
its owner. He has identified Munnabhai as the owner of G.N.Stores.
He was acquainted with Munnabhai. Munnabhai asked him from
where he purchases goods. Thereupon he told Munnabhai that he
purchases goods from Vashi. Munnabhai also requested Gulab to get
SKN 25/31 932.08-apeal
goods through the said agent, hence Gulab took appellant No.1
Munnabhai to the agent and introduced him to the agent i.e. P.W.-21
Suresh. On 15th April 2006, Gulab as well as Munnabhai had gone to
Vashi to purchase goods. Gulab stated that on that day, appellant No.1
purchased Masoor Dal at Vashi while he also purchased Masoor Dal.
Both of them purchased one bag each of Masoor Dal through the agent
Ritesh Suresh. This witness received delivery of goods from the
supplier on 17th April 2006. This witness has stated that whenever the
goods are purchased the marking of the name of the shop is made by
the supplier on the bag. He has stated that he purchased goods on that
day under bill No.809 and the bill number under which the appellant
No.1 purchased goods was 810. This witness has identified the said
bills. Thus, the evidence of P.W.15, P.W.19 and P.W.21 shows that the
appellant No.1 purchased 50 kg. Masoor Dal which was packed in a
gunny bag on which letters "G.N." were written as the name of shop of
appellant No.1 was G.N.Stores. The said bag of Masoor Dal was
delivered to the shop of appellant No.1 under bill No.810 on 17 th April
2006. Pieces of dead body of Mehnaz were found in the very same bag
which was earlier containing Masoor Dal.
24. As far as gunny bags article-5 is concerned, it is material to
note that appellant No.1 in his statement under section 313 has
admitted the delivery of gunny bag to his shop. It is also to be noted
that appellants have also admitted that they had gone to Panvel to get
their daughter back and the application (Exh.-30) was prepared and
that appellant No.1 stated that they should not go to the police station.
All these aspects are admitted by appellant No.1 in his statement under
section 313. So also appellant No.2 has admitted that they had gone to
SKN 26/31 932.08-apeal
Panvel and a application was prepared and thereafter they did not go to
Cuffe Parade Police Station but they went to their respective houses.
25. Mr.Khamkar, learned advocate for the appellants submitted
that the bag containing Masoor Dal, which is a common item, is easily
available in the market. Mr.Khamkar, relying upon the evidence of
P.W.19- Gulab, submitted that normally the bags are thereafter disposed
of by the shop owner. However, it is to be noticed that the bag, in
which the pieces of dead body of Mehnaz were packed, was bearing the
letters "G.N." on it which is not commonly found on all the bags. It
would only be the store having name G.N. which would have the
marking as G.N. on the said bag. In these circumstances, it cannot be
said that the said bags are easily available. It is further to be noted
that the gunny bag had "Uttam Darjyachi Masoor Dal" written on it
which shows that the bag was containing Masoor Dal. As per the
evidence of P.W.19- Gulab, Masoor Dal was supplied to appellant No.1
as also to him in the bag on 17th April 2006. No doubt, normally, the
bags are thereafter disposed of but that does not mean that every shop
owner sells Masoor Dal within a short time and then disposes of the
bag. Thus, we find no merit in this contention.
26. Mr.Khamkar submitted that there is delay in recording the
statements of witnesses and due to this the entire prosecution case is
suspect. As far as this aspect is concerned, it is seen that the dead body
of Mehnaz was found on 2nd July 2006 near Byculla Bridge. This
comes under the jurisdiction of Paydhoni Police Station. Paydhoni
Police Station initially registered FIR and conducted investigation.
However, thereafter it was found that the case does not pertain to their
SKN 27/31 932.08-apeal
jurisdiction and it belongs to Cuffe Parade Police Station. Hence the
case was transferred to Cuffe Parade Police Station on 19th July 2006. It
is seen that thereafter statements of witnesses were recorded by the
Cuffe Parade Police Station. In our view, in the peculiar facts of this
case, the delay in recording the statements of witnesses would not
affect the prosecution case.
27. The prosecution tried to rely on two other circumstances
i.e. recovery of weapon i.e. knife at the instance of appellant No.1.
According to the prosecution, this weapon was used to cut the dead
body of Mehnaz into pieces. P.W.2- Rajaram is the Panch witness who
has deposed on this aspect. In addition, the prosecution is relying on
the fact that blood stains were found in the house. P.W.13- Mrs.Varsha
Rathod is the Chemical Analyzer. She has deposed that on 25 th July
2006 she was sent to visit the place of incident. The room was locked.
The appellant No.1 opened the door. On entering the room she found
reddish stains on the wall adjoining the bathroom and at various other
places. She took scraping of these stains and they were sent to the
Chemical Analyst (C.A.). The C.A. report shows that stains were of
human blood and some of them were of B-Group.
28. Mr.Khamkar submitted that the keys of the house of the
appellants were with the Police. The keys were not kept in sealed
condition with the police station. Hence it was easy for the police to
plant weapon as well as blood stains in the house of the appellant.
Mr.Khamkar relied on the evidence of P.W.36- P.I. Balkrishna Patil who
was attached to the Cuffe Parade Police Station. Mr.Patil has stated
that the keys of the house of the appellants were seized by Nagpada
SKN 28/31 932.08-apeal
Police Station during the personal search of appellant Nos.1 and 2.
However, the evidence of P.W.30- Vinayak, who was the Police Officer at
Nagpada Police Station, shows that at the time of arrest no keys were
found with the appellants. P.W.14- Govane, who is the Panch witness in
respect of arrest of the appellants, has also not deposed about any keys
being found with appellant No.1 or any of the appellants at the time of
arrest. Moreover, the arrest panchanama Ex.33 is also silent regarding
any keys being found with the appellants. P.W.36- P.I. Patil has stated
that on 21st July 2006 the keys were received at Cuffe Parade Police
Station. He has admitted that there is no reference in the Case Diary of
seizure of keys of the house of the appellants. P.W.36 has admitted that
the keys were in unsealed condition. He has categorically stated that
the keys of the house of the appellants were lying with the District
Hawaldar in unsealed condition. He was having knowledge that the
keys of the house of the appellants were lying with the District
Hawaldar of their police station. He has further admitted that when
articles are to be taken out, in that case there should be entry in the
concerned registered. Thereafter when the articles are redeposited
then again there would be entry in the concerned register. However,
there is no such entry in the register about taking the keys out and
again redepositing the same. P.W.33 is the Assistant Commissioner of
Police, Crime Branch. He was attached to Nagpada Police Station as
Senior Police Inspector on 2nd July 2006. He has stated that the keys of
the lock of the house of the appellants were not seized by any of the
officers during investigation. All these aspects show that the keys were
available all along with the Police, that too, in unsealed condition. The
discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.30, P.W.33 and P.W.36 give support to
the submission of Mr.Khamkar that the articles could have been planted
SKN 29/31 932.08-apeal
by the Police as the keys of the house of the appellants were all along in
their possession. Looking to the evidence in relation to the keys of the
house of the appellants, we are of the opinion that it would not be safe
to rely on the evidence in relation to the weapon found at the instance
of appellant No.1 and the scraping of blood from the house of the
appellants.
29. The defence of the appellants appears to be that their
daughter left the house at about 12.30 a.m. with one Issan Yadav. If
this is the stand taken by the appellants, the subsequent conduct of the
appellants appears to be most improbable, unacceptable and doubtful.
If at all Mehnaz had left her house at such odd hours, the appellants
would have searched for Mehnaz in the early morning hours at various
places including the house of P.W.9- Vidyanand and on finding that
Mehnaz was not traceable they would have immediately informed this
fact to the Police by lodging complaint. However, neither appellant
No.1 nor appellant No.2 has lodged any complaint against Issan Yadav.
Considering the previous conduct of both the appellants and the
relations between Mehnaz and Vidyanand, about the episode on 1 st July
2006, the application Exh.30 and the anger that the appellants had
towards their daughter Mehnaz, the defence of the appellants that
Mehnaz left their house in the night of 1 st July 2006 at about 12.30
midnight with Issan Yadav appears to be absolutely improbable and
unreliable. The incident occurred on 1 st July 2006. The dead body
of Mehnaz was found on 2 nd July 2006. The appellants were arrested
on 17th July 2006. Till then they did not lodge any missing complaint
with the Police or made any effort to search for Mehnaz. On the other
hand, they gave false information to the neighbours. Appellant No.2
SKN 30/31 932.08-apeal
told P.W.4- Annu that Mehnaz had gone to her maternal uncle's house.
Similar story was given by appellant No.2 to P.W.10- Stephen Nadar. In
addition, P.W.3- Merry stated that both the appellants on enquiry being
made told her that Mehnaz had gone to her maternal uncle's house.
This shows that both the appellants tried to hide the true facts and gave
false stories to witnesses that Mehnaz had gone to her maternal uncle's
house at native place. This false explanation given by both the
appellants to P.W.3- Merry, by appellant No.2 to P.W.4- Annu and P.W.10-
Stephen that Mehnaz had gone to her maternal uncle's house at their
native place supplies an additional link in the chain of circumstances
against the appellants. In fact, appellant No.1 on enquiry by P.W.10-
Stephen Nadar on 4th July 2006 told that Mehnaz was sent to her native
place and he would arrange for her marriage in four to five months.
Evidence of P.W.10 also shows that appellant No.1 told him that he
would not spare Vidyanand and would set him right after four-five
months. This shows that the appellants did not forgive Mehnaz and
Vidyanand and had a grudge against their daughter Mehnaz as well as
Vidyanand. This supports the prosecution case in relation to the
motive to commit the crime.
30. Mr.Khamkar again placed reliance on the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy (supra)
wherein it is observed thus:
It is now well-settled that with a view to base a
conviction on circumstantial evidence, the
prosecution must establish all the pieces of
incriminating circumstances by reliable and
clinching evidence and the circumstances so
proved must form such a chain of events as would
SKN 31/31 932.08-apeal
permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the
accused. The circumstances cannot be on any
other hypothesis. It is also well settled that
suspicion, however, grave may be, cannot be a
substitute for proof and the Courts shall take
utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only
on the basis of the circumstantial evidence.
31. In the present case, the prosecution has established the
circumstances of motive, last seen and about the gunny bag having the
initials "G.N." on it and which was delivered at the shop of appellant
No.1 , in which the pieces of dead body of Mehnaz were found on 2 nd
July 2006. These circumstances along with conduct of the appellants
form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than
the guilt of the appellants.
32. We have carefully perused the entire record and we are of
the opinion that there is sufficient evidence to prove guilt against
appellants- accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, we find no merit
in the appeal, Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
(MR.V.L.ACHLIYA, J.) (MRS.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.)
Sanjay Nanoskar, P.S.
