Bombay High Court
Mohd Rafique Rashid Sayyed @ Lal ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 August, 2017
Bench: A.M. Badar
(202)APEALNo.2222014(J)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.222 OF 2014
Mohd. Rafique Rashid Sayyed
@ Lal Topi Farique
Aged about 30 years, occu:- Labour
Residing at:- Kumbhar Wada
Old Takia Id-gah Zopadpatti,
Room No: 1494, Tal:- Malegaon,
District : Nashik.
At present undergoing the Sentence
imposed upon them at
Taloja Prison, New Mumbai. ... Appellant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra
(at the instance of Bhoiwada
Police Station Vide their
C.R.No.174 /2011. ... Respondent
.....
Mr.Suryakant J. Shelke, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mrs.N.S.Jain, APP for the Respondent/State.
....
CORAM : A.M.BADAR J.
DATED : 28th August 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1 This is an Appeal by appellant/accused No.1 feeling
aggrieved by his conviction and sentence imposed on him on 3rd
February 2014 in Sessions Case No.128 of 2012 by the learned Ad-
Gaikwad RD 1/20
(202)APEALNo.2222014(J)
hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.58, Greater Mumbai. By
this impugned Judgment and Order, the appellant/accused No.1
came to be convicted of the offence punishable under Sections 397
and 450 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as "IPC" for the sake of brevity) as well as
Section 3 read with Section 25(1-B) (a) and under Section 27 of
the Indian Arms Act. For the offence punishable under Section
397 of the IPC, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
seven years and for the offence punishable under Section 450 read
with Section 34 of the IPC, the appellant/accused No.1 is
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. For
the offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 25(1-B)
(a) of the Indian Arms Act, the appellant/accused No.1 is
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and for the
offence punishable under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act, he is
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. The
learned trial Court had directed that all substantive sentences shall
run concurrently.
2 Briefly stated, facts giving rise to this Appeal are thus :
(a) It is case of the prosecution that P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh
Chundawat is owner of shop named as Devnarayan
Synthetics and Cloth Merchant, Haq building, Abaji Palav
Marg, Dadar (East), Mumbai. P.W.No.2 Kishansingh is his
nephew, whereas P.W.No.3 Narendrasingh is his servant.
Gaikwad RD 2/20
(202)APEALNo.2222014(J)
On 16/09/2011 at about 9.30 p.m., First Informant
P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh along with his nephew P.W.No.2
Kishansingh and P.W.No.3 Narendrasingh were present at
the shop. At that time, all of a sudden, appellant/accused
No.1 Mohd. Rafique accompanied by two co-accused
namely accused No.2 Mehboob Badshah Sahab Inamdar
and absconding accused entered into his shop. The
appellant/accused No.1 was armed with a revolver. One of
his associates was armed with a chopper. The prosecution
alleged that the robber holding the chopper threatened
P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh to give money. At that time,
appellant/accused No.1 pointed revolver at the head of
P.W.No.2 Kishansingh and threatened him not to shout.
The third robber was standing by the door keeping watch.
When this offence of robbery was going on one servant of
P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh named P.W.No.3 Narendrasingh
entered into the shop. The appellant/accused dragged him
inside the shop and threatened him. Associate of the
appellant/accused who was holding chopper snatched the
money kept at the pooja temple kept inside the shop and
when P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh tried to resist him from taking
money, he gave blow of chopper to P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh.
That blow landed on his left palm causing bleeding injury
to P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh. Threatening the inmates of the
shop not to shout and not to follow them, all robbers fled
Gaikwad RD 3/20
(202)APEALNo.2222014(J)
from the shop. However, when P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh,
P.W.No.2 Kishansingh and P.W.No.3 Narendrasingh
followed them while shouting "thief, thief". Other
neighbouring shop-owners and passers-by started chasing
robbers. Ultimately, they were successful in nabbing the
appellant/accused when he attempted to cross the road
divider and in that process had suffered a fall. Police were
informed about the incident. By reaching the spot of
incident, police took custody of appellant/accused No.1
Mohd. Rafique. A revolver as well as a big knife came to be
seized from his person. As while fleeing he fired a round
from the revolver and as his hand was smeared with
ammunition of the fire round, by using a cotton swab, the
ammunition on the hand of the appellant/accused Mohd.
Rafique came to be wiped and collected. That cotton swab
came to be seized. The report of the incident came to be
lodged immediately by P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh, which
resulted in registration of Crime No.174 of 2011 at
Bhoiwada Police Station, Mumbai for the offence
punishable under Section 394 of the IPC and Sections
3(25) and 3(27) of the Indian Arms Act as well as under
Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra
Police Act.
(b) On registration of the crime in question, wheels of
Gaikwad RD 4/20
(202)APEALNo.2222014(J)
investigation were set in motion. The spot of the crime in
question came to be inspected along with panch witnesses.
Blood-stained bed sheet and plastic bags came to be seized
from the spot of the incident. Statements of witnesses
came to be recorded. Clothes of P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh as
well as P.W.No.3 Narendrasingh came to be seized. Co-
accused i.e. accused No.2 Mehboob Badshah Sahab
Inamdar came to be arrested and on completion of
investigation, accused persons were charge-sheeted.
(c) After framing and explaining the charge, as accused
persons pleaded not guilty, trial commenced. In order to
bring home the guilt to accused persons, the prosecution
has examined in all eleven witnesses. Shaitansingh - the
First Informant as well as the victim of the crime in
question is examined as P.W.No1 and the report lodged by
him is at Exh.23. His nephew Kishansingh is examined as
P.W.No.2 whereas his servant Narendrasingh is examined
as P.W.No.3. P.W.No.4 Laxmansingh is a panch witness to
seizure of clothes of P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh as well as
P.W.No.3 Narendrasingh. P.W.No.5 Narayan Rathod is a
panch, who witnessed seizure of revolver as well as cotton
swab on which ammunition from the hand of the
appellant/accused No.1 came to be collected on the spot.
P.W.No.6 Sandesh Birmode is another panch witness, who
Gaikwad RD 5/20
(202)APEALNo.2222014(J)
has heard voluntary disclosure statement of the co-accused
and witnessed the recovery. P.W.No.7 Chandrashekhar
Bhagat is a panch witness to seizure of bed sheet and
plastic bag from the shop of P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh.
P.W.No.8 Dr.Nilesh Shende had treated P.W.No.1
Shaitansingh after the incident. P.W.No.9 Jagganath
Kamble, PSI attached with Bhoiwada Police Station had
conducted part investigation of this crime whereas
P.W.No.10 Asaram Pathare, Police Inspector had conducted
rest of the investigation. P.W.No.11 Smt.Sheela Sail, DCP
had sanctioned prosecution of the appellant/accused under
the Indian Arms Act.
(d) On hearing the parties after recording the statement of the
appellant/accused No.1 under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the appellant/accused came to be
convicted and sentenced as indicated in the opening
paragraph of this Judgment.
3 I heard the learned Advocate appearing for the
appellant/accused No.1. By drawing my attention to the evidence
of the prosecution and more particularly, that of the Test
Identification Parade, the learned Advocate argued that chances of
mistaken identity of the appellant/accused are there, and
therefore, he is entitled for benefit of doubt. The learned
Gaikwad RD 6/20
(202)APEALNo.2222014(J)
Advocate pointed out Memorandum of Test Identification Parade
of the co-accused conducted by the prosecution and submitted that
the present appellant/accused No.1 Mohd. Rafique was made to
stand in that Test Identification Parade as a dummy. With this, he
submitted that evidence of P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh shows that in
fact P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh has identified the appellant/accused
No.1 and not co-accused Mehboob Badshah Sahab Inamdar and
therefore, the appellant/accused No.1 is entitled for benefit of
doubt. The learned Advocate further argued that evidence of
P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh shows that they all were chasing the
robber who took money from the shop and not the
appellant/accused No.1. He further argued that though according
to the prosecution case, revolver and a knife came to be seized
immediately after the incident from the appellant/accused No.1,
cross-examination of P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh shows that he was
shown the revolver and chopper subsequently at the Police
Station. According to the learned Advocate for the
appellant/accused No.1, once the revolver and chopper came to be
seized and sealed, police were not in a position to show these
weapons to P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh subsequent to the day of the
incident and, therefore, the prosecution case is doubtful. The
learned Advocate further argued that evidence of the Investigator
shows that the information of the incident in question was
received at Bhoiwada Police Station at about 9.30 p.m. whereas
according to the prosecution witnesses, the crime in question took
Gaikwad RD 7/20
(202)APEALNo.2222014(J)
place at 9.30 p.m. itself. This discrepancy in time of the incident
makes the prosecution case doubtful. The learned Advocate
further argued that P.W.No.2 Kishansingh and P.W.No.3
Narendrasingh were not called in the Test Identification Parade.
He further argued that Test Identification Parade for the
appellant/accused No.1 was not conducted by the prosecution.
Recovery of weapon is not proved by the prosecution as seen from
the evidence of P.W.No.5 Narayan Rathod - panch witness. The
arrest-cum-seizure panchanama at Exh.37, which, according to the
prosecution case, was prepared at the spot of incident itself soon
after the incident contains the Crime Number and at that point of
time, no offence was registered. This make arrest-cum-seizure
panchanama Exh.37 doubtful. According to the learned Advocate
for the appellant/accused No.1, evidence of P.W.No.9 Jagganath
Kamble and that of P.W.No.10 Asaram Pathare is inconsistent and
vague. P.W.No.10 Asaram Pathare has deposed that on the next
day of incident, he forwarded the articles to the Chemical
Analyzer, but the Chemical Analysis Report shows that articles
were received on 05/10/2011. There was delay in forwarding the
articles. By drawing my attention to the evidence of P.W.No.10
Asaram Pathare, the learned Advocate further argued that at 9.30
p.m. P.W.No.9 Jagganath Kamble was present at the Police
Station, whereas P.W.No.9 Jagganath Kamble is stating in his
evidence that he met P.W.No.10 Asaram Pathare at the spot.
Evidence of P.W.No.10 Asaram Pathare shows that the accused
Gaikwad RD 8/20
(202)APEALNo.2222014(J)
was disarmed on the spot and this evidence is contrary to the
evidence of P.W.No.9 Jagganath Kamble. The learned Advocate
further argued that evidence of the prosecution shows that in fact
two persons in crowd suffered a fall at the time of incident and
therefore, identity of the appellant/accused as robber is not
established. The learned Advocate further criticized the Judgment
of the learned trial Court by stating that the learned trial Court
proceeded on the wrong presumption that it was appellant/
accused No.1 who had assaulted P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh and thus,
he prayed for acquittal of appellant/accused No.1.
4 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported
the impugned Judgment and Order by contending that identity of
the appellant/accused No.1 is established from the evidence of
eye-witnesses.
5 I have carefully considered the rival submissions and
also perused the Record and Proceedings including depositions of
witnesses as well as the documentary evidence.
6 As stated in foregoing paragraphs, it is case of the
prosecution that the appellant/accused No.1 along with his
associates had committed daring dacoity at the shop of P.W.No.1
Shaitansingh and while committing such dacoity caused hurt to
him. The incident in question, according to the prosecution case,
Gaikwad RD 9/20
(202)APEALNo.2222014(J)
took place in presence of P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh, P.W.No.2
Kishansingh and P.W.No.3 Narendrasingh. As such, fate of the
prosecution case to a large extent hinges on testimony of these
three eye-witnesses. Let us, therefore, scrutinize evidence of these
three witnesses. If ultimately, they are found to be witnesses of
truth, then conviction can solely rest on eye-witness account given
by all of them. P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh apart from being an eye-
witness of the incident in question is also an injured witness. He
had suffered a blow of chopper on his left palm and as seen from
evidence of P.W.No.8 Dr.Nilesh Shende, this witness has suffered
cut wound of size 5 c.m. x 2.5 c.m. on his left thumb. It is well
settled that evidence of injured witness regarding the incident
carries great weight and his presence on the spot cannot be
challenged. Perusal of evidence of P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh,
P.W.No.2 Kishansingh and P.W.No.3 Narendrasingh shows that
they have unanimously stated that on 16/09/2011 at night hours
they all were at the shop of P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh. All these
three witnesses congruously stated that in the night hours of
16/09/2011, three persons entered in the shop. P.W.No.1
Shaitansingh and P.W.No.3 Narendrasingh are stating that the
incident took place at about 9.30 p.m, whereas his nephew is
stating that the incident took place at abut 9.00 p.m. What
happened after entry of these three people inside the shop of
P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh is also stated by all these three witnesses.
Their evidence on this aspect is congruous. In unison these three
Gaikwad RD 10/20
(202)APEALNo.2222014(J)
witnesses, who were present inside the shop have stated that the
first amongst these three robbers was armed with a chopper and
by pointing the chopper at P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh, he had
threatened inmates of the shop not to shout and to give money.
The second amongst them, as per the version of these three
prosecution witnesses, was armed with revolver and he had
pointed that revolver at head of P.W.No.3 Narendrasingh and by
slapping him had also threatened him not to shout. The third
robber, according to these three witnesses, was standing at the
door of the shop obviously for the purpose of guarding the spot.
These three prosecution witnesses then congruously deposed that
a person holding a chopper took money from the small pooja
temple kept inside the shop and pocketed that amount. When
P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh attempted to obstruct, that robber gave a
blow of chopper which ultimately landed on left palm of P.W.No.1
Shaitansingh causing bleeding injury to him. The blood then
spilled on clothes, bed sheet, mattress, plastic bag etc. As deposed
by these prosecution witnesses namely P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh,
P.W.No.2 Kishansingh and P.W.No.3 Narendrasingh, then robbers
left the shop by threatening them not to follow or else they will
open fire. These three prosecution witnesses then started chasing
robbers by shouting which attracted attention of neighbouring
shop owners as well as passers-by. The chase continued.
Ultimately, as seen from the evidence of these three witnesses, the
appellant/accused while on run attempted to cross the road
Gaikwad RD 11/20
(202)APEALNo.2222014(J)
divider and suffered a fall. He was caught by these three
prosecution witnesses as well as other persons. It is also seen from
evidence of these three witnesses that while running away, the
appellant/accused fired a bullet from his revolver. As per version
of these three prosecution witnesses, apart from possessing a
revolver a chopper was also found to be concealed at the back side
under his full pant.
7 P.W.No.2 Kishansingh further deposed that revolver
held by the appellant/accused was smelling ammunition
indicating recent fire. Police seized it before panch witnesses.
Hand of the appellant/accused was also wiped by a cotton swab
by the police and then that cotton swab was seized.
8 The FIR at Exh.23 lodged by P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh is
fully in tune with his version before the Court and evidence of
P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh is gaining full corroboration with the FIR
lodged with promptitude.
9 Now, let us, examine material elicited from cross-
examination of these three witnesses in order to ascertain whether
such material casts a shadow of doubt on the case of prosecution
and is sufficient to dislodge their version about the incident. In
this regard, it is argued by the defence that after accused persons
left the shop, they were chased by the prosecution witnesses after
Gaikwad RD 12/20
(202)APEALNo.2222014(J)
one minute giving sufficient time for them to escape from the spot.
Question of mistaken identity is also raised. On this aspect,
reliance is placed on cross-examination of P.W.No.3
Narendrasingh, who stated about gap of time of one minute.
Version of P.W.No.5 Narayan Rathod, a panch witness to the effect
that two persons in the crowd suffered a fall, is relied to
demonstrate mistaken identity.
10 As seen from the material elicited from cross-
examination of P.W.No.2 Kishansingh, the incident of daring
robbery lasted for about three to four minutes. Evidence on
record does not show that there was no source of light in the shop
of P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh. During course of the incident,
P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh had suffered a blow of chopper as seen
from his evidence as well as evidence of P.W.No.8 Dr.Nilesh
Shende. Robbers were threatening the prosecution witnesses not
to shout and P.W.No.2 Kishansingh was held at the point of the
revolver by the appellant/accused. Exhibit 43 is the spot
panchanama which is duly proved by P.W.No.7 Chandrashekhar
Bhagat, a panch witness. The spot panchanama shows that the
spot of incident which is shop of P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh, was a
very small shop admeasuring 15 feet x 8 feet. At the time of the
incident in question, there was nobody else in the shop except
three prosecution witnesses namely P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh,
P.W.No.2 Kishansingh and P.W.No.3 Narendrasingh. Servant
Gaikwad RD 13/20
(202)APEALNo.2222014(J)
Chandraprakash Pandya came inside during the course of the
robbery. As such, considering small size of the shop and as
nobody else was present inside the shop, the prosecution witnesses
had an ample opportunity to see facial and bodily features of
robbers and particularly of the robber who was holding chopper
and the robber who was holding the revolver. Time of four
minutes in such a ghastly incident is sufficient to have imprint of
getting facial and bodily expressions of robbers who held them on
gun-point. As such, in my opinion, there is sufficient evidence on
record to hold that prosecution witnesses had ample opportunity
to witness, remember and identify the real culprits before the
Court.
11 To crown this all, the appellant/accused was
apprehended on the spot itself. Evidence of these three
prosecution witnesses coupled with evidence of P.W.No.5 Narayan
Rathod as well as P.W.No.9 Jagganath Kamble and P.W.No.10
Asaram Pathare, PI well establishes the fact that the
appellant/accused was apprehended from the spot of the incident
soon after the incident. There is no probable evidence to infer that
the appellant/accused was merely a person chasing accused
persons and he was wrongly apprehended particularly when a
revolver as well as a big knife is seized from him.
12 It is in evidence of P.W.No.5 Narayan Rathod, a panch
Gaikwad RD 14/20
(202)APEALNo.2222014(J)
witness that on 16/09/2011, he was present near Chitra Talkies.
He saw one accused apprehended near Chitra Talkies. As per his
version, police seized revolver from the apprehended accused and
then wiped his hand with cotton swab to gather particles of
ammunition from his hand. P.W.No.5 Narayan Rathod deposed
that a panchanama of this event was prepared by police. While in
the witness box, P.W.No.5 Narayan Rathod has identified the
appellant/accused as the person, who was arrested on the spot
and the one from whom weapons were seized. In the wake of this
positive evidence, half-hearted cross-examination of this witness to
the effect that he saw two persons suffering a fall is not sufficient
to make the prosecution case suspect. There is no further cross-
examination to the effect that a person sitting in the dock is not a
person, who was arrested with weapons on that day. On the
contrary, from cross-examination of this witness, it has been
elicited by the defence that there was a big knife in the backside
pant pocket of the appellant/accused, who was apprehended from
the spot. I see no reason to disbelieve this version of P.W.No.5
Narayan Rathod, which has come on record through his cross-
examination.
13 Similar is the evidence of P.W.No.9 Jagganath Kamble,
PSI attached with Bhoiwada Police Station, who has deposed that
on reaching the spot, he found person gathered there
apprehending one person with revolver and chopper. As per
Gaikwad RD 15/20
(202)APEALNo.2222014(J)
version of P.W.No.9 Jagganath Kamble in the presence of panch
witnesses, he seized those weapons and cotton swab on which
ammunition came to be collected by wiping hand of the present
appellant/accused.
14 This evidence ultimately leads to unsuspectable
conclusion that it was the accused, who was found arrested near
the spot of incident by public including P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh,
P.W.No.2 Kishansingh and P.W.No.3 Narendrasingh, who was one
of the robber. At that time, he was holding a revolver as well as a
big knife. Attempt was made to make this evidence suspect by
contending that there is discrepancy regarding time of the incident
as witnesses are deposing different time, so far as incident is
concerned. It is also pointed out that according to the P.W.No.1
Shaitansingh, the incident took place at about 9.30 p.m. of
16/09/2011, whereas the FIR shows that the police was informed
about the incident at about 9.30 itself. Reliance is placed on cross-
examination of P.W.No.5 Narayan Rathod to show that by 9.20
p.m. panchanama was over and this witness had left the spot and
boarded a local train to his home.
15 In criminal trial what is required is a proof beyond all
reasonable doubt. A doubt is required to be reasonable and not
probable. The definition of term 'proof' as seen from Section 3 of
the Evidence Act requires yardstick of a prudent person. A fact is
Gaikwad RD 16/20
(202)APEALNo.2222014(J)
said to be proved when, after considering the matter before it, the
Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so
probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of
the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.
Here, in this case, three witnesses including the victim have given
eye-witness account. Those witnesses were having ample
opportunity to have facial and bodily expressions of robbers
imprinted in their brain. The appellant/accused is proved to have
apprehended on the spot with arms. Those arms were seized from
him by police. If such evidence put up before a prudent person,
the yardstick of a prudent person will certainly require him to
believe that the person was apprehended and identified by the
victim of the crime in question is one of the robber involved in the
incident. Sluggish chronometric sense of people at large is a
judicially recognized fact. Witnesses are generally overtaken by
event. In this case, P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh had suffered injury in
the robbery, during the course of which he lost an amount of
Rs.70,000/-. In such a situation, mentioning incorrect time by him
is not fatal to the prosecution. Ordinarily, a witness cannot be
expected to recall accurately the time and sequence of events
which took place in rapid succession which gives an element of
shock and surprise to such witness. Power of observation and
sense of time differs from person to person. It is not expected that
a person will keep an eye on his watch in order to note and then
recall the actual time of robbery. Hence, discrepancy in
Gaikwad RD 17/20
(202)APEALNo.2222014(J)
mentioning the time of the incident by prosecution witnesses
cannot be a factor to jettison otherwise believable evidence
regarding the evidence adduced by them.
16 Then, there is a aspect of showing weapons of the
offence subsequent to the incident to P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh at the
police station. Reliance is placed on his cross-examination to show
that after two-three days, a chopper and revolver was shown to
him at the Police Station. With the aid of evidence of seizure of
these weapons coming on record through P.W.No.5 Narayan
Rathod, it is urged that weapons were sealed and the question
how they were shown to P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh remained
unanswered by prosecution evidence making it suspect. It is also
urged that evidence of P.W.No.10 Asaram Pathare, PI is
inconsistent with evidence of P.W.No.5 Narayan Rathod so far as
time and presence of scene at the spot are concerned. All these
aspects pertain to defects or lapses or omission in investigation. In
the matter of Dhanraj Singh alias Shera v. State of Punjab
reported in 2004 SCC (Cri.) 851, the Honourable Apex Court by
relying on its earlier decisions has held that if the lapses or
omissions are committed by the investigating agency because of
negligence, the prosecution evidence is required to be examined
de horse such omission to find out whether such evidence is
reliable or not. The Apex Court has further held that if the
primacy is given to omission or lapses by perfunctory investigation
Gaikwad RD 18/20
(202)APEALNo.2222014(J)
or omission, the faith and confidence of the people would be
shaken not only in the law enforcing agency, but also in the
administration of justice. This completely answers the arguments
so far as inconsistent evidence of investigator and lapses, if any, on
their part in showing weapons of offence to P.W.No.1
Shaitansingh after the incident.
17 The Judgment in the matter of Dhanraj Singh (supra)
also takes care of probably inadvertent statement in the chief-
examination of P.W.No.10 Asaram Pathare, PI to the effect that on
the next day of the incident, he had sent muddemal article for
chemical analysis. The report of Chemical Analysis at Exh.13, in
fact, shows that articles were received by the Chemical Analyzer
on 05/10/2011 and the forwarding letter shows that those were
sent on 03/10/2011. Perusal of the Chemical Analysis report at
Exh.13 shows that the revolver seized from the appellant/accused
was used for firing prior to receipt thereof. Lead and nitrite were
detected on the cotton swab which was seized after wiping it on
the hand of the appellant/accused.
18 Now comes the evidence regarding the test
identification parade. In fact, the prosecution has conducted test
identification parade on two occasions. Firstly, on 09/02/2012
and subsequently on 20/08/2012. The test identification parade
was not conducted for identifying the appellant/accused, he being
Gaikwad RD 19/20
(202)APEALNo.2222014(J)
apprehended on the spot of the incident. Therefore, evidence of
P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh to the extent that in the test identification
parade, he has identified the appellant/accused, cannot be used to
give any benefit to the appellant/accused. It appears that the
Executive Magistrate ignoring the norms for conducting the test
identification parade, probably required the present
appellant/accused to stand as a dummy for the purpose of
conducting the test identification parade in respect of accused
No.2 Mehboob Badshah Sahab Inamdar and in that process
appellant/accused No.1 Mohd. Rafique was got identified by
P.W.No.1 Shaitansingh. This by no stretch of imagination
weakens the case of the prosecution so far as the offences alleged
are concerned.
19 The net result of foregoing discussion requires me to
held that the appeal is devoid of merit and, therefore, the Order :
(i) The Appeal is dismissed.
(A.M.BADAR J.)
Gaikwad RD 20/20
