Bombay High Court
Mohd Jahid Abdul Hamid Ansari vs The State Of Maharashtra on 29 April, 2022
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale, N. R. Borkar
J-cr-Apeal-186-16.doc
Digitally
signed by
DINESH
DINESH SADANAND
SADANAND SHERLA
SHERLA Date:
2022.04.29
14:09:32
+0500
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 186 OF 2016
Mohd. Jahid Abdul Hamid Ansari ..Appellant
vs.
The State of Maharashtra
(at the instance of Dharavi
Police Station, Mumbai) ..Respondent
-------
Mr. Kartik S. Garg for the Appellant.
Ms S.V. Sonawane, APP for the Respondent - State .
-------
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
N.R.BORKAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 26.08.2021.
PRONOUNCED ON : 29.04.2022.
JUDGMENT (PER: N.R. BORKAR, J.)
1] This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and
order dated 23.07.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Gr. Bombay in Sessions Case No. 354 of 2014.
2] By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant, who
was the accused before the trial court, has been convicted for
the ofence punishable under section 302 the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and sentenced to sufer Life
Imprisonment and to pay fne of Rs.1000/- in default to sufer
rigorous imprisonment for three months.
Dinesh Sherla
J-cr-Apeal-186-16.doc
3] The deceased was the son of accused. There used to be
frequent quarrels between the deceased and the accused. The
deceased, therefore, some times used to stay out of the house
and in the night used to sleep in front of shop of one Kumar
(place of incident). According to the prosecution, in the
intervening night of 14.03.2014 and 15.03.2014, again a
quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased.
The deceased thus went out of the house and as usual slept in
front of the shop of the said Kumar.
4] According to the prosecution, at about 6.30 a.m., the
accused came to the place of incident and assaulted the
deceased while he was asleep by iron pipe. In the said assault,
the deceased had sustained injuries. The deceased was taken
to Sion Hospital, however, he was declared brought dead.
5] The report in relation to incident was lodged by PW-1
Adbul Rahman Shaikh, who according to the prosecution, at
the time of incident was sleeping beside the deceased. On the
basis of said report, crime vide crime No. 107 of 2014 was
registered for the ofence punishable under section 302 of the
IPC. On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was fled
against the accused.
6] The accused was charged and tried for the ofence
punishable under section 302 of the IPC. As stated earlier, the
trial court, by the impugned judgement and order, convicted
the accused for the said ofence.
Dinesh Sherla
J-cr-Apeal-186-16.doc
7] We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/
accused and learned APP for the respondent -State.
8] The fact that the deceased had died homicidal death is
not disputed before us.
9] The learned counsel for the appellant submits that
evidence on record is not sufcient to connect the accused
with the alleged crime. It is submitted that no motive is
attributed to the accused. It is submitted that in absence of
any motive, the trial court was not justifed in arriving at the
conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case against the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that the
appeal be allowed and the accused be acquitted.
10] On the other hand, learned APP for the respondent/ State
submits that the evidence on record would show that, there
used to be frequent quarrels between the accused and the
deceased. It is submitted that there is eye witness to the
incident, whose testimony remained un-shattered in the cross-
examination. It is submitted that considering the evidence on
record, the trial court was justifed in convicting the appellant/
accused.
11] According to PW-1 Abdul R. Shaikh, the deceased was his
good friend. According to him, the relations between the
accused and deceased were strained.
Dinesh Sherla
J-cr-Apeal-186-16.doc
12] According to PW-1, his family was consisting of 10
persons and the room in which they were residing was 250 x
200 sq. ft. Therefore, due to space constraint, in the night he
used to sleep in front of shop of Kumar, which was there on the
ground foor of Lokseva Building. According to PW-1,
sometimes, the deceased used to come and sleep beside him.
13] According to PW-1, on 15.03.2014 in the night at about
1.30 a.m., as usual he came to sleep in front of Kumar's shop.
After some time, he noticed that the deceased was sleeping
next to him. According to PW-1, at about 6.00 to 6.30 a.m., he
got woken up due to sudden sound of assault. He saw that the
accused was assaulting the deceased with iron pipe on his
head. According to PW-1, the accused after assault ran way
from the place of incident. He initially, followed him, but then
gave up due to fear that the accused would assault him also as
he was carrying iron pipe. He then called the family members
of the deceased. They took the deceased to Sion Hospital
where he was declared brought dead.
14] There is absolutely nothing in the cross-examination to
doubt the version of PW-1. On the contrary, it came to be
suggested to PW-1 that he did not hear what talk took place
between the deceased and the accused at the time of incident.
It was also suggested to him that at the time of incident, the
accused came to the place of incident to take back the
deceased to their house.
Dinesh Sherla
J-cr-Apeal-186-16.doc
15] According to PW-2 Asif I. Mulla, at the relevant time, he
was working as a Watchman. On 15.03.2014 at about 6.00
a.m., he had seen the accused going out of the house and at
that time the accused was carrying iron pipe. After 5 to 10
minutes, he heard hue and cry. He then went to the place of
incident and saw that the deceased was lying there in injured
condition. According to PW-2, PW-1 was also present there.
16] Again there is nothing in the cross-examination to doubt
the version of PW-2, except one admission that there is
nothing on record to show that he was working as Watchman.
However, in our view, this fact by itself is not sufcient to
disbelieve PW-2, in absence of any reason for him to falsely
implicate the accused in a murder of his own son.
17] The prosecution in order to prove that the relations of
deceased and accused were strained has examined PW-8
Nasim Banu Zahid Ansari, the wife of the accused. According
to PW-8, there used to be frequent quarrels between the
accused and the deceased. According to her, in the intervening
night of 14.03.2014 and 15.03.2014 also quarrel took place
between the accused and the deceased and thereafter the
deceased left the house. According to her, at about 6.30 a.m.,
PW-1 came to their house and informed them about the
alleged incident. Thereafter she rushed to the place of incident
and saw that the deceased was lying there in injured condition.
Thereafter, they took the deceased to hospital, however, he
was declared brought dead.
Dinesh Sherla
J-cr-Apeal-186-16.doc
18] The defense of the accused is of false implication. The
accused in his statement under section 313 of Cr.PC. has,
however, not assigned any reason for alleged false implication.
In our view considering the evidence on record the trial court
was justifed in convicting the accused for the ofence
punishable under section 302 of the IPC. No interference is
thus, called for in the impugned judgment and order. In the
result, the following order is passed.
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
[N.R.BORKAR, J.] [PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.]
Dinesh Sherla
