Mansoorali Khan Ahmed Khan And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra
2022 Latest Caselaw 1492 Bom

                                                               APEAL685.662.2010.doc



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 685 OF 2010
                              WITH
               INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1435 OF 2020
               INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1941 OF 2021
 1. Mansoorali Khan Ahmed Khan.
    Majipur Post, Baktavsinh,
    Tal. Karnalganj. Dist. Gonda,
    Uttar Pradesh.

 2. Shahjad Ahmed Tashrif.
    Ahmed Khan, Taspura,
    Tal. Karnalganj, Dist. Gonda,
    Uttar Pradesh.                                ... Appellants.

 v/s.
 State of Maharashtra.
 (At the instance of the Trombay
 Police Station C.R. No. 167/2006)                ... Respondent.

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 662 OF 2010
 Mohd. Arman Mohd. Ali Khan,
 Aged : 39 years.
 Residing at Maijapur Post,
 Baktavsinh, Tal. Karnalganj.
 Dist. Gonda, Uttar Pradesh.

 (At present in judicial custody in Nashik
 Central Prison. )                         ... Appellant.

 v/s.
 State of Maharashtra.
 (At the instance of the Trombay
 Police Station C.R. No. 167/2006)                ... Respondent.

                            -------------------


Talwalkar                                                                 1 of 25
                                                                                APEAL685.662.2010.doc



                 Mr. M.M. Khokhawala a/w. Ms. Megha Puralkar, advocate for
                 appellant No. 1 in Appeal No. 685/2010.

                 Ms. Devyani Kulkarni, advocate appointed for appellant No. 2 in
                 Appeal No.2 in Appeal No. 685/2010 and for appellant in Appeal No.
                 662/2010.

                 Ms. G.P. Mulekar, APP for State.

                                             ---------------------
          Digitally
          signed by
                                       CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV &
                                               PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ.
          ARUNA S
ARUNA S   TALWALKAR
TALWALKAR Date:
          2022.02.14
          14:55:15
          +0530                 RESERVED ON : SEPTEMBER 28, 2021.
                            PRONOUNCED ON : FEBRUARY 14, 2022.


                JUDGMENT (PER SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)

1 The appellants herein are convicted for the offence

punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code and each of the accused is sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and to

pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer R.I. for two years. The

appellants are further convicted of the offence punishable under

section 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of

them is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-

in default to suffer further R.I. for six months by the Additional

Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay vide Judgment and Order dated

7/7/2010 in Sessions Case No. 807 of 2006. Hence, this appeal.

                Talwalkar                                                                 2 of 25
                                                            APEAL685.662.2010.doc



2           Such of the facts necessary for the decision of these appeals

are as follows :

(a)         On 21/5/2006 one Nurul Hasan Khan lodged a report with

Trombay Police Station alleging therein that his uncle Nadir Khan

owned Shop No. 24 in E-Sector of Chita Camp, which is given on rent

to one Akbar Khan who runs a grocery shop in the name and style of

Khan store. One Suresh Murav works in the said shop alongwith

Dilshad, brother-in-law of Akbar Khan. Dilshad was also residing in

the said shop on the mezzanine floor.

(b) On 21st May, 2006 at about 8.30 p.m. Nurul Khan(P.W.1)

was surprised to see shop closed as the shop normally remains open till

midnight. He called upon the people in the locality and opened

shutter and saw that fans and lights were on. Similarly, cash drawer

was found open. He therefore, called out for Dilshad who resides on

the mezzanine floor, but there was no response. When he lit candle,

he noticed legs of someone on first floor and therefore, he called upon

Trombay Police Station.

(c)         Then they noticed dead body of Suresh Murav whose


Talwalkar                                                             3 of 25
                                                             APEAL685.662.2010.doc

throat was slit. The dead body was found in the bed room. A knife

was seen lying nearby. Soon thereafter, they saw the dead body of

Dilshad Khan in the bathroom with his face submerged in milk crate

filled with water. There were marks of strangulation around neck of

Dilshad Khan.

(d) On the basis of the report filed by Nurul Hasan, Crime No.

167 of 2006 was registered at Trombay Police Station for the offence

punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against

unknown persons.

3 At the trial, prosecution has examined as many as 16

witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has

placed reliance upon the evidence of P.W. 1 Nurul Hasan Khan, P.W. 2

Jilani Vasi Mirza, P.W.3 Suraya Sakharkar, P.W. 4 Abdul Rashid Shaikh,

P.W. 5 Munna Shaikh to substantiate involvement of the accused

persons in the said offence.

4 P.W. 1 Nurul Hasan Khan has proved the contents of FIR on

the basis of which the offence is registered. It is elicited in the cross-

Talwalkar                                                              4 of 25
                                                           APEAL685.662.2010.doc

examination that he looks after the shop and he had stated so before

the police. However, it does not find place in the FIR. There is no

documents to show that the shop of Nadir Khan was being run by

Akbar who happens to be the maternal cousin of Nadir. Khan Kirana

Store consisted of ground plus one floor. The shop has two doors i.e.

iron shutter on the west side and on south side there is wooden door.

On the south side of the shop, it is surrounded by other shops.

5 It is the case of the prosecution that the accused No.1 met

P.W. 2 Jilani Vasi Hyder Mirza on 22/5/2006 at about 11 a.m. and had

made an extra judicial confession to the effect that he was in love with

Ms. Anjum, sister of Dilshad Khan. That on 21/5/2006 Mansoor and

his associates visited the shop to talk to Dilshad. They requested

Suresh Murav to look after the shop and they took Dilshad to the

mezzanine floor. They questioned him as to why she was being

married to some other person when they knew that she is in love with

Mansoor. There was verbal altercation. Mansoor caught hold of him,

whereas Shahjad gagged mouth of Dilshad so that he does not scream.

Thereafter, Arman had given 2 to 4 fists blows on his chest and finally,

Mansoor strangulated him with wire. The accused were conscious of

Talwalkar 5 of 25 APEAL685.662.2010.doc

the fact that Suresh had realised that something had happened and

therefore, Suresh was called and his throat was slit by Arman. Soon

thereafter, P.W. 2 approached Trombay Police Station and informed the

police. He had reiterated the statement before the Senior Police

Officer Mr. Bakhare. According to P.W. 2, accused No. 1 was working as

waiter in hotel Metro, which was often visited by P.W. 2. According to

P.W. 2, extra judicial confession was made by accused No. 1 near

Karbala Maidan when he was on his way to work place. It is elicited in

the cross-examination that P.W. 2 had found accused No. 1 sitting on

the stair case of Gym at Karbala ground.

6 P.W. 3 Suraiya Sakharkar claims to have visited the said

shop on 21/5/2006. Dilshad was at the counter. She saw 3 persons

who had come to the shop. She gave description of the clothes worn

by 3 customers. She purchased sugar and left the shop. At 12 a.m.

she returned from Dadar after making purchases and saw that people

had gathered near Khan Kirana store and learnt from two females that

Dilshad and his servant Suresh were murdered and therefore, she

approached the police station and informed the police about 3 persons

she had seen in the shop. She was called upon by the police to Thane

Talwalkar 6 of 25 APEAL685.662.2010.doc

jail for identifying the accused and she identified 3 persons whom she

had seen in the shop on 21/5/2006. It is elicited in the cross-

examination that she is working as house-maid at different places.

According to her, Karbala Maidan is situated on the road exactly

opposite grocery shop and is at a very close distance. She claims to be

at the shop hardly for 5 to 10 minutes when she saw 3 accused

persons. There are material omissions and contradictions in the

evidence of P.W. 3. The very fact that she had seen 3 persons coming to

the shop when Suresh was packing sugar is in the nature of omissions.

7 P.W. 4 Abdul Rashid Shaikh was looking after the shop of

Akbar Khan after the incident. According to him, on 20/21 May, 2006

Dilshad had called upon him and informed him that Akbar is returning

from his native place within 2 to 3 days. That some 2 to 4 persons

were present in the shop. The witness could identify one person out of

2 to 4 person, who was present in the shop. He had identified Mohd.

Arman i.e. accused No. 1.

8 P.W. 5 Munna Mohd. Kasim Shaikh was also acquainted

with Akbar Khan and therefore, he used to visit the shop run by

Talwalkar 7 of 25 APEAL685.662.2010.doc

Dilshad. According to him, one day in the month of May, he had seen

a scuffle between Arman and Dilshad. Upon enquiry, he was informed

by Dilshad that since Arman had uttered something inappropriate

about his sister, they were quarreling. Arman was accompanied by two

other persons. Dilshad had requested P.W. 5 not to disclose about the

said incident to any one since it involves the honour of his sister.

Dilshad had disclosed that the other two persons were cousin of

Dilshad. The material omissions in the evidence of P.W. 5 go to the

root of the matter since he claims that when the incident was going

on, Suresh had informed him that Dilshad and others are on the

mezzanine floor. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 5 that he used to

borrow money from Dilshad. It is pertinent to note that he had visited

the police station at 1 a.m. on 22/5/2006 and informed about the said

incident.

9 After receipt of information from P.W. 1 police had called

upon finger print expert Sharad Shalu(P.W. 9) at 10.30 p..m. P.W. 9

had received wireless message from Trombay Police Station. He had

immediately approached the police station and reached the scene of

offence at about 12 midnight. That at the scene of offence, they had

Talwalkar 8 of 25 APEAL685.662.2010.doc

seen melanin tin box lying on the floor. They had collected two finger

prints from the mirror, which was hanged on the wall. Photographer

was not available. He had developed the chance print collected from

the mirror. On 19/6/2006 he had received the finger prints slips of 3

accused persons from Trombay Police Station. Upon comparison, he

could identify the finger prints of accused No. 1 which was found

identical with the chance print collected from the mirror. The report

submitted by P.W. 9 is at Exh. 25.

10 Test identification is conducted by P.W.13 Nirmala Singh. It

is pertinent to note that P.W. 13 had no document to show that at the

time of conducting test identification parade, she was working as

Special Executive Officer. She had started writing panchanama at

about 5.45 p.m. and completed writing of the panchanama at 6.15

p.m.. She had categorically admitted that she is not aware of any

rules prescribed by High Court for conducting test identification

parade. She could not recollect as to whether the accused were

brought at the place of test identification parade after arranging the

dummies in the row or before that and that the accused persons were

not similar in appearance. She could not recollect as to whether the

Talwalkar 9 of 25 APEAL685.662.2010.doc

dummies brought for test identification parade resembled the accused

in any way.

11 P.W. 14 Shenshah Khan happens to be the brother of the

deceased Dilshad. He has categorically admitted that he knows all the

3 accused persons as they happened to be his cousins. The witness is

declared hostile. He has denied to have stated the portion marked "A",

which is to the effect that his mother has proposed marriage of

Mansoor with Anjum which was not accepted by Mansoor's mother.

Dilshad had warned Mansoor not to contact his sister Anjum and that

was the reason why Mansoor was annoyed with Dilshad.

12 P.W.15 PSI Arvind Parab was attached to Trombay Police

Station on 21/5/2006. He was deputed by PI Mr. Panpatte to visit the

scene of offence. He had taken steps in the course of investigation. He

had prepared inquest panchanama on the dead bodies of Dilshad and

Suresh. He had also conducted scene of offence panchanama and at

that time, had noticed that in the bath room on the mezzanine floor of

Khan Kirana stores, water and blood was mixed. They had taken

charge of the knife and aluminum wire, which was lying near the

Talwalkar 10 of 25 APEAL685.662.2010.doc

bathroom. He was not sure as to whether panchas for the scene of

offence were stock panchas. That the bath room is not immediately

visible upon entering into the loft. It is submitted that the crate in

which the face of Dilshad was immersed, was not seized.

13 P.W. 16 Manik Bakhre was also attached to Trombay Police

Station. Investigation of Crime No. 167 of 2006 was entrusted to him

on 22/5/2006. He had recorded statement of the witnesses. It is

admitted that he had been to Gonda, District Uttar Pradesh in search of

the accused. They were first called for interrogation. They were then

brought to Trombay Police Station and arrested. He had taken finger

prints of the accused persons in the presence of panchas. Clothes of

the accused were seized at their instance under section 27 of the

Indian Evidence Act. He was on leave on 21/5/2006 and therefore,

he visited the scene of offence on 22/5/2006. According to him,

Karbala ground is at a distance of half kilometer from the scene of

offence. He has proved the omissions in the evidence of P.W. 3 Suraiya

that she had stated before the police that 3 persons had visited the

shop in her presence and they were talking loudly. It is also admitted

that the arrest panchanama of the accused was not prepared in Uttar

Talwalkar 11 of 25 APEAL685.662.2010.doc

Pradesh. It is also admitted that there is non-compliance of section

157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and FIR was not sent to court

within 24 hours. According to him, he had recorded the statement of

Nurul Hasan. It is also admitted that he had not obtained transit

warrant from Magistrate of Gonda District. There was no search taken

of the dwelling houses of the accused in Gonda, nor the statement of

the family members was recorded. It is admitted that he had not

arrested the accused in Gonda district, but simply asked the accused to

accompany the police to Mumbai. It is alleged that in the course of

investigation, bloodstained clothes were recovered at the instance of

the accused under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the

Investigating officer had admitted before the Court that he had not

enquired the connection of the places with accused from where the

clothes were recovered.

14 Cross-examination of P.W. 16 would show that after seizure,

the clothes were not sealed and they were kept in muddemal room.

The place from where the clothes were seized is accessible to members

of the public. Knife was recovered at the instance of accused No. 1. It

is apparent on the perusal of the said document that the names of the

Talwalkar 12 of 25 APEAL685.662.2010.doc

panchas was written subsequently and marked as Exh. 18A.

15 Respective Counsel for the accused have urged before the

Court that the extra judicial confession would not inspire the

confidence of the Court since P.W. 2 was a stray acquaintance with the

accused. The omissions and contradictions in the evidence of P.W. 3, 4

and 5 would go to show that they are got up witnesses and in that

view, the identification itself would fail. Hence, it is vehemently urged

that the prosecution has not stood on it's own leg and therefore, the

accused deserves to be acquitted.

16 Per contra, learned APP submits that the prosecution has

established the motive for commission of offence. That accused No. 1

was in love with the sister of deceased Dilshad, who had warned him

not to keep in contact with his sister. It is submitted that the recovery

of weapons of offence and the clothes of the accused itself makes it

clear that they are the perpetrator of the crime and the most important

factor in the present case is that the prosecution has proved the extra

judicial confession and in view of the same, learned APP submits that

the Judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Court calls for

Talwalkar 13 of 25 APEAL685.662.2010.doc

no interference.

17 With the help of the respective Counsel, we have perused

the papers meticulously and upon appreciation of the evidence

adduced by the prosecution, following points would emerge :

(i) It is admitted that deceased Dilshad was the cousin of the

accused persons. That Dilshad and his servant Suresh were murdered

in the shop, which was being run by Dilshad, brother-in-law of Akbar

Khan, who had been to his native place at the time of the incident.

(ii) P.W. 1 happens to be a chance witness. That at about 8.30

p.m. on 21/5/2006 he was surprised to see shop closed and that it

was not locked. He therefore, entered the shop premises only to see

that lights and fans were on. However, there was darkness on the

mezzanine floor. He could notice feet in the bed room on the

mezzanine floor. His call was not answered and therefore, he was

constrained to call upon the police.

(iii) The investigation was set in motion and the accused were

brought from their native place Gonda, Utter Pradesh. They were not

arrested in Utter Pradesh, but at the request of the police, accused Talwalkar 14 of 25 APEAL685.662.2010.doc

accompanied them.

(iv) That the accused were not even the residents of

Bombay/Trombay.

18 The question that falls for determination before this Court

is as to whether extra judicial confession alleged to have been made

by accused No. 1 on 22/5/2006 at Karbala ground is voluntary,

truthful and has been a north star for the investigating agency. Firstly,

P.W. 2 was a stray acquaintance with the accused No. 1. It is admitted

by P.W. 2 that accused No. 1 was working as waiter in Hotel Metro,

which was visited by P.W. 2 once in a week. There was no reason for

accused No. 1 to repose faith in customer of the hotel. Moreover, the

location of Karbala ground is just across the road from the scene of

offence. He met P.W. 2 by chance and divulged his guilt to P.W. 2 which

does not appeal to a prudent mind. Extra Judicial confession

necessarily is to be made to a person in whom maker of the statement

reposes faith. Moreover, accused had given graphic details of the act

committed by him including the role of each of the accused persons

and the manner in which they had killed both the deceased. It is rather

Talwalkar 15 of 25 APEAL685.662.2010.doc

very difficult to accept that the accused would make an extra judicial

confession to a stranger, passing by the road, who is only acquainted.

19 The material on record would show that immediate

disclosure was made by P.W. 2 to investigating agency. However, there

is no material on record to show that the investigating agency had

made any efforts to apprehend the accused immediately. There is no

material to show as to when the accused had left Bombay for Gonda

after commission of offence. It is neither the case of the prosecution

that they had absconded due to an apprehension of being placed under

suspicion after disclosure was made by P.W. 2 to the police. However,

suddenly the police had gone to Gonda in the month of June, 2006. In

fact, extra judicial confession made to P.W. 2 was more than sufficient

for the police to arrest the accused in Gonda itself and return to

Bombay after obtaining a transit warrant from the Magistrate in

Gonda. The accused had not resisted to go to Bombay. That the

conduct of the accused would show that they had not absconded since

their place of residence has not been brought on record by the police.

There is no reference to taluka Karmalganj from where the accused

were brought to Bombay. The Investigating Officer had made no

Talwalkar 16 of 25 APEAL685.662.2010.doc

attempts to record the statement of accused No. 1 under section 30 of

the Indian Evidence Act, although he had stated graphic details before

P.W. 2.

20 Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under :

30. Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence.-- When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession.

[Explanation.--"Offence", as used in this section, includes the abetment of, or attempt to commit the offence.]

21 It appears from the record that the investigation was

directed on the basis of the statement of the P.W. 2 and the same is

supplemented with motive. It would therefore be necessary to

ascertain as to whether there is any independent, reliable

corroboration in order to place implicit reliance upon extra judicial

confession of accused No. 1 to P.W. 2.

Talwalkar                                                            17 of 25
                                                           APEAL685.662.2010.doc




22          In fact, extra judicial confession has to be proved like any

other evidence and the value of the same would depend upon veracity

of the witness, to whom it was made. The confession is normally made

to a person to avoid harassment from the police or the people

concerned and also it is made to a person, who could otherwise

protect the accused. P.W. 2 is neither influential and not even of any

help to accused No. 1. It does not appeal to a prudent mind that the

accused, who is not apprehended by police nor under any suspicion

would confess the guilt before a stranger.

23 The Supreme Court in the case of Balwinder Singh v/s.

State of Punjab1 has held as follows :

"An extra-judicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with great deal of care and caution. Where an extrajudicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance. The courts generally look for independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon an extra judicial confession."

1    1996 AIR SC 607
Talwalkar                                                          18 of 25
                                                              APEAL685.662.2010.doc



24           It would also be trite to refer to the Judgment of Supreme

Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs Rajaram2, wherein the

Supreme Court has held as follows:

"It is not open to any court to start with the presumption that extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstance, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of witnesses who speak to such a confession. Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded there on if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appeared to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive for attributing an untruthful statement to the accused, the words spoken by the witness are clear unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpetrator and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it. If the evidence relating to extra judicial confession is found credible after being tested on the touch stone of credibility and acceptability, it can solely form the basis of conviction. The requirement of corroboration is a matter of prudence and not an invariable rule of law. It is improbable that the accused would repose confidence on a person who is inimically deposed towards him and confess his guilt."

2    (2003) Cr. L. J. 3901
Talwalkar                                                             19 of 25
                                                             APEAL685.662.2010.doc




25           Upon meticulous examination of the evidence of P.W. 3, the

manner in which it is narrated, the juncture at which the alleged extra

judicial confession is said to have been made to P.W. 2 and the fact that

the motive is falsified by the brother of the deceased (P.W. 14), we are

of the opinion that this is not a fit case where implicit reliance could be

placed on the extra judicial confession of the accused No. 1 for

upholding the conviction. It is also clear that there is no independent

corroboration to the alleged extra judicial confession. The manner in

which it is said to have been made appears to be improbable and

imprudent.

26 There is no doubt that P.W. 3 is a got up witness, as she

claims to be a chance witness, who seems to recollect even clothes

worn by the accused when she saw them in the shop for hardly 5

minutes. In view of that, the evidence in the nature of test

identification would also fail. Moreover, the Special Executive Officer

(P.W. 13) has failed to demonstrate before the Court that her

nomination as Special Executive Officer was in place and that she was

Talwalkar 20 of 25 APEAL685.662.2010.doc

authorised to conduct test identification parade.

27 The learned Judge has placed reliance upon the recovery

under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act at the instance of the

accused. The question is as to whether in a case of circumstantial

evidence, recovery by itself would be sufficient to uphold the

conviction. The learned Sessions Judge has given undue importance to

the recovery of blood-stained clothes at the instance of the accused

under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act after about 20 days. It is

further pertinent to note that it is the case of the prosecution that the

accused were not resident of Bombay. They were arrested on

6/6/2006. The chronology of the events would be as follows :

(i) FIR was lodged on 21/5/2006 against unknown persons.

(ii) An extra judicial confession was made to P.W. 2 on

22/5/2006.

(iii) The accused were arrested on 6/6/2006 from Karnalganj,

district Gonda, Uttar Pradesh.

(iv) Recovery of blood stained clothes was made on 11/6/2006.

The knife was seized from the scene of offence on 21/5/2006 itself.

Talwalkar                                                           21 of 25
                                                           APEAL685.662.2010.doc



28          It is pertinent to note that the Chemical Analyser's report

does not establish that the blood stains on the clothes recovered at the

instance of the accused matched with the blood group of the

deceased. The blood group of the deceased was "O" and blood of "O"

group was found on the knife, electric wire and key chain. The reports

are inconclusive and therefore, it cannot be said that the recovery of

blood stained clothes after more than 3 weeks of the alleged incident is

sufficient material to convict the accused for offence punishable under

section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

29 The first and foremost fact that the weapons such as knife

and wire were noticed while conducting the scene of offence

panchanama and therefore, it is only the recovery of blood-stained

clothes at the instance of the accused. The said evidence does not

inspire the confidence in as much as the scene of offence panchanama

does not even show as to whom the premises belonged from where

the accused had produced the clothes. Moreover, after seizure, the

clothes were not sealed. Panchas to the scene of offence panchanama

appeared to be stock panchas of police. The recovery of the clothes is

made approximately after more than 20 days of the incident.

Talwalkar                                                          22 of 25
                                                              APEAL685.662.2010.doc




30            On elimination of the material in the form of extra judicial

confession and the recovery of blood-stained clothes, this could be a

case of circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the onus would lie upon

the prosecution to show that there are cogent, incriminating

circumstance against the accused which would lead to the only

inference that the accused are guilt of the offence alleged. The motive

for commission of the offence is not proved, which could have in all

probabilities established a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence.

Brother of the deceased is declared hostile. In this premise, the learned

Counsel has placed reliance upon the Judgment in the case of Anwar

Ali & anr. v/s. State of Himachal Pradesh 3. The Apex Court has

observed that -

"It is also required to be noted and it is not in dispute that this is a case of circumstantial evidence. As held by this Court in catena of decisions that in case of a circumstantial evidence, the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else and the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis

3 (2020) 10 SCC 166 Talwalkar 23 of 25 APEAL685.662.2010.doc

than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."

31 There is no unimpeachable, legal, reliable and admissible

evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has been

unable to discharge the onus cast upon it to adduce such evidence

which would prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

32 The Apex Court in the case of Sarwan Singh v.s. State of

Punjab4. The prosecution has to travel the distance between 'may be'

and 'must be'. It was held as follows :

"considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence."

33 In view of the above observations, the appeals deserve to

be allowed.

34            Before parting with the Judgment, this Court appreciates

4    1957 AIR 637
Talwalkar                                                                   24 of 25
                                                            APEAL685.662.2010.doc

the Ms. Devyani Kulkarni, learned Counsel appointed, for giving able

assistance to espouse the cause of the appellants. She is entitled to the

professional fees as per rule.

35. Hence, following order is passed :

ORDER

(I) The appeals are allowed.

(II) The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants

vide Judgment and Order dated 7/7/2010 by the Additional Sessions

Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 807 of 2006 is hereby

quashed and set aside.

(III) The appellants are acquitted of all the charges levelled

against them.

(IV) The appellants be released forthwith if they are in jail. If

they are on bail, their bail bonds stand cancelled.

(V) The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

(VI) In view of disposal of appeals, nothing survives in the

interim applications. The same is disposed of accordingly.

 (PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J)             (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)


Talwalkar                                                           25 of 25