1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 405 OF 1997 Mohd. Hanif Abdul Rashid Shaikh ... Appellant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 432 OF 1997 Salim Abdul Rehman Shaikh ... Appellant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. K.M. Sangani for the Appellant in Appeal No. 405 of 1997. Mr. P. S. Hingorani, A.P.P. for the State in both the Appeals. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : MARCH 26, 2010. JUDGMENT :- Both these Appeals filed by the original Accused No. 3 and Accused No.4, challenges the order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai dated 7th May, 1997 thereby convicting the original Accused Nos. 1 to 5 for the offences punishable under section 402 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer R/I for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- by each of them and in default 2 to suffer further R/I for one month. The accused have also been convicted for the offence punishable under section 397 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R/I. seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- by each of them and in default to suffer further R/I for two months. 2. The accused Nos. 1,2 3 and 5 are also convicted for the offence punishable under section 25(I-B) (a) of Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to suffer R/I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.300/- by each of them and in default to suffer further R/I. for fifteen days. 3. The Prosecution case in nutshell is as under : On 2nd April, 1993 at around 11.00 a.m. Senior P.I. Mr.Bhagwe attached to Dongri Police station received a secret information to the effect that five to six decoits armed with weapons have assembled in Room No. 205 of Hotel Almas Palace situated in the compound of Maratha Mandir Cinema, Dr. A. Naik Road, Mumbai Central, Mumbai - 8 with intent to commit dacoity somewhere at Nagdevi street. Thereafter, senior P. I. Bhagwe called P.I. Patil, A.P.I. Hande, S.I. Shaikh and S.I. B.T. Jadhav in his chamber and disclosed them the information 3 received by him and instructed them to carry out the raid. Accordingly, P. I. Patil formed a team of raiding party members consisting of A.P.I. Handa, S.I. Shaikh, S.I. Jadhav and 10 to 12 policemen. Thereafter, the raiding party armed with weapons proceeded in a police jeep at about 12.30 noon in Hotel Almas Palace. After parking the vehicle near the Hotel, P. I. Patil, A.P.I. Hande and some constables reached at the counter of Hotel Almas Palace. P. I. Patil, contacted the Receptionist-Cum- Manager of the Hotel and made enquiry with him about Room No.205. He came to know that the said room was booked by two Mohamedians. Thereafter, P.I. Patil deputed members of the raiding party at the important points at the Hotel and he himself, A.P.I. Hande, S.I. Shaikh, S.I. Jadhav and four to five policemen went to the Room No.205. P.I. Patil knocked the door of the room under the pretext of waiter. After the door was opened, the members of the raiding party rushed inside the room, where six persons were found. P. I. Patil instructed them to stand up and raise their hands and not to move from place by disclosing their identity. One of the head constable was sent to fetch two panchas. After arrival of panchas, those person discloses their identity as under : Riyaz Ahmed @ Babu S/o. Zahur Ansari, Mohmed Nayeem @ Javed S/o. Amir Shaikh, Mohmad Hanif Abdul Rashid Shaikh, 4 Salim Abdul Rehman Shaikh, Khalil Hasan Khalpe and Khimram Puraji Chaudhary. 4. Thereafter, in the presence of panchas those person were searched when accused No. 1 Riyaz was found in possession of country made pistol loaded with a cartridges of 0.8 mm bore which was concealed on his right side waist below the T-shirt, one more live cartridge also found in his right side pant pocket. He was also found in possession of a sword. Accused No. 2 Mohd. Nayeem was found in possession of revolver loaded with four live cartridges of 0.30 mm bore in his right side pant pocket and also found in possession of a copper. Accused No. 3 Mohd. Hanif was found in possession of country made revolver loaded with three live cartridges of 0.32 bore in his right side pant pocket and big chopper and one bag containing Rs.25,600/- in cash. Accused No. 4 Salim Abdul was found in possession of a button knife in his right side pant pocket and a dragger type knife Accused No. 5 Khalil Hasan was found in possession of revolver without chamber in his right side pant pocket and two live cartridges of 0.32 mm bore from the said pocket and one Motor Cycle bearing No. MH-03-A-9125 parked in the open space of the Hotel. Absconding accused Khimraj Pujari was found in possession of a liver knife in his right side pant pocket and a 5 button knife in his left side pant pocket. 5. The fire arms, ammunitions and illegal weapons were removed from the possession of these persons. They were unloaded and separately packed, sealed and labeled bearing signatures of panchas on the spot. During the search of Hotel Room No. 205, one black colour unilite make brief case was found in locked condition which was claimed by Accused No.3, as his briefcase. Since the Accused No.3 informed that he lost the key, the briefcase was then broke opened and found containing cash of Rs.25,600/- and a Sanyo make two-in-one. On further enquiry regarding the articles, the Accused No.5 lead police party alongwith panchas to the ground floor of the Hotel and pointed out Yamaha Motor Cycle bearing No. MH-03-A-9125. He also produced the key of the Motor Cycle before the police. The said Motor-Cycle and keys were also seized. The panchanama were written by P. I. Patil. The same was read over to the panchas in Marathi and before the panchas signed on the panchanama. The accused were thereafter brought to the Dongari Police Station where S.I. Jadhav lodged the complaint which is treated as an FIR and registered an offence under section 399, 402 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code read with section 3 and 25 of Arms Act, 1959, vide C.R. No.00/93 of Dongri Police Station. 6 Since, the case was pertaining to the jurisdiction of Nagpada Police Station, a copy of the FIR and first crime report was sent to said police station and the same is registered by Nagpada Police station vide C. R. No. 199 of 1993. After completion of investigation, the sanction was accorded by the Deputy Commissioner of Police to prosecute the accused Nos. 1,2 3 and 5 under the Arms Act, 1959. The charge sheet came to be filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case came to be committed to the learned Sessions Judge. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Judge recorded the conviction. 6. Being aggrieved thereby the present Appeals have been filed in the High Court. 7. Mr. Sangani the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that there are various lacunas in the prosecution case. He submits that the prosecution had not executed panchanamas in so far as the sealing of the arms and weapons allegedly seized from the accused, is concerned. He further submitted that the weapons are not exhibited and identified. He submits that the statement of the Manager and 7 waiters of the Hotel wherein the alleged raid is taken place has also not been recorded and that they have not been examined as witnesses in the trial. He further submits that the secret information is not recorded in writing. He, therefore, submits that the prosecution case is full of doubts and as such the learned Trial Court ought to have acquitted the Appellants, by giving them benefit of doubt. 6. Mr. Hingorani, the learned A.P.P. submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by examining the Police Officers who are the members of the raiding party. He submits that the panchanama regarding the seizure of the arms and weapons seized from the accused has been drawn. He further submits that from the report of the ballistic experts, it can be seen that articles were received in a sealed conditions, and therefore, the contention in this respect as raised by the Respondents is without substance. It is further submitted that merely because the witnesses are police officer, cannot be a ground for discarding the testimony. 7. To establish the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 Balasaheb Tukaram Jadhav who was the complainant and one of the member of the raiding party, P. W. 2 8 Ayub Khan Khuddat Khan who was owner of the Yamaha Motor Cycle recovered from the possession of the accused No.5, P.W.3 Arun Santuji Hande A.P.I. and Sadashiv Laxman Patil, who were member, of the raiding party. 8. In the evidence of P.W. 1 P. I. Jadhav who was one of the member of the raiding party, he has narrated the incident about senior P .I. calling himself and other members of the raiding party. He has also given details regarding the raid carried out by the members of the raiding party. It has been specifically stated by this witness that the accused persons were searched after the arrival of panchas. In so far as the present Appellants are concerned, it has been stated that the revolvers alongwith cartridges and packet containing Rs.25,600/- were seized from them. In so far as the Accused No. 4 is concerned, a button knife and dragger were seized from him. It is also stated that the panchnama was drawn by A.P.I. Hande. He further states that all the recovered articles were seized, sealed and labeled bearing signature of panchas and after conclusion of the panchnama, the accused alongwith the seized articles were brought to Dongari Police Station. The seized articles have been identified by the said witnesses. It is to be noted from his evidence, that when the said articles were produced before the Court, they were in a 9 sealed and labeled condition. The articles were opened in the Court after opening their seal and labels. The said witness has also identified the accused in the Court. Though, the said witness has been throughly cross-examined, nothing damaging has been come on record. The evidence of P. W. 2 would not be relevant for the Appellants in as much as it concerned with the recovery of the Motor Cycle allegedly used in the trap, at the instance of the some other accused. 9. The evidence of P.W.No.3 Arun Santuji Hande who was also the member of raiding party and who has drawn the panachanama also fully corroborate the version given by P .W. No. 1. He also specifically states in his evidence that all the revolvers were unloaded and the cartridges were separated. He states that these articles were packed, sealed separately and labeled with his counter signature. The panchanma of seizure, sealing and labeling the aforesaid articles has been duly exhibited at Exhibit 22 by the said witness. Nothing damaging has also come on record in the evidence of this witness. P. W. No. 4 P .I. Patil who was head of the raiding party also corroborates the version of P. W. No.1 and P. W. No.3. He also states that the detailed panchanama was drawn on the spot by A.P. I. Hande under his direction. He further stated that the panchanma was 10 signed by the panchas and counter signed by A.P.I. Hande. He further submits that the weapons and arms which were seized were sent to the a ballistic experts for examination alongwith letter dated 15th May, 1993. The report of the ballistic experts has been exhibited during his evidence. The witness has been throughly cross-examined, but, nothing damaging has come on record. 10. The evidence of these witnesses is corroborated by panchanma Exhibit 22, forwarding letter by P. W. No. 4 to the Chemical Analyzer Exhibit 26, the report of the forensic science laboratory Exhibit 27. From Exhibit 26 it can be clearly seen that the nine parcels which were received by the forensic science laboratory in a sealed cover. In view of this, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the Appellants that there was no evidence to show that the seized articles were either sealed or labeled. The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W. 4 read with Exhibit 22, 26 and 27 would show that the said articles were seized and properly labeled under the signature of panchas. 11. Merely because the panchas were not examined, or the staff of the hotel where the raid was carried was not examined, cannot be a ground to discard the prosecution case. It 11 is also the settled law that, merely because the witnesses are officers of the police, their evidence cannot be discarded. If their evidence is found to be cogent, trustworthy and reliable, a conviction could be based on the said evidence. In the present case, I find that the evidence of P. W. No.1, 3 and 4, is cogent reliable and trustworthy. Their ocular testimony is corroborated by Exhibit 22, 26 and 27. I therefore, on re-appreciation the evidence find that the learned Trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the Appellants. 12. The Appeals are therefore, dismissed, in so far as order of conviction is concerned. 13. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Appellants in Appeal submits that Appellants have undergone a sentence of more then 4 ½ years and have been released on bail in the year 1998. It has submitted that he has not been found to be involved in any criminal activities since the period of more then 12 years. 14. The position regarding the Appellants being released on bail in 1998, and thereafter not indulging in any criminal activities, has not been disputed. 12 15. Since the Appellants have not misused their liberty and have not indulged in criminal activities for a period of last 12 years and since they have already undergone sentence of more then 4 ½ years, it would not be in the interest of justice to send them to jail at this stage. 16. I find that the interest of justice would be subserved by partly allowing the Appeals, in so far as the order of sentence, is concerned and sentencing the Appellant Accused Nos.3 and 4 to suffers R/I. for the period they have already undergone. 17. Needless to add that the order in so far as fine is concerned, the same would stand, as directed by the learned Trial Court. [ B.R. GAVAI, J. ]