Case: Mohmedrafiq Husenmiya Thakor and Others Vs. State of Gujarat

for offences ranging from Section 302 IPC to Sections 3 and 4(4) of the TADA Act. However, the learned Judge of the Designated Court found that prosecution succeeded in proving that the nine appellants had committed the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, but could not prove any other offence. Accordingly, the nine appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid 4. Girishbhai sustained a large number of injuries from the pate of his head up to the tibial malleolus of his legs. Such injuries included lacerated wounds involving his skull and brain and incised wounds involving other vital organs. Details of the wounds have been described by Dr. Mohd. Ihyas (PW 1) in the post-mortem certificate. It is not necessary to reproduce the details of those injuries here because it is not disputed before us that Girishbhai was mangled brutally and fatally on the night of 27-3-1990 by being attacked with lethal weapons. The main point raised before us by Shri U. R. Lalit, learned Senior Counsel, is that evidence in this case is too meagre to establish that the appellants were among the assailants 5. We have no doubt that PW 5 and PW 6 have seen the occurrence, at least the beginning of it. PW 3 who gave FIR on the same night had given a narration in it that Girishbhai went in the company of PW 5 and PW 6 after alighting from the bus and later PW 3 came to know that Girishbhai became victim of a violent attack and then he rushed to the scene and on the way he came across PW 5 and PW 6 who gave him a curt summary of the plight of Girishbhai. Moreover, PW 5 and PW 6 were also subjected to an assault in the incident and they too sustained, though very minor, some injuries. We have no reason to think that PW 5 and PW 6 would have falsely testified that they witnessed the first part of the occurrence. We are satisfied, on a perusal of their testimony that the trial court has rightly placed reliance on the testimony of those two witnesses 6. PW 4 (Anil Kumar) is another witness who said that he saw a part of the occurrence. His version is that while he was proceeding to the godown of his uncle he happened to see the deceased in the company of Jitubhai (PW 5) and Nathubhai (PW 6). As they were proceeding near Rafiq Pan Centre, PW 4 saw some persons emerging from ambush near the cabin situated on the roadside, armed with weapons and attacking the deceased Girishbhai. PW 4 took to his heels and reached the house of the Sarpanch (PW 3) and conveyed to him the frightening news. It is pertinent to note in this context that PW 3 has also said that he came to know of the incident first when Anil Kumar (PW 4) told him about it at his house. The learned trial Judge has found the testimony of PW 4 quite reliable and we have no reason to dissent from it 7. From the account given by PW 4, PW 5 and PW 6, we have no doubt that the assailants who attacked the deceased were far more than five in number who formed themselves into an unlawful assembly whose common object was to finish off Girishbhai 8. But the crucial question is whether the appellants, or any one of them, were members of the unlawful assembly. If it was so, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court on such of them, are liable to be upheld 9. The nine appellants are A-42 (Mohmedrafiq), A-43 (Mehboobmiya Lalmiya), A-44 (Mohmed Hanif), A-45 (Imtyaz Ibraham), A-46 (Idrisbhai Gafoorbhai), A-47 (Isamiya Alimiya), A-48 (Basirmiya Insammiya), A-49 (Mahemudmiya Isamiya) and A-58 (Mohmedmiya alias Mamlo Salimmiya) 10. PW 5 (Jitubhai) has identified during trial stage all the nine participants in the crime but PW 6 (Nathubhai) has identified only A-42 (Mohmedrafiq), A-45 (Jmtyaz Ibraham), A-46 (Idrisbhai Gafoorbhai), A-49 (Mahemudmiya Isamiya) and A-58 (Mohmedmiya) as the assailants. We have no difficulty in concurring with the finding of the trial court that those five persons were members of the unlawful assembly. Anil Kumar (PW 4) has also said that A-42, A-45 and A-58 were participants in the incident. But no other witness has supported the version of PW 5 that A-44 (Mohmed Hanif) and A-48 (Basirmiya Insammiya) were also the assailants 11. Of course, PW 4 has deposed that he identified Mahemudmiya and Isamiya also among the assailants but we have difficulty in this case for fixing up those two persons as A-43 and A-47 because among the 63 accused, there are two other persons also bearing the same names. They are A-53 (Maheboobmiya Akbarmiya) and A-1 (Isamiya Mirsabmiya). As PW 4 in his deposition has described the said two accused by the names "Mahboobmiya" and "Isamiya" without any further prefix or suffix, the reference made by the witness could as well apply to A-53 and A-1 also instead of A-43 and A-47. There is a real doubt regarding the identity of the accused as to whether PW 4 would have meant A-53 when he said the name "Mahmoobmiya" and A-1 when he said the name "Isamiya". We are inclined to extend the benefit of that reasonable doubt to A-43 and A-47 12. We wish to utilise this opportunity to impress upon the trial courts of the need to indicate the rank of the accused, besides using the name, while recording evidence in cases involving multiplicity of accused. It would be profitable for the High Courts to issue circulars to the trial courts to implement this practical suggestion to avoid possible miscarriage of justice resulting solely on account of defective and truncated recording of evidence in criminal cases involving many accused. It is a necessity for the appellate and revisional courts since such courts have to exercise jurisdiction only h with the help of records of the case

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]We have no reason to think that PW 5 and PW 6 would have falsely testified that they witnessed the first part of the occurrence. We are satisfied, on a perusal of their testimony that the trial court has rightly placed reliance on the testimony of those two witnesses6. PW 4 (Anil Kumar) is another witness who said that he saw a part of the occurrence. His version is that while he was proceeding to the godown of his uncle he happened to see the deceased in the company of Jitubhai (PW 5) and Nathubhai (PW 6). As they were proceeding near Rafiq Pan Centre, PW 4 saw some persons emerging from ambush near the cabin situated on the roadside, armed with weapons and attacking the deceased Girishbhai. PW 4 took to his heels and reached the house of the Sarpanch (PW 3) and conveyed to him the frightening news. It is pertinent to note in this context that PW 3 has also said that he came to know of the incident first when Anil Kumar (PW 4) told him about it at his house. The learned trial Judge has found the testimony of PW 4 quite reliable and we have no reason to dissent from it7. From the account given by PW 4, PW 5 and PW 6, we have no doubt that the assailants who attacked the deceased were far more than five in number who formed themselves into an unlawful assembly whose common object was to finish off Girishbhai8. But the crucial question is whether the appellants, or any one of them, were members of the unlawful assembly.If it was so, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court on such of them, are liable to be upheld9. The nine appellants are2 (Mohmedrafiq),3 (Mehboobmiya Lalmiya),4 (Mohmed Hanif),5 (Imtyaz Ibraham),6 (Idrisbhai Gafoorbhai),7 (Isamiya Alimiya),8 (Basirmiya Insammiya),9 (Mahemudmiya Isamiya) and8 (Mohmedmiya alias Mamlo Salimmiya)10. PW 5 (Jitubhai) has identified during trial stage all the nine participants in the crime but PW 6 (Nathubhai) has identified only2 (Mohmedrafiq),5 (Jmtyaz Ibraham),6 (Idrisbhai Gafoorbhai),9 (Mahemudmiya Isamiya) and8 (Mohmedmiya) as the assailants. We have no difficulty in concurring with the finding of the trial court that those five persons were members of the unlawful assembly. Anil Kumar (PW 4) has also said that5 and8 were participants in the incident. But no other witness has supported the version of PW 5 that4 (Mohmed Hanif) and8 (Basirmiya Insammiya)were alsothe assailants11. Of course, PW 4 has deposed that he identified Mahemudmiya and Isamiya also amongthe assailantsbut we have difficulty in this case for fixing up those two persons as3 and7 because among the 63 accused, there are two other persons also bearing the same names. They are3 (Maheboobmiya Akbarmiya) and1 (Isamiya Mirsabmiya). As PW 4 in his deposition has described the said two accused by the names "Mahboobmiya" and "Isamiya" without any further prefix or suffix, the reference made by the witness could as well apply to3 and1 also instead of3 and. There is a real doubt regarding the identity of the accused as to whether PW 4 would have meant3 when he said the name "Mahmoobmiya" and1 when he said the name "Isamiya". We are inclined to extend the benefit of that reasonable doubt to12. We wish to utilise this opportunity to impress upon the trial courts of the need to indicate the rank of the accused, besides using the name, while recording evidence in cases involving multiplicity of accused. It would be profitable for the High Courts to issue circulars to the trial courts to implement this practical suggestion to avoid possible miscarriage of justice resulting solely on account of defective and truncated recording of evidence in criminal cases involving many accused. It is a necessity for the appellate and revisional courts since such courts have to exercise jurisdiction only h with the help of records of the case