Bombay High Court Hears Multiple Criminal Appeals Arising from a Single Incident of Armed Assault and Murder at Ner, Yavatmal. Appeals Challenge Conviction Under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 326/149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and State Appeal Against Acquittal of Seventeen Accused and Against Acquittal Under Section 307/149.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR
  • 11
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The judgment excerpt deals with a set of criminal appeals before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, arising out of a single incident that occurred on 02.02.2008 at about 2.00 p.m. near the old bus stand, Ner, district Yavatmal. The prosecution case was that a group of accused persons armed with deadly weapons attacked several persons at a barber shop and later in the weekly market, resulting in the death of Javedkhan and injuries to others. The first informant Anis Khan Tayab Khan Pathan (PW1) along with Javedkhan (deceased), Sheikh Shafik, Aniskhan Mustafakhan (PW5), Imrankhan Abrarkhan and Abrarkhan Afsarkhan had gone to the saloon of Banti Shrivastava. While Sheikh Shafik was shaving and Javedkhan was sitting nearby, accused persons entered the saloon armed with weapons like sword, khanjir, knife, gupti, and iron pipes. They assaulted Javedkhan, Sheikh Shafik and Aniskhan Mustafakhan. The deceased Javedkhan sustained multiple injuries including a severed palm of right hand and died at the scene. The informant was also attacked but escaped and hid near a cinema theatre. After the attack, the accused went towards the weekly cattle market and assaulted Nasrullakhan Afsarkhan and Asrarkhan Afsarkhan, and later assaulted Sabirkhan Wahedkhan at his house. An FIR was lodged and Crime No.11/2008 was registered at Police Station Ner. Investigation was conducted by PI Ram Hake (PW22) who collected evidence including a wrist watch, chappal, boot, sheath and scarf from the saloon, conducted inquest, sent the body for post-mortem, recorded statements, arrested the accused and seized weapons on their production and discovery. The trial court in Sessions Trial No.63/2008 convicted six accused, namely Ijajkhan Jabajkhan Pathan, Hasankhan Jabajkhan, Firozkhan alias Firdoskhan Jabajkhan, Nadimoddin Najmoddin, Ziyaullahkhan Jakaullakhan and Shamiullahkhan Anwarkhan, for offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 and 326 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to life imprisonment and other terms. The remaining accused were acquitted. The trial court also acquitted all accused of offences under Sections 4 and 25 of the Arms Act. The absconding accused Nasrullah Khan was tried separately in Sessions Trial No.19/2013 and convicted under Sections 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, with life sentence, but acquitted under the Arms Act. Aggrieved by these judgments, the convicted accused filed appeals challenging their convictions, and the State filed an appeal challenging the acquittal of the remaining accused and the acquittal of the convicted accused for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. The High Court heard these appeals together as they arose from the same incident. The excerpt, however, does not include the arguments advanced by the parties, the court's analysis, or the final decision in the appeals. The legal issues that appear to be involved include the correctness of convictions based on common object, the sufficiency of evidence for unlawful assembly and individual participation, the sustainability of the State's appeal against acquittal, and the separate trial of the absconding accused. The judgment excerpt primarily provides the procedural background, the prosecution case, and the trial court outcomes.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Unlawful Assembly and Rioting - Common Object - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 147, 148, 149 - The trial court convicted six accused for being members of an unlawful assembly with common object to assault and kill victims. The prosecution case described a group of accused persons armed with deadly weapons entering a saloon and attacking victims, followed by further assaults in the weekly market. The High Court was considering appeals against these convictions and the State's appeal against acquittals (Paras 3-5, 6-8).

B) Criminal Law - Murder and Grievous Hurt - Common Object - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 326 read with 149 - The deceased Javedkhan suffered multiple injuries including a severed palm and died at the scene; other victims sustained injuries. The trial court convicted six accused for murder and grievous hurt with the aid of Section 149, while the State appealed for additional conviction under Section 307 against some accused. The appeals raised questions about sufficiency of evidence for common object and individual roles (Paras 4-5, 7).

C) Criminal Law - Separate Trial of Absconding Accused - Conviction for Same Incident - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 307, 147, 148 read with 149 - Accused Nasrullah Khan was absconding during the main trial, so his case was separated and later tried in Sessions Trial No.19/2013. He was convicted under Sections 302/149, 307/149, 147 and 148, and filed an appeal challenging his conviction. The High Court was to determine whether the separate trial and conviction were sustainable (Paras 4-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court correctly convicted accused nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 18 and 21 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 and 326 read with 149 IPC; whether the trial court erred in acquitting the remaining accused persons of all charges; whether the trial court erred in not convicting accused nos.1 to 4, 18 and 21 for offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC; whether the conviction of Nasrullah Khan in Sessions Trial No.19/2013 under Sections 302/149, 307/149, 147 and 148 IPC is sustainable

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Law Points

  • Membership in unlawful assembly with common object attracts constructive liability under Section 149 IPC
  • conviction under Sections 147 and 148 for rioting and being armed with deadly weapons
  • acquittal under Arms Act does not preclude conviction under IPC
  • separate trial for absconding accused permissible
  • State appeal against acquittal requires leave and merits consideration
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (BOM) (07) 138

Criminal Appeal Nos. 149 of 2012, 150 of 2012, 151 of 2012, 448 of 2012, and 309 of 2016

2022-07-27

Sunil B. Shukre, G. A. Sanap

Shri Adwait S. Manohar, Shri P. W. Mirza, Shri S. S. Doifode, Shri R. J. Mirza, Shri P. R. Agrawal, Shri A. A. Naik

Hasankhan Jabajkhan, Nadimoddin Najmoddin, Firozkhan alias Firdoskhan Jabajkhan, Shamiullahkhan Anwarkhan, Ijajkhan Jabajkhan Pathan, Ziyaullahkhan Jakaullahkhan, Nasrullah Khan Jabaz Khan, State of Maharashtra

State of Maharashtra; and in State appeal: Ijajkhan Jabajkhan Pathan and 22 others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeals against conviction and acquittal arising from a single incident of armed assault and murder

Remedy Sought

Convicted accused sought setting aside of their conviction and sentences; the State sought setting aside of acquittal of remaining accused and enhancement of conviction under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC for certain accused.

Filing Reason

Aggrieved by trial court judgments and orders convicting six accused in Sessions Trial No.63/2008 and one absconding accused in Sessions Trial No.19/2013, and acquitting other accused.

Previous Decisions

The Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, by judgment and order dated 29.02.2012 in Sessions Trial No.63/2008 convicted six accused under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 326/149 IPC and acquitted the remaining accused. By judgment and order dated 15.03.2016 in Sessions Trial No.19/2013, Nasrullah Khan was convicted under Sections 302/149, 307/149, 147 and 148 IPC and acquitted under Sections 4 and 25 Arms Act.

Issues

Whether the trial court correctly convicted accused nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 18 and 21 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 and 326 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the remaining accused persons of all charges. Whether the trial court erred in not convicting accused nos.1 to 4, 18 and 21 for offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. Whether the conviction of Nasrullah Khan in Sessions Trial No.19/2013 under Sections 302/149, 307/149, 147 and 148 IPC is sustainable.

Judgment Excerpts

The remaining accused instigated the assailants by stating “ mar dalo salonko, jinda mat chhodo ” ( kill them. Do not leave them alive ). Palm of right hand of Javedkhan was severed from hand . He was lying dead in the saloon. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the remaining accused persons of all the charges.

Procedural History

Crime No.11/2008 was registered at Police Station Ner, district Yavatmal for the incident dated 02.02.2008. Initially, Sessions Trial No.63/2008 was registered against all accused persons. Accused no.17 Nasrullah Khan was absconding, so his trial was separated. After full trial of remaining 23 accused, the Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, by judgment and order dated 29.02.2012 convicted six accused and acquitted the remaining accused. The separated trial of Nasrullah Khan was registered as Sessions Trial No.19/2013, and by judgment and order dated 15.03.2016 he was convicted. The convicted accused and the State filed the present appeals challenging the respective judgments.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 147, 148, 149, 302, 326, 307
  • Arms Act, 1959: 4, 25
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Condonation of Delay in Railway Accident Claim — Illiteracy and Poverty Constitute Sufficient Cause Under Section 17(2) of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The Court set aside the Tribunal's dismissal and remanded the mat...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay Decides Writ Petition Against ONGC's Banning Order. Petitioner Challenges Three-Year Blacklisting on Grounds of Natural Justice Violation.