Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mohammed Irshad Kamal Hasan Shaikh, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No.700 of 2003 for offences punishable under Sections 333 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 333 IPC, and imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence before the Bombay High Court. The facts of the case are that on 29th August 2002, at about 12:55 am, PW-1 PSI Jayendra Sawant received secret information that thieves who had stolen a vehicle were present at Sai Leela Hotel in Ghatkopar. He proceeded to the hotel along with other police officers, including PW-4 Head Constable Rajendra Ghadge, PW-2 Police Naik Subhash Panigrahi, PW-3 Police Constable Vijay Mahagaonkar, and the deceased Police Constable Shrikrishna Pednekar, who was driving the mobile van. Upon arrival, they saw two persons hurriedly descending the staircase. PW-1 showed his identity card and informed them of the raid, but the two persons manhandled the police and tried to flee. The appellant was caught by PW-1, PW-2, and PW-4. To escape, the appellant bit the hands of PW-4 and PW-1 and pushed PW-2. PW-1 again caught the appellant from behind, and the appellant removed a pistol from his waist and fired three rounds at Driver Pednekar, who had rushed towards them. Two bullets hit Pednekar, one on the chest and one on the hand, causing his death. The appellant was apprehended. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the testimony of the police witnesses and medical evidence. The High Court, in appeal, considered the credibility of police witnesses and held that there is no legal bar to convict an accused on the sole testimony of police officers if it is trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence. The court found that the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, and PW-4 was consistent, natural, and corroborated by the medical evidence, which showed that the deceased died due to firearm injuries. The court also noted that the appellant's act of biting the police officers constituted an offence under Section 333 IPC. The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Conviction based on eyewitness testimony of police officers - Held that the testimony of police witnesses, being natural witnesses, is credible and reliable, and the medical evidence corroborates the ocular evidence (Paras 1-13). B) Criminal Law - Assault on Public Servant - Section 333 IPC - Bite injuries on police officers - Held that the appellant's act of biting police officers to escape arrest constitutes voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from duty (Paras 3-5). C) Evidence Law - Credibility of Witnesses - Police witnesses - Held that there is no legal bar to convict an accused on the sole testimony of police officers if it is trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence (Paras 10-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is sustainable based on the evidence of police witnesses and medical reports.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 302 and 333 IPC are upheld.
Law Points
- Murder
- Culpable Homicide
- Assault on Public Servant
- Common Intention
- Circumstantial Evidence
- Credibility of Police Witnesses
