Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant, Shailendrakumar Satyanarayan Thakur, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai, on 25th October 2010, for offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1)(a) read with Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. The case of the prosecution was that the appellant and the deceased, Santoshkumar Sing, were colleagues and that the deceased had advanced a hand loan of Rs. 2,00,000 to the appellant, which remained unpaid despite repeated demands. On 31st January 2007, the deceased went to the appellant to demand repayment. Later that evening, they boarded an autorickshaw driven by PW1 Fulchand Yadav from Evershine, Vasai, to travel to Sativali and then to Vasai Road Railway Station. As the last train had departed, they engaged the autorickshaw to take them to Dahisar. PW1, considering the long journey, called his friend PW5 Avdesh Yadav to accompany him. During the journey, a conversation ensued about the loan, and the deceased demanded his money back. Near Kamankhind on the Ahmedabad‑Mumbai road, the appellant allegedly fired three shots from a firearm at the deceased. PW1 and PW5 jumped out of the autorickshaw, and the appellant fell out as well. The appellant then fired a fourth shot at the deceased. The autorickshaw drivers went to the Chinchoti police outpost and reported the incident. The injured deceased was taken to Golden Park Hospital, Vasai, where he later succumbed to his injuries. The FIR lodged by PW1 led to the registration of Crime No. 39/2007 at Manikpur Police Station. During investigation, four empty cartridges, one fired bullet, blood samples from the autorickshaw and soil, and other articles were seized. The appellant was arrested, and based on his disclosure statement, his clothes and the firearm were recovered. The trial court accepted the prosecution evidence and convicted him, sentencing him to life imprisonment for the murder charge and rigorous imprisonment for five years for the Arms Act offence, with the sentences to run concurrently. In the appeal, the appellant challenged the conviction on several grounds. It was argued that the FIR was ante‑timed as PW1 claimed he had not signed any papers before 9.30 a.m. on 1st February 2007, whereas the spot panchnama was recorded between 7.30 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. on that day, and PW1 could not have been present at both places. The defence contended that the spot was not properly guarded and was vulnerable to alteration. The identification of the accused by the eyewitnesses was challenged as doubtful, pointing to the opening statements of PW1 and PW5. The recovery evidence was doubted because PW1 stated in cross‑examination that the police had not seized anything in his presence, contrary to the spot panchnama. It was submitted that the empties were found in the front portion of the autorickshaw, which did not match the described manner of assault. Medical evidence showed no soot, powder, or skin blackening, contradicting the claim of point‑blank firing, and the ballistic expert was not examined. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Ram Narain Singh Jaggar Singh v. State of Punjab (1975 AIR SC 1727) and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Abdul Wahid. The excerpt of the judgment provided ends with the appellant’s arguments, and no further reasoning or the final decision of the High Court is included.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and Section 25(1)(a) read with Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act was justified in light of the alleged discrepancies in the identification evidence, the alleged ante-timing of the FIR, and the lack of corroboration from the ballistic expert
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (01) 58
Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2011
Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, A.M. Badar
Mr. S.R. Borulkar for appellant, Mr. H.J. Dedia Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent
Shailendrakumar Satyanarayan Thakur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and firearm offences.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
Filing Reason
The appellant challenged the judgment and order of the Addl. Sessions Judge convicting him, alleging errors in the appreciation of evidence.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and Section 25(1)(a) read with 27 of the Indian Arms Act, sentencing him to life imprisonment and five years rigorous imprisonment respectively, with concurrent running of sentences.
Issues
Whether the FIR was ante-timed and ante-dated, as PW1 stated he signed no papers before 9:30 AM on 01.02.2007?
Whether the spot panchanama was doubtful because PW1 could not have shown the spot while being at the police station?
Whether the identification of the accused by the eyewitnesses was reliable given their alleged failure to identify him in court?
Whether the recovery evidence was credible when PW1 claimed no seizure in his presence?
Whether the absence of ballistic expert's examination and the discrepancy in the description of the weapon (pistol vs revolver) created doubt?
Whether the medical evidence contradicted the eyewitness account regarding point-blank range firing?
Submissions/Arguments
The FIR is ante-timed as PW1 stated he did not sign any papers before 9:30 AM on 01.02.2007, while the FIR was shown recorded earlier.
The spot panchanama was recorded from 7:30 AM to 9:30 AM on 01.02.2007, but PW1 was at the police station till 11:30 AM, so he could not have shown the spot.
PW7 Gopal Awhad did not mention PW1's presence at the scene, casting doubt on the spot's integrity.
The identification of the accused by PW1 and PW5 was doubtful due to inconsistencies in their evidence.
PW1 stated in cross-examination that police had not seized anything before him, contradicting the spot panchanama's recital of seizure of dried blood.
The empties found in the autorickshaw did not match the described manner of assault, creating doubt.
The medical evidence showed no soot, powder, or skin blackening, contradicting the claim of point-blank firing, supported by ballistic report indicating shots were fired beyond powder range.
The ballistics expert was not examined, and the weapon description differed (pistol vs revolver), affecting the reliability of the recovery evidence.
Reliance placed on Ram Narain Singh Jaggar Singh Vs. State of Punjab and State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Abdul Wahid.
Judgment Excerpts
It is case of prosecution that appellant / accused Shailendrakumar Thakur and deceased Santoshkumar Sing were working with Khimji Builders.
Deceased Santoshkumar had advanced a hand loan of Rs. 2,00,000/ to appellant / accused Shailendrakumar Thakur. That loan was not repaid by the appellant / accused.
When that autorickshaw was on its way to Dahisar via AhmedabadMumbai road, near Kamankhind, appellant / accused fired three shots from the firearm on deceased Santoshkumar.
After this incident, PW 01 Fulchand Yadav and PW 05 Avdesh Yadav went to Chinchoti outpost and informed the incident to Police.
He argued that the FIR at Exhibit 14 is antetimed and antedated as PW 01 Fulchand Yadav has stated that he had not signed any papers before 09.30 a.m. of 01.02.2007.
According to the learned Advocate for the appellant, the spot was not guarded and it was left for alteration.
The ballistic expert was not examined.
Procedural History
The appellant was convicted by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Vasai, on 25.10.2010, under Section 302 IPC and Section 25(1)(a) read with 27 of the Indian Arms Act, and sentenced to life imprisonment and five years rigorous imprisonment respectively. He filed Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2011 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The appeal was heard, and judgment was reserved on 22.12.2016 and pronounced on 10.01.2017.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302
- Indian Arms Act, 1959: 25(1)(a), 27
