JUDG.MCOCSPC.

7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 1
INTHECOURTOFSPECIALJUDGEDESIGNATEDUNDERMCOC
ACT
ATGR.MUMBAI.
MCOCSPECIALCASENO.7OF2008
ALONGWITH
SPECIALCASENO.16OF2008
ALONGWITH
SPECIALCASENO.3OF2009.
ALONGWITH
SESSIONSCASENO.529OF2007.
TheStateofMaharashtra. ...Complainant
V/s.
1.ArunGulabGawali. )
Age:58years. )
R/o.GeetaiCoop.Hsg.Society, )
3
rd
floor,BapuraoJagtapMarg, )
Byculla,Mumbai400011. )
)
2.VijaykumarHariharGiri. )
Age:30years. )
R/o.SonuBhoirChawl,ShivdeviSadan, )
Kokanipada,Dahisar(E),Mumbai. )
)
3.AshokkumarShivkantJaiswar. )
Age:23years. )
R/o.MunshiMahal,ShankarShethChawl, )
RoomNo.2,PratapNagarRoad, )
Bhandup(W),Mumbai400078. )
)
4.Narendra@Kandi@GudduLalmaniGiri. )
Age:23years. )
R/o.PandeCompound,HanumanTekdi, )
NearYadavTabela,Kajupada, )
Dahisar(E),Mumbai. )
)
5.AnilSherbahadurGiri. )
Age:26years. )
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 2
R/o.RoomNo.401, )
AshtavinayakSociety,SangharshNagar, )
Chandivali,Andheri(E), )
Mumbai400072. )
)
6.SahebraoKaluramBhintade. )
Age:61years. )
R/o.A/204,DhanlaxmiCoop.Hsg.Soc., )
MohiliVilla,AndheriGhatkoparLinkRoad, )
Sakinaka,Mumbai400072. )
)
7.SadashivDhonduSurve@BalaSurve. )
(Caseisabatedasdiedon17.7.2012). )
)
8.Surendra@SureshVasudevPanchal. )
Age:52years. )
R/o.At&PostRajapur,TalukaRajapur, )
DistrictRatnagiri. )
)
9.Sandeep@SandyBaliramGangan. )
Age:40years. )
R/o.714/E,DagdiChawl,RoomNo.28, )
BapuraoJagtapMarg,Byculla(West), )
Mumbai400011. )
)
10.Shrikrishna@BabuTukaramGurav. )
Age:34years. )
R/o.ShriprasadBuilding,RoomNo.2, )
Groundfloor,B.R.Nagar,Diva(E), )
Thane. )
)
11.Dinesh@DinyaLaxmanNarkar. )
Age:35years. )
R/o.RoomNo.56,Fourthfloor, )
SanjivaniPrasad,KhedGalli, )
Prabhadevi,Mumbai400025. )
)
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 3
12.PratapTukaramGodse. )
Age:28years. )
R/o.2/21,LaxmiNiwasChawl, )
LaxminarayanMandirMarg, )
MohiliVillage,Sakinaka, )
Mumbai400072. )
)
13.AjitChandrakantRane. )
Age:34years. )
R/o.B/501,ShivamApartment, )
NearChandivaliStudio,Sakinaka, )
Mumbai400072. )
)
14.Prakash@PappuHirjiSawla. )Discharged.
)
15.SureshRaghunathPatil. )
Age:30years. )
R/o.714/1,DagdiChawl,RoomNo.24, )
1
st
floor,BapuraoJagtapRoad, )
Byculla(W),Mumbai400011. )
)
16.Subhash@Subhashchandra )
AvadhnarayanUpadhyay. )Discharged.
)
17.PankajKothari. )Discharged.
)
18.MohammedSaifMohiddinFaruqui )
aliasBobby. )Discharged.
)
19.BadrealamBadruddinFaruqui. )Discharged.
)
20.SunilSadashivGhate. )
Age:52years. )
R/o.714/F,DagdiChawl,RoomNo.20&21, )
1
st
floor,BapuraoJagtapMarg, )
Byculla(W),Mumbai400011. )
)
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 4
21.GaneshKrishnaSalvi. )
Age:42years. )
R/o.PatelChawl,Roomno.7, )
SubhashNagar,AsalphaVillage, )
Ghatkopar,Mumbai400084. )...Accused.

Mr.RajaThakare,learnedSpecialP.P.fortheStateComplainant.
Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, learned advocate for Accused nos. 1 to 3 and
7,11,14&16.
Mr.NitinSejpal,learnedadvocateforAccusednos.4,5and10.
Mr.GirishKulkarni,learnedadvocateforAccusedno.6.
Mr.AvinashRasal,learnedadvocateforAccusednos.8,12,13,&16.
Mr.H.E.Moomen,learnedadvocateforAccusedno.9.
CORAM:HISHONOURTHESPECIALJUDGE
SHRIP.K.CHAVAN.
DATED:31STAUGUST,2012.
JUDGMENT
(DELIVEREDON31STAUGUST,2012)
1. A sitting Corporator namely Kamlakar Jamsandekar was
shotdeadinabroaddaylightathishomebysomeunidentifiedpersons
who were hired by the henchmen of Arun Gawali, who was then a
sitting MLA of 'Akhil Bhartiya Sena', a kingpin of an organized crime
syndicate.
2. Theprosecutioncase,inshort,asemergedfromtherecord
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 5
filedbyDCB,CID,UnitIIIcanbestatedasfollows:
3. The accused, hereinabove stand charged by DCB,CID,
Mumbaiallegingthattheaccusednos.1,9,10,12,13,15and20were
membersofanorganizedcrimesyndicatedheadedbyA1ArunGawali
whoisaMLAofhispartyviz.AkhilBhartiyaSena.Accusednos.1to7
and accused nos. 10, 12 and 13 hatched a conspiracy to kill the
deceased Kamlakar Jamsandekar, a sitting Corporator of a political
party known as 'Shivsena'. As such, the deceased Kamlakar
Jamsandekarwasshotdeadon2
nd
March2007byA2VijaykumarGiri
withacountrymadehandgunwhenthedeceasedwasathishome.It
isalsothecaseofprosecutionthataccusednos.2to4committedthe
offenceatthebehestoforganizedcrimesyndicateheadedbyA1Arun
Gawali, who, by accepting Rs.30 lakhs from accused nos. 6 and 7
throughA12PratapandA13Raneaccepteda'supari' (acontractto
kill)toeliminateKamlakarJamsandekarduetopoliticalrivalry. Itis
alleged that in the said meeting,A1 Arun Gawali alleged to have
assuredA6SahebraoBhintadeandA7SadashivSurvebysayingnotto
worryandtheworkofJamsandekarwillbedone.
4. It is the case of prosecution that deceased Kamlakar
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 6
JamsandekarwascontestinganelectionofCorporatorwhichwasheld
on1.2.2007. OneofthecontestantwasA13AjitRane,anomineeof
Akhil Bhartiya Sena. Jamsandekar was declared elected in the said
election.Inthisbackground,on4.2.2007,A12PratapGodse,A13Ajit
Rane,A21GaneshSalviandPravinMarathestarteddiscussingabout
thereasonastowhyA13AjitRanecouldnotsecureexpectednumber
of votes. They believed that some mischief had been played in the
electioni.e.intheelectronicvotingmachine.A13AjitRanesuggested
thatKamlakarJamsandekarshould, therefore,bekilled. A12Pratap
Godsealsoallegedtohavestatedthathewasalsowillingtoparticipate
inthekillingofJamsandekar.
5. Deceased Kamlakar Jamsandekar was residing at Rumani
Manzil, Chawl No. 1, Room No. 7, Asalfa Village, Mohili Pipe Line,
Ghatkopar,Mumbai 400084,alongwithhisfamily. Hewasresiding
with his wife, daughter, son and niece Ms. Manali Keshav Hire, the
complainant.
6. Onthefatefuldayof2
nd
March,2007,atabout16.45hours,
complainant (P.W. 7)Manali KeshavHirewas washing utensils inthe
kitchen.KamlakarwaswatchingT.V.intheadjacentroom.Thewifeof
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 7
deceased Kamlakar viz. Komal (P.W. 1) had already left the house at
about4.00p.m.for'SamtaVidyaMandir'whereshewasinvitedtogreet
thestudentsappearingforexamination.Complainant'scousinSailiwas
packing her school bag near her father Kamlakar. At that time, the
complainantheardabigfirecrackerlikesoundfromtheadjacentroom
and when she immediately turned back, she noticed two unknown
personsfleeingawayfromthesaidroom.Sherushedtowardsheruncle
andfoundhimlyinginthechairwithbloodoozingfromtheleftsideof
his head. P.W. 7 Manali Hire came out of the house by screaming
KakanaWachwaHo, whichmeans'savemyuncle'. Shealsonoticed
the assailants running away towards left side of their house. She
realizedthatthosetwounknownpersonshadfiredashotatheruncle
bytheirfirearm andfledaway. Some onecontacted thepoliceand
theyarrivedatthescene.
7. Thepolicearrivedonthespotimmediately. Theyremoved
Kamlakar to Rajawadi hospital where he was declared dead before
admissionbythedoctor.
8. AfurtherinvestigationrevealedthatA7SadashivSurveand
deceasedKamlakarJamsandekarwereoncrosstermsoversomeland
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 8
property. He, therefore, hatched a conspiracy with A6 Sahebrao
Bhintade who used to be the political 'guru' of deceased Kamlakar
Jamsandekarandwholateronturnedtobehisenemy.
9. ItisallegedthatA6SahabraoBhintadeandA7Sadashiv
DhonduSurvealiasBalaSurveapproachedA12PratapTukaramGodse
andA13AjitRanewhoarethemembersoforganizedcrimesyndicate
ofA1ArunGawaliinordertogiveacontracttoeliminateKamlakar
Jamsandekar.A12PratapTukaramGodseassuredA6andA7abouta
meeting to be fixed with A1 Arun Gawali. Accordingly, A12 Pratap
TukaramGodsehadarrangedameetingofA6SahabraoBhintadewith
A1ArunGawali.A12PratapTukaramGodseandA13AjitRanethen
took A6 Sahebrao Bhintade and A7 Sadashiv Dhondu Surve alias
Bala Surve to the Office of Akhil Bhartiya Sena, a political party of
whichA1ArunGawaliwasasittingMLAattherelevanttimeonthe
ground floor of Geetai Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Dagdi
Chawl, Byculla, Mumbai. They met A9 Sandip alias Sandy Baliram
GanganwhoisalsoahenchmanofA1ArunGawali. Theyinformed
A9 Sandip alias Sandy Baliram Gangan that they had brought the
contractmoneyuponwhichA9SandipaliasSandycalledA15Suresh
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 9
Patil on his mobile phone from the mobile phone of A12 Pratap
TukaramGodse.A15SureshPatilandA9SandipaliasSandyBaliram
GangantookA6SahebraoBhintade,A7SadashivDhonduSurvealias
BalaSurve,A12PratapTukaramGodseandA13AjitRanetotheoffice
of A1 Arun Gawali on second floor. A6 Sahebrao Bhintade, A7
SadashivDhonduSurvealiasBalaSurvehandedoverRs.30lakhstoA1
ArunGawaliasacontractmoneytokillKamalakarJamsandekar. A1
ArunGawaliinstructedA12PratapGodseandA13AjitRanetohire
freshunknownkillersinordertoavoidhisgangsinvolvement. A12
Pratap Godse, therefore, asked one Pradip Shinde whether he would
eliminateJamsandekar.However,PradipShinderefused.
10. A12 Pratap Godse then asked A10 Shrikrishna @ Babu
TukaramGuravtofindoutnewshooterstokillKamlakarJamsandekar,
uponwhich, A10Shrikrishna@BabuTukaramGuravcontactedA2
VijaykumarGiriandA4NarendraaliasKandialiasGudduLalmaniGiri
and told them about the contract. A2 Vijaykumar Giri and A4
Narendra alias Kandi alias Guddu Lalmani Giri accepted the contract
putforthbyA10Shrikrishna@BabuTukaramGuravatthebehestof
A12 Pratap Godse. A10 Shrikrishna @ Babu Tukaram Gurav then
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 10
tookthemtoA12PratapGodseandA13AjitRane.Theyofferedthem
Rs.2.5lakhsforthemurder.A1ArunGawaliaskedA15SureshPatilto
payRs.60,000/toA12PratapGodseforpayingthesametothehired
killers. Accordingly,A15SureshPatilgaveRs.60,000/toA9Sandip
aliasSandytohanditovertoA12PratapGodseandA13AjitRane.
A12PratapGodseandA13AjitRanepaidRs.20,000/asanadvance
toA2VijaykumarGiriandA4NarendraaliasKandiGiri.A12Pratap
Godse and A13 Ajit Rane had also provided them with a .12 bore
country made handgun which they had already purchased from A8
SurendraPanchalwhohasalicenceofrepairingarmsandammunitions.
11. Accordingtotheprosecution,A12PratapGodseaskedP.W.
4AbdulRehamanAsifaliKhantopointoutKamlakarJamsandekarto
thehiredkillers.P.W.4AbdulRehamanaliasAsifaliKhanwasworking
asaservantofA12PratapGodse.Accordingly,P.W.4AbdulRehaman
pointedoutKamlakarJamsandekartoA2VijaykumarGiri,A3Jaiswar,
A4NarendraaliasKandiGiriandA5AnilGiri. Thekillersthereafter
started keeping a watch on the house of Kamlakar Jamsandekar for
about15days,butcouldnotgetachancetoeliminatehim.Itisalleged
thatattherelevanttime,A12PratapGodseusedtogetirritatedasthe
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 11
workofeliminationofKamlakarJamsandekarcouldnotbematerialized
and,therefore,heusedtoabuseA2VijaykumarGiri,A3Jaiswar,A4
Narendra alias Kandi Giri and A5 Anil Giri and was insisting for
completingthegame, otherwisehehadalsoengagedanothergroup
forthesaidwork.
12. Ultimately,on2
nd
March2007,atabout15.30hoursorso,
A12PratapGodseinformedA2VijaykumarGirionthemobilephone
thatKamlakarJamsandekarwassittingaloneinhishouseandthedoor
is opened and that they should kill him immediately. Thus, A2
VijaykumarGiri,A4NarendraaliasKandiGiribargedintothehouseof
deceasedKamlakarJamsandekar.A2VijaykumarGirifiredatdeceased
Kamlakar Jamsandekar from his country made handgun from point
blankrangekillinghiminstantaneously. Theyimmediatelyfledaway.
SomeofthebalanceamountofcontractmoneyofRs.30,000/waspaid
tothekillersbyA12PratapGodsewhenhecameoutonbail.
13. An FIR Exh. 177 was lodged by P.W. 7 Manali Hire, the
complainant and eye witness of the incident with Sakinaka police
station, pursuant to which C.R. No. 82/2007 came to be registered
againstunidentifiedaccusedpersons under Sections120B,452,302,
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 12
34 of IPC r/w 3, 25 and 27 of Arms Act and u/s. 37(1) and 135 of
Bombay Police Act. During investigation, the Sakinaka police station
officersvisitedthesceneofoccurrenceanddrewapanchanamaExh.
165.Thephotographsofthesceneofoccurrenceweresnappedwhich
areprovedatExh.163(colly),andhavebeenadmittedbythedefence
underSec.294ofCr.P.C. P.W.21P.I.Kasarconductedthepreliminary
investigationinthiscrime. Theinvestigatingagencyfoundascarbutt
(Art.1)lyingnearthedeceased,whichwasfoundtobedetachedfrom
the weapon alleged to have been used by the assailants. The I.O.
arrested A12 Pratap Godse, A13 Ajit Rane along with some other
accusedviz.A14PrakashSawla,A16SubhashUpadhyay,A17Pankaj,
A18Mohd.FaruquiandA19BadreAlamFaruquiwhoweredischarged
subsequentlybythisCourt.ThepostmortemreportExh.281andthe
ballisticreportExh.196arefiledonrecordwhichrevealthata'wad'of
thefiredammunitionswasfoundembeddedinthebrainmatterofthe
deceasedaswellasthe'pellets' wererecoveredfromtheheadofthe
deceased(Art.7colly.),indicatingthattheweaponusedwasa12bore
countrymadehandgunExh.196.PSINalawaderecordedthestatement
ofP.W.7ManaliHireatthehospital. PSIKirtawdeP.W.32drewthe
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 13
inquest panchanama Exh. 162. He collected the blood and bullets
retrievedfromthebodyofthedeceasedasstatedabove.
14. During the course of investigation, a test identification
paradewasconductedon31.5.2007and1.6.2007Exhs.470and471
(colly.). It was attended by two witnesses viz. Ms. Nita Shah and
Mayuresh Tandel, which was conducted by Special Executive Officer
Mr.Dattaram Kambli. On completion of investigation, a chargesheet
wasfiledbySakinakapolicestationagainstsevenaccusedintheCourt
ofMetropolitanMagistrate,Mumbai,whichwasultimatelycommitted
totheCourtofSessionsbearingSessionsCaseNo.529/2007.
15. Meanwhile,secretinformationwasreceivedbyP.I.Sandbhor
pursuanttowhicharaidwasconductedatHotel GovindnamLachiram
atKalbadeviwhereinA2VijaykumarGiri,A3AshokkumarJaiswar,A4
Narendra alias Kandi alias Guddu Giri and A5 Anil Giri came to be
arrestedon26.4.2008.Aninformationwasreceivedthatsomepersons
are likely to commit dacoity in a jewellery shop at Kalbadevi.
Accordingly,PISandbhoralongwithP.W.27APIAjayJoshilaidatrap
nearHotelGovindnamLachiramatabout3.15p.m.Theynoticedthree
personsnearthehotel.Aftersometime,twomorepersonsjoinedthem
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 14
who came on a motorbike on the opposite of the road. All the five
personsenteredHotelGovindnamLachiram.
16. HeadConstableRameshShankarBhokareP.W.31followed
them inside the hotel. P.W. 31 Bhokare informed that they were
planningtoenterintoajewelleryshopknownas'PrakashGoldPalace.
Theycameoutofthehotel,butsuspectingthemovementsofthepolice
personneltriedtoscatter,however,theywereoverpoweredandnabbed
onthespot.Duringtheirpersonalsearch,inthepresenceofthepanch
witnesses, A2 Vijaykumar Giri was found in possession of a country
madehandgunwithoutascarbuttalongwithonelivecartridgewith
inscriptionKF12besidesaNokiaMobilephone,somecurrency,driving
licence.A3AshokkumarJaiswarwasfoundinpossessionofa12inch
knifeandsomecurrency.A4NarendraaliasKandiGiriwasalsofound
inpossessionof12ainchknifeandsomecurrency. A5AnilGiriwas
foundinpossessionofan11inchknife,onemobileandsomecurrency
as well as a small pouch containing chilly powder and some string
('Sutal'). TheyallwerearrestedunderapanchanamaExh.311. The
motorbike bearingregistrationNo.MH03AL8044wasseized. The
officers of CIU i.e. Criminal Intelligence Unit effected arrest of A2
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 15
VijaykumarGiri,A3AshokkumarJaiswar,A4NarendraGiriandA5
AnilGiriandbroughtthemtotheirofficealongwithseizedweapons
wherestatementsofP.W.31HCBhokarecametoberecordedbyP.W.27
APIAjayJoshionthebasisofwhich,offencevideC.R.No.118/2008
wasregisteredatL.T.MargpolicestationunderSections399,402of
IPC,Sections3,25and27ofArmsActr/w22and51ofBombayPolice
Act. Simultaneously,theinvestigationofthecasewastransferredand
takenoverbyDCB,CID,CIUvidetheirC.R.No.66/2008.
17. P.W.33P.I.DivakarShelkeon28.7.2008,wasinformedbyPI
Sandbhor about the arrest of A2 Vijaykumar Giri, A3 Ashokkumar
Jaiswar,A4NarendraGiriandA5AnilGiribyDCB,CID,CIUwhowere
alsofoundtobeinvolvedinC.R.No.82/2007registeredwithSakinaka
policestation.
18. The DCB,CID had also arrested A11 Dinesh alias Dinya
Narkar in the said crime along with A10 Shrikrishna Gurav. A10
Shrikrishna Gurav and A11 Dinesh alias Dinya Narkar were also
arraigned as accused in committing the murder of Kamlakar
JamsandekarvideDCB,CIDC.R.No.69/2008.
19. ItrevealedduringinterrogationofA2VijaykumarGiri,A3
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 16
Ashokkumar Jaiswar, A4 Narendra Giri and A5 Anil Giri that the
weaponi.e.thecountrymadehandgunseizedfromthemhadbeenused
forcommittingthemurderofKamlakarJamsandekarandthatthescar
buttrecoveredbySakinakapolicestationonthespotisinfactdetached
fromthesaidhandgunatthetimeofcommittingthemurder.
20. TheJointCommissionerofPolice,Crimeswasapprisedwith
thefacts of theaforesaid interrogationinDCB,CIDC.R. No.52/2008
andC.R.No.66/2008. TheJointCommissionerorderedSr.P.I.DCB,
CIDtotakeoverfurtherinvestigationofC.R.No.82/2007ofSakinaka
policestation.Accordingly,casepapersweretakenoverfromSakinaka
policestationforfurtherinvestigationvideDCB,CIDC.R.No.69/2008
u/s.120B,452,302,34ofIPCr/w3,25and27ofArmsActr/w37(1)
and135ofBombayPoliceAct.
21. It is the case of the prosecution that during further
investigation,A2VijaykumarHariharGiri,A3AshokkumarShivakant
Jaiswar, A4NarendraaliasKandi alias GudduLalmani Giri, A5Anil
SherbahadurGiri,A7SadashivDhonduSurvealiasBalaSurveandA6
Sahebrao Kaluram Bhintade were arrested in DCB, CID C.R. No.
69/2008on29.4.2008.A8SurendraVasudeoPanchalwasarrestedon
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 17
5.5.2008andA9SandipaliasSandyBaliramGanganwasarrestedon
15.5.2008.A10Shrikrishna@BabuTukaramGuravandA11Dinesh
@DinyaLaxmanNarkarwerearrestedinDCB,CIDC.R.No.52/2008
andweretakenincustodyfromjailaspertheordersofthisCourtand
werearrestedon16
th
May2008inDCB,CIDC.R.No.69/2008.
22. On 19.5.2008, P.W. 33 Divakar Shelke demanded articles
seized from A2 Vijaykumar Harihar Giri, A3 Ashokkumar Shivakant
Jaiswar, A4NarendraaliasKandi alias GudduLalmani Giri, A5Anil
SherbahadurGirifromofficersofDCB,CIDvideExh.420.
23. P.W. 33 Divakar Shelke prepared a proposal for obtaining
prior approval under Section 23(1)(a) of the MCOC Act and on
20.5.2008,theJointCommissionerofPoliceMr.RakeshMariagranted
prior approval to record the offence under the MCOC ACt. Prior
approvalisatExh.421.Aftergrantofpriorapproval,investigationwas
handedovertoP.W.37ACPDurafe.HeimmediatelyarrestedA1Arun
Gawali, A6 Sahebrao Kaluram Bhintade and A7 Sadashiv Dhondu
Surve alias Bala Surve under the provisions of MCOC Act. During
investigation,A3AshokkumarJaiswar,A4NarendraGiri,A5AnilGiri,
A9 Sandip Gangan, A10 Shrikrishna Gurav and A11 Dinesh Narkar
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 18
expressedtheirdesiretomakeconfessionsandaccordingly,P.W.37ACP
DurafereportedthesaidfacttotheJointCommissionerofPolice,Mr.
RakeshMariatodeputetheofficeroftherankofDeputyCommissioner
ofPolicetorecordtheconfessions.Accordingly,confessionalstatements
of A3 Ashokkumar Jaiswar, A4Narendra Giri, A5 Anil Giri, A9
SandipGangan,A10ShrikrishnaaliasBabu,A11DineshNarkarand
A15 Suresh Patil came to be recorded by P.W. 17 DCP Vinaykumar
Chaube, P.W. 15 DCP Rajendra Dabhade, P.W. 23 DCB Vijay Singh N.
Jadhav, P.W. 29 DCP Brijesh Singh and P.W. 18 DCP Dilip Sawant
respectively. The copies of confessional statements were collected by
ACPDurafeP.W.37. Healsorecordedstatementsofcertainwitnesses.
The seized muddemal articles were sent to the Forensic Science
Laboratory,Kalinaforanalysis.
24. P.W.37ACPDurafehadalsoarrangedaT.I.paradewiththe
help of P.W. 33 Divakar Shelke and Special Executive Officer Mr.
Dattaram Kambli on 20.6.2008 at Mumbai Central Prison. The
memorandumtothateffectisatExh.301.P.W.7ManaliHireandP.W.
12MotilalChaudhariwerethetwoidentifyingwitnesses.
25. P.W.37ACPDurafehadalsocollectedCallDetailReportsof
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 19
mobilephonesofsomeoftheaccusedandtheprintoutswereobtained
from the concerned mobile companies. P.W. 30 Charls Daniels is the
Nodal Officer of Vodafone who produced the original customer's
application form of Mobile No. 9819251750 in the name A10
ShrikrishnaGurav(Exh.408colly.).
26. P.W.34PrashantVasantraoGawde,awitnessfromTataTele
serviceswhoproducedthecalldetailrecord(CDR)Exh.426and427
(colly.),reflectingcommunicationbetweenA2VijaykumarHariharGiri,
A5AnilGiri, A8SurendraVasudeoPanchal,A10ShrikrishnaGurav,
A12 Pratap Godse and A13 Ajit Rane as well as their call tower
locations.
27. P.W.35ShekharVinayakPalandeistheNodalOfficerofTata
ServiceswhoprovedthecontentsofCDRExh.436 andotheraspects,
Exhs.432,433and434.
28. Thereafter P.W. 37 ACP Durafe submitted a proposal for
obtainingsanctionandaccordingly,thethenCommissionerofPoliceMr.
Hasan Gafoor P.W. 36 granted sanction on 25.7.2008 u/s. 23(2) of
MCOCActtoprosecutetheaccused Exh.439. Aftertheinvestigation
andasaresultofinvestigation,P.W.37ACPDurafelaidachargesheet
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 20
inthisCourt. Infact,theoriginalchargesheetisMCOCSpecialCase
No.07of2008andthereafter,supplementarychargesheetsbearingNo.
16/08and03/2009cametobefiled.
29. InviewofthedirectionsgivenbytheHon'bleDivisionBench
ofBombayHighCourt,Mr.BilalNazkiandMr.A.R.Joshi,JJinCriminal
Writ Petition No. 2361/2008 on 23
rd
March, 2009, Sessions Case No.
529/2007visavisMCOCSpecialCasesaretriedsimultaneously.
30. A1 Arun Gawali, A2 Vijaykumar Harihar Giri, A3
AshokkumarShivakantJaiswar,A4NarendraaliasKandialiasGuddu
LalmaniGiriandA5AnilSherbahadurGiri,A6SahabraoBhintadeand
A7 Sadashiv Dhondu Surve alias Bala Surve A8 Surendra Vasudeo
Panchal, A9 Sandip alias Sandy Baliram Gangan, A10 Shrikrishna
Gurav,A11DineshaliasDinyaNarkar,A12PratapTukaramGodseand
A13 Ajit Rane, A15 Suresh Patil, A20 Sunil Ghate and A21Ganesh
SalviappearedbeforemypredecessorMr.R.G.Avachaton7
th
October
2008, who framed a charge below Exh. 133 against them under
Sections3(1)(i),3(1)(ii),3(2)and3(4)ofMCOCActandu/s.120B,
452,302r/w34ofIPCr/wSection3r/w25and27ofArmsActunder
differentheads.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 21
31. The charge was read over and explained to the aforesaid
accusedtowhicheachofthempleadednotguiltyandclaimedatrial.
32. ThepleasarerecordedatExh.134to149.Theprosecution
hasfurnishedlistofwitnessesExh.150.ThelistofdocumentsExh.151
andlistofArticles152.
33. The defence of all the accused is that of denial of the
commissionofoffencesalleged.
34. TheA1ArunGawaliinhisstatementunderSection313of
Cr.P.C.hasstatedthathehasbeenfalselyimplicatedduetoapolitical
rivalry. Hewasneithertheheadofanyorganizedcrimesyndicatenor
acceptedthecontracti.e.'supari'tokillJamsandekar.Hefurtherstates
thatheisapoliticalleaderaswellasaMLAandChiefofAkhilBhartiya
Sena. He contested elections of Lok Sabha and Legislative Council
whereinhesecured92,000votes.Inordertodefeathimandhisparty
and to stall his progress in the political field, he has been falsely
implicatedinthiscase.Casesarefiledagainsthiminordertokeephim
awayfromelections.Itis,however,surprisingthatA1ArunGawalihas
notnamedanyparticularpartywhoissaidtohaveimplicatedhimin
thiscase.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 22
35. A2VijaykumarGirivideapplicationExh.504A furnished
photostat copies of applications addressed by him to the Hon'ble the
ChiefJusticeoftheBombayHighCourtandtheRegistrarGeneraldated
17.10.2008inwhichhemainlyputforthhisgrievanceastohowhewas
physicallytorturedbythepolicewhenhewasarrestedinthemidnight
of24.4.2008fromhishouse.Heallegedthathewaskeptinthelockup
ofDCB,CID,UnitNo.III.Hehadrequestedtoconductaninquiryinthe
saidmatter.
36. A3AshokkumarJaiswarhasfiledanapplicationExh.505A
alongwithphotostatcopyofanapplicationbyhimstatingthereinthat
hehadnotmadeanyconfessionalstatementandthathewasforcedto
filethesame. Hehadbeenphysicallytorturedtosignsomepapersor
purportedtobehisconfessionalstatement.
37. A5 Anil Giri has also filed a photostat copy of his
confessional statement that he didnot make any such statement and
thatthesignaturewasobtainedonapaperwhichwasalreadywritten.
He does not know anything about the murder of Kamlakar
Jamsandekar.
38. A6 Sahebrao Bhintade in his application Exh.508A has
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 23
statedthatwhenhewasarrestedinMCOCSpecialCaseNo.7/2008by
theCrimeBranch,hehadstatedbeforetheofficersnamelyMr.Ninad
Sawant,Mr.DineshKadam,Mr.ShelkeandMr.YogeshChavanthathe
isreadytoundergobrainmappingoranyothertest,buttheyrefusedby
saying that they knew about his noninvolvement in the offence, but
due to the pressure from superiors, they arrested him. He has been
falselyimplicatedinthiscasebythePresidentofNationalistCongress
PartyofMumbainamelyMr.SachinAhirbecausehewasVicePresident
at that time in NCP, but subsequently, he joined Shiv Sena and,
therefore, some leaders of NCP along with Sachin Ahir falsely
implicatedhiminthiscaseduetopoliticalrivalry.
39. A7 Sadashiv Dhondu Surve has stated in his statement
underSection313ofCr.P.C.thatheanddeceasedwerethickfriends.
Hewasshockedbyhismurder.However,hecontinuedcordialrelations
withhiswidowandfamilyandalsoattendedhisfuneralandhelpedhis
wifeinbyeelections.Hehadfurtherstatedthatwidowofthedeceased
hadattended hisdaughter's marriage. The policeand somemischief
mongersinthelocalitywerejealousofhissuccessand,therefore,had
falselyimplicatedinthiscase.ThosepersonspollutedthemindofP.W.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 24
1andP.W.2soastomakethembelievethathewasresponsibleforthe
murderofdeceasedKamlakarJamsandekar.Hehadfurtherstatedthat
hehadnothingtodowiththemurderofthedeceasedtowhomhehad
alreadyindebtedfornamingthegardenontheplotdonatedbyhimin
thenameofhislatemother.
40. A9SandipBaliramGanganinhisapplicationatExh.510A
hasstatedastohowhewasphysicallytorturedandsubjectedtoelectric
shock and assault by belt by the police officers. He alleged that his
signatureswereobtainedonsomeblankandwritten papers. Hehas
tremendousfearinhismindduetotheterrorofthepolice.Hefurther
statedthathewaswarnednottocomplainabouttheilltreatementto
thecourt.BeforeproducingbeforetheMagistrate,hewassubjectedto
electric current and physical assault. He was warned to answer in
affirmative,butshouldnotsayanythingaboutthepolice.
41. A12PratapGodseinhisapplicationatExh.513A&Bhas
statedthattheofficersofCrimeBranch,UnitIIIdidnotallowhimto
express his desire to address the court and to tell the fact of his
innocence.HewasarrestedbytheCrimeBranchofficerwithoutgiving
anyideaandhadrearrestedhimthoughhewasreleasedonbailinC.R.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 25
No.82/2007. Inhisadditionalstatementat Exh.513B,A12Godse
had stated that A9 Sandip Gangan has stated in his confessional
statement that he read in the newspaper after twenty days of
MahanagarTelephoneNigamLtd.elections,aboutthenewsofmurder
ofKamlakarJamsandekar. Infact,themurderwascommittedon2
nd
March,2007,thenhowcouldA9SandipGanganreadthenewspaper
about the said murder which in fact occurred before one and half
month.Thisshowsthathisconfessionhasbeenfalselyrecordedonlyto
implicate this accused in Crime No.69/2008 by the Crime Branch
officer. He claims to be totally innocent and nothing to do with the
case.
42. A13 Ajit Rane states that he had contested election for
CorporatoronbehalfofAkhilBhartiyaSenaofA1ArunGawaliand,
therefore,hehasbeenfalselyimplicatedinthiscase.
43. A15SureshPatilinhisstatementatExh.515Astatedthat
hehadneverabsconded,buthadbeentoKrishnaHospitalandResearch
Centre at Karad where his aunt and nephew were admitted due to
accidentalinjurieson13
th
June2008. Insupportofthesame,hehas
filed a certificate issued by the Department of Neurology of Krishna
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 26
Hospital,KaradandacertificateissuedbytheAssistantPoliceInspector,
Kasegaonpolicestationindicatingtheaccidentinwhichtheauntand
nephewofthisaccusedwereinjuredalongwiththepanchanama. He
hasfurtherstatedthatheisnotatallconcernedwiththepresentcrime
norheisamemberof AkhilBhartiyaSena ofA1ArunGawaliorthe
organizedcrimesyndicate.Hehadnotgivenanyconfessionvoluntarily
thoughheadmitsthatheisaresidentofDagdiChawl.Hehasfurther
statedthatduringpolicecustody,hewassubjectedtoelectricshockto
hisearsandprivatepartbythepolicewhodirectedhimtosimplysign
the papers which would be placed before him. Due to the fear of
tremendous physical torture meted out to him, he put signatures on
someblankpapers. HewasproducedinveilbeforetheSr.Officerto
whomhetriedtonarratehisplight,butitwasnotheard.Whenhewas
producedintheCourtandtherewerenopoliceofficers,heinformed
the court about the fact and that his unwillingness to give any
confessionalstatement. Heisinnocentand,therefore,prayedforhis
acquittal.
44. It is urged by the defence that prosecution has failed to
establish any motive behind the murder of Kamlakar Jamsandekar.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 27
Secondly,therearetwocontradictorytheoriesputforthbyInvestigating
Officer of Sakinaka police station who filed the earlier chargesheet
bearinginSessionscasebearingNo.529/2007andanothertheoryby
theCrimeBranchwhichareinconsistent.
45. Nodefenceevidencehasbeenadducedonbehalfofanyof
theaccused.
46. The learned SPP Mr. Raja Thakare has submitted his
memorandumofarguments.
47. ThelearnedcounselMr.PasbolaforAccusednos.1,2,3,7,
9,10,11,15and20hasalsosubmittedhismemorandumofarguments
whichisatExh.533.
48. The learned counsel Mr. Rasal for Accused nos. 8, 12, 13
and21hassubmittedthenotesofargumentsatExh.534.
49. ThelearnedcounselMr.Kulkarniarguedorallyonbehalfof
Accusedno.6. WhilelearnedcounselMr.Sejpalarguedonbehalfof
Accusednos.4,5and10.
50. Inthelightofrivalsubmissionsatbar,followingpointsarise
for my determination. I record my findings with reasons therefor as
statedhereinbelow:
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 28
POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether it is proved by the
prosecution that deceased
Kamlakar Jamsandekar died a
homicidaldeathon2.3.2007?
Inaffirmative
2. Whether it is proved by the
prosecution that such death of
deceased Kamlakar Jamsandekar
had been caused by or in
consequenceoftheactofA2Vijay
Giri,A3AshokkumarJaiswar,A4
NarendraGiriandA5AnilGiri,in
furtherance of their common
intention pursuant to a criminal
conspiracy hatched to that effect
by A6 Sahebrao Bhintande, A7
Sadashiv @ Bala Surve, A10
Shrikrishna @ Babu Gurav, A12
PratapGodse, A13AjitRaneand
A15SureshPatil?
Inaffirmative
3. Whether it is proved by the
prosecutionthatA2VijayGiri,A3
Ashokkumar Jaiswar & A4
Narendra Giri in furtherance of
theircommonintentiontrespassed
into the house of the deceased
KamlakarJamsandekarsituatedat
Rumani Manzil, Chawl No. 1,
RoomNo.7,AsalfaVillage,Mohili
PipeLine,Ghatkopar,Mumbai400
084?
Inaffirmative
4. Whether it is proved by the
prosecution that A2 Vijay Giri
used a country made firearm i.e.
Inaffirmative
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 29
handgun to commit murder of
deceased Kamlakar in
contravention of the provisions of
ArmsAct?
5. Whether it is proved by the
prosecutionthatA1ArunGawali,
A6 Sahebrao Bhintade, A7
Sadashiv@BalaSurve,A9Sandip
@ Sandy Gangan, A10
Shrikrishna @ Babu Gurav, A12
PratapGodse, A13AjitRaneand
A15 Suresh Patil, being the
members of organized crime
syndicate, abetted the murder of
KamlakarJamsandekar?
Inaffirmative
6. Whether it is proved by the
prosecutionthatA1ArunGawali,
A6 Sahebrao Bhintade, A7
Sadashiv@BalaSurve,A9Sandip
@ Sandy Gangan, A10
Shrikrishna @ Babu Gurav, A12
PratapGodse, A13AjitRaneand
A15 Suresh Patil, being the
members of organized crime
syndicate, conspired and/or to
committheorganizedcrimetowit
tocommitthemurderofKamlakar
Jamsandekarforgainingpecuniary
benefit or undue economic
advantage?
Inaffirmative
7. Whether it is proved that A1
Gawali, A9 Sandip @ Sandy
Gangan,A10Shrikrishna@Babu
Gurav, A12 Pratap Godse, A13
Ajit Rane, A15 Suresh Patil and
A20 Sunil Ghate being the
members of organized crime
Inaffirmative
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 30
syndicate headed by A1 Arun
Gawali indulged in criminal
unlawful activities from the year
20042008 in an organized
manner to gain undue economic
advantageormonetarybenefitsby
extorting builders, cable operator
after extending threats and A20
SunilGhateusedtolookafterthe
affairs of the organized crime
syndicate during the detention of
A1ArunGawaliinjail?
8. Whether it is proved by the
prosecution that A8 Surendra
Panchal, A10 Shrikrishna Gurav,
A11 Dinesh Narkar and A12
Pratap Godse have committed an
offence in contravention of the
provisionsoftheArmsAct?
Innegative
9. Whether it is proved by the
prosecution that A8 Surendra,
A11 Dinesh and A21 Ganesh
Salvi are the members of an
organizedcrimesyndicateandthat
they have committed any offence
in view of Section 3(1)(i), 3(2)
and3(4)ofMCOCAct?
Innegative.
8.Whatoffenceshavebeenproved
againsttheaccused?
Asabove
9.whatorder? Asperfinalorder.
REASONS
51. POINT NO.1: The evidence of P.W. 21 Motiram Nivrutti
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 31
KasarExh.272whowasattachedtoSakinakapolicestationasapolice
inspector, received a message at about 4.58 p.m. that Municipal
CorporatorKamlakarJamsandekarofShivSenaPartywasshotdeadat
hisresidence. ThemessagewaspassedtohimbyP.W.32P.I.Kirtawde
and Sr. Inspector Khandagale, pursuant to which they rushed to the
sceneofoccurrenceindifferentvehicles.Ontheirway,thewitnesstook
aphotographerfromaphotostudio.Whenhereachedonthespot,he
noticeddeceasedKamlakarJamsandekarlyinginaplasticchairwithhis
backtowardstheentrancedoorandheadleanedtowardsleft.Healso
noticed a bleeding injury on the left temporal region and a pool of
blood on the floor. Without disturbing the situation, he got the
photographs snapped through the photographer and thereafter,
immediatelyrushedKamlakarJamsandekartothehospitalinamobile
vanno.1.
52. P.W. 22 Dr. Eknathrao Bansude Exh. 279, was attached to
Grant Medical College, J.J. Hospital at the relevant time in the
Department of Forensic Medicines. His evidence reveals that he
conductedautopsyonthecorpseofdeceasedKamlakarJamsandekaron
2.3.2007,alongwithDr.A.S.Gawde,MedicalOfficer,PoliceHospital,
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 32
Mumbai. PoliceconstablebearingNo.28860andMortuaryattendant
ondutyidentifiedthedeadbody. Thebodywasreceivedat8.45p.m.
andpostmortemcommencedat9.30p.m. Hetestifiedthatitwasa
firearm injury. Rigor mortis was present in lower limb. No signs of
decomposition seen, postmortem lividity was present but not fixed.
There was a evidence of oozing of blood from both ears. He also
noticedthefollowingsurfaceinjuries:
Firearm wound of entry of size 3 X 2.5cm present on left side
temporal region in front of left tragus of ear, 4 cm lateral to lateral
angeloflefteyeand8cmupwardfromlateralangleofthemouth.
Blackish discolorationaroundthe wound, within 3cmsfrom the
margininverted(Reddish).
I) Internalinjuries:
1. Contusionofsize6cmonfrontalregionroundshapedredcolour
underthescalp.
2. Contusion of size 16 X 10 cm on left temporal parieta ociptal
regionredcolour,
3. Evidenceofhaematomaunderthetemporalismuscleseen.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 33
II)Fractureofskulls:
a) Afissuredfractureof25cmgoingfromlefttemporalbonetoleft
middlecranialfossatorightmiddlecranialfossatorighttemporalbone.
b) Communicatedfractureofbaseofskull.
c) Afissuredfracture8cmlonggoingfromleftparietalprotuberance
toleftmiddlecranialfossa.
4) Afissuredfractureonrightparietalprotuberancegoingto right
middlecranialfossa.
5) Twofissuredfracturespresentonfrontalbone6cmeach.
Brain:
Multiple pellet were found in right temporal lobe of brain
abundantly.
Fewpelletswerefoundinoccipitallobeofbrain.
Fewpelletswerefoundinfrontallobeofbrain.
Few pellets were found underneath the mouth cavity and nasal
cavity.
A sand clock shaped wad of size 4 cm X 2 cm found in brain
matter.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 34
Gray matter and white matter of brain were crushed due to
traversingofpelletsinbrain.
Multiplehemorrhagesseenatplacesalongthetractofpelletsin
thebrain.
80ccbloodwasseeninthecavity.
Viscerawaspreservedforchemicalanalysis. Bloodpreservedfor
CAandgrouping. Headwashpreservedfor CA. Skinpeaceandwad
andpelletswerepreservedforBallisticexamination.
53. ThemedicalexperthasprovedthePMnoteswhicharein
his handwriting and in handwriting of Dr. Gawde which bears their
signatures and it marked Exh. 281. The photographs snapped at the
timeofconductingpostmortemareatExh.282(colly.).Assuch,there
is no dispute that deceased Kamlakar Jamsandekar died a homicidal
deathon2.3.2007.
54. The learned counsel Mr. Pasbola has extensively cross
examinedthiswitnessonvariousaspectssuchasabouttheinjurymarks
causedduetofirearm. Hehasconfrontedthewitnesswithpagenos.
716,721and722oftheMody's23
rd
EditionofMedicalJurisprudence.
The witness in his crossexamination admits that he had conducted
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 35
about 2025 postmortem of firearm injuries. Thereafter, he was
mainlyquestionedaboutthe procedure beingfollowedatthetimeof
conductingpostmortem, preparation of postmortem notes, obtaining
photographsandxrayswhicharenotmuchrelevantinsofarasthe
cause of death is concerned. Certain questions were asked on the
aspect of tattooing and blackening in case of firearm injuries which
wereappropriatelyansweredbythewitnessbysayingthatheisaware
ofthefactthatblackeningiscausedbysmokeandtattooingiscaused
byunburntgrainsofgunpowder.Itisnobody'scasethatthedeathof
KamlakarJamsandekarwaseitheraccidentalorsuicidaland,therefore,
it is needless to go into other aspects which are brought in by the
defencecounsel. Thiscanbeconsideredatthetimeofevaluatingthe
evidenceofballisticexpert.Sufficeittosayatthisstagethatdeceased
KamlakarJamsandekardiedahomicidaldeathduetoafirearminjury.
Thepointis,therefore,answeredintheaffirmative.
55. Inordertoprovethechargesagainsttheaccusedpersons,
prosecutionhasexaminedasmanyas37witnesses. Beforeanalysing
the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it would be convenient to
haveabroadlooktothenatureofevidenceadducedbytheprosecution
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 36
tosubstantiatetheguilt.Thefollowingchartwouldmakeitconvenient
tounderstandthedetailsofwitnessesandthenatureoftheirevidence:
PW
No. Name of the
witness
Natureofevidence
1 KomalJamsandekar P.W.1 Komal Jamsandekar,
Widow of the deceased deoised
regarding motive/role of A6
Sahebrao Bhintade and A7
SadashivBalaSurve.
2 NilkanthaBane Secretary of the deceased
KamalakarJamsandekarspokein
tune with P.W. 1 Komal
Jamsandekar.
3 RameshBaluPatil Pancha Witness to the
Panchanama to the Scene of
Offence(Exh.165colly).
4 Abdul Raheman @
Addu
He talks about A12 Pratap
Godse, in presence of A13 Ajit
Rane asking him to show
deceased Kamalakar
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 37
Jamsandekar and his house to
those assailants viz. A4
NarendraGiriandA5AnilGiri.
5 PradeepShinde ThiswitnesswasofferedRs.Two
Lakhs and a revolver by A12
Pratap Godse for eliminating
Kamalakar Jamsandekar,
however in consultation with
A11DineshNarkarhespunthe
offer for want of adequate
consideration
6 ArunKumarSingh ACableOperatorandavictimof
extortion by members of the
Organized Crime syndicate
headed by A1 Arun Gawali @
Daddy operating from Dagadi
Chawl,Bhyculla.
7 Manali
Chavan/Hire
Complainant and eye witness
whoidentifiedtheassailantsviz.,
A2VijayGiriandA4Narendra
GiriintheTIParadeheldbyPW
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 38
24SEODattaramKambliaswell
as identified the both in the
Court.
8 NarendraPanchal BrotherofA8SurendraPanchal,
who talks about A8 Surendra
Panchalrepairinganddealingin
arms.
9 AmrutPatil Panch of recovery of the diaries
containingtheaccountdetailsor
Organized Crime syndicate of
Arun Gawali recovered U/Sec.
27 of the Evidence Act at the
instance of A15 Suresh Patil
fromthehouseofPW10Ankush
Gharkar.
10 AnkushGharkar AresidentofDagadiChawlfrom
whose house the diaries of the
accounts of Organized Crime
syndicate were recovered at the
instanceofA15SureshPatilthis
witnessisdeclaredhostilebythe
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 39
Prosecution.
11 Ramchandra @
DhaktyaGurav
ArelativeofA10Shrikrushna@
BabuGuravwhoarrangeforthe
weapon used in the crime
(Article 5) from A8 Surendra
Panchal at Rajapur at the
instance of A12 Pratap Godse
and identifies A12 Pratap
Godse, A13 Ajit Rane, A8
Surendra Panchal, A10 Babu
GuravandA11DineshNarkarin
theCourt.
12 MotilalChaudhary Owner of Kamla Aahar Gruh at
Asalfa Village, near the vicinity
of deceased Kamalakar
Jamsandekar who identifies A2
Vijay Kumar Giri, A3 Ashok
Kumar Jaiswar, A4 Narendra
Giri and A5 Anil Giri as the
personswhousedtocometohis
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 40
hotel Kamla Aahar Gruh during
the period of February 2007 till
murder of Kamalakar
Jamsandekaron2
nd
March2007.
13 Shridhar Munj
(BallisticExpert)
WhoprovedCAreportregarding
weapon usedin thecommission
of murder as also Scarbutt
(Article 1) to be part of
Handgun (Article 5) The wad
and pellets recovered from the
head of the deceased and
reportedaboutcloserangefiring
from a 12 bore country made
Handgun.
14 Anjali Badade
(Expert)
She has examined and opined
that the Scarbutt (Article 1)
matches and fit with the
Handgun(Article5).
15 RajendraDabhade DCP who recorded voluntary
confession statement of Accused
No.4NarendraGiri(Exh.214)
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 41
16 PISadanandRasam He had filed the previous two
Chargesheets against Accused
No.1ArunGulabGawaliinthe
year 2004 (Exh. 218 & 219)
whichareconsideredasprevious
Chargesheets for invocation of
MCOCAtothecase.
17 Vinoy Kumar
Choubey
DCP who recorded voluntary
confessional statement of A3
AshokJaiswar(Exh.227)
18 DilipSawant DCP who recorded voluntary
confessional statement of A15
SureshPatil(Exh.241)
19 Dyaneshwar
Phadtare
DCP who recorded voluntary
confessional statement of
Accused No. 10 Babu Gurab
(Exh. 251) (ADMITTED
BEFORECMM)
20 YadavDhum DCP who recorded voluntary
confessional statement of A11
DineshNarkar(Exh.264)
21 PIMotiramKasar The Investigating Officer of
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 42
Sakinaka Police Station and
drawn the Panchanama of scene
ofoffence(Exh.165) recovering
Scarbutt(Article1)andobtained
the Photographs (Exh. 163
colly.) of the Scene of Offence
andsubsequently,filedtheinitial
Chargesheet against seven
accusedpersons.
22 Dr. Bansude
(Expert)
The Medical Officer/Doctor who
performed the postmortem on
the dead body of Kamalkar
Jamsandekarandsimultaneously,
tookthe Photographs (Exh.282
Colly)
23 VijaySinghJadhav DCP who recorded voluntary
confessional statement of A5
Anil Giri (Exh. 289) and also
accorded sanction under the
ArmsAct(Exh.297)
24 DattaramKambli SEO who conducted TI Parade
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 43
(Exh.301) inwhichwitnessPW
7ManaliHireidentifiedA2Vijay
Giri and A4 Narendra GIri and
PW 12 Motilal Chaudhary who
identified A2 Vijay Kumar Giri,
A3 Ashok Kumar Jaiswar, A4
NarendraGiriandA5AnilGiri.
25 VishwanathHinge AresidentofDagadiChawlwho
usedtowritetheaccountbooks
recovered under Panchnama
(Exh. 183) from the house of
PW 10 Ankush Gharkar at the
instance of A15 Suresh Patil.
Thiswitnessisdeclaredhostile.
26 AshishShukla APanchwitnesstotherecovery
of Handgun without Scarbutt
(Article 5) and other articles
fromthepossessionofA2Vijay
Kumar Giri, A3 Ashok Kumar
Jaiswar, A4 Narendra Giri and
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 44
A5AnilGiriunderPanchanama
(Exh.311).
27 APIAjayJoshi The Officer who arrested A2
Vijay Kumar Giri, A3 Ashok
Kumar Jaiswar, A4 Narendra
GiriandA5AnilGirianddrew
the Panchanama (Exh. 311) in
whichHandgunwithoutScarbutt
(Article 5) was recovered from
thepossessionofA2VijayGiri.
28 MaheshShah Owner of Hetal Photo Studio
whousedtopayransomamount
to the members of Organized
Crime syndicate headed by A1
Arun Gawali operating from
DagadiChawl,Byculla.
29 BrijeshSingh DCP who recorded voluntary
confessional statement of A9
Sandip Gangan (Exh. 324)
(ADMITTEDBEFORECMM)
30 CharlsDaniel The Nodal Officer of Vodafone
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 45
who produced the original
Customer Application Forms of
mobile no. 9819251750 in the
nameofA10ShrikrushnaGurav
(Exh.408Colly)
31 RameshBhokare The Constable who was the
member of raiding party
arresting A2 Vijay Kumar Giri,
A3 Ashok Kumar Jaiswar, A4
NarendraGiriandA5AnilGiri,
in which Handgun without
Scarbutt (Article 5) was
recoveredfromthepersonofA2
VijaykumarGiri.HegavehisFIR
(Exh. 314) and made Station
DiaryEntry(Exh.316colly).
32 ArunKirtawade TheOfficerattachedtoSakinaka
Police Station at relevant time
who recorded FIR of PW 7
ManaliHire(Exh.177)
33 PIDiwakarShelke HeisinitialInvestigatingOfficer
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 46
ofCrimeBranchbeforeapplying
MCOCA and he sent a proposal
and obtained Prior Approval
(Exh.421)
34 PrashantGorde Witness from Tata Teleservices
(Maharashtra) Ltd. who
produced Call Detail Records
(CDRs) (Exh. 426 & Exh. 427
colly) which reflect
communication between A2
AshokJaiswar,A5AnilGiri,A8
Surendra Panchal, A10 Babu
Gurav, A12 Pratap Godase and
A13AjitRaneasalsotheirCall
TowerLocationatrelevanttime.
35 ShekharPalande NodalOfficerofTataTeleservices
who produced Compact Disk
(CD) containing Electronic Data
of Cell Site ID Address of
respective Cell ID Numbers
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 47
(MobileTowerLocations)ofTata
Teleservices's Customers (Exh.
436) and Original Customer
ApplicationFormsofA12Pratap
Godase, A3 Ashok Jaiswar and
in respect of mobile no.
9224770420 which was being
used by A8 Surendra Panchal
(Exh.432,Exh.433&Exh.434
colly)
36 HasanGaffur Then Commissioner of Police
Who has accorded Sanctions
U/Sec. 23(2) of MCOCA (Exh.
439,Exh.440&Exh.441)
37 AshokDuraphe MainInvestigatingOfficer.
56. POINT NO.2: Once the prosecution has established that
deceasedKamlakarJamsandekardiedahomicidaldeathduetoagun
shotinjury, thenext importantquestion wouldbeastowho was the
author of the injury and whether his identification has been duly
establishedbytheprosecutionvisavistheweaponofoffenceusedin
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 48
thecrime?TheoculartestimonyofP.W.7Mrs.ManaliMaheshChavan
Exh. 176 indicates that she got married on 15.5.2010. Before her
marriage,sheusedtoresidewithKamlakarJamsandekar'sfamilyasP.W.
1KomalJamsandekarishermaternalaunt.
57. At the relevant time, she was a student of Jhunjhunwala
College,studyinginsecondyearofB.Com. On2
nd
March,2007,she
returnedfromcollegeby1.30p.m.HerauntP.W.1Komal,herselfand
the daughter of the deceased Saili were at home. At about 4 p.m.,
KomalleftthehouseforSamtaVidyaMandir. Deceasedwaswatching
T.V.,sittinginachairnearthedooroftheroom.HisdaughterSailiwas
alsopresentnearherfather.Thiswitnesswasinthekitchenwhenshe
suddenly heard a bursting of cracker like sound. She turned around
andnoticedtwounknownpersonspresentnearthechairofKamlakar
Jamsandekar.ShealsonoticedthatKamlakar'sneckwasleanedonone
sideandbloodwasoozingfromabovetheleftear. Sherushedtoher
unclebyshoutingKakanaWachva,Wachva.Thereafter,shesawthose
unknown persons running away towards left side of the house. On
hearing her shouts, the neighbours gathered. Someone from them
informed the police who arrived on the spot and took Kamlakar
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 49
JamsandekartoRajawadihospital. Thepolicerecordedthestatement
ofP.W.7Manali.P.W.7Manalirealizedthatherunclehadpassedaway
onthespotitself. Shefurthertestifiedthatoneofthetwounknown
personswasoftheheightof5.2witharoundface,straightnose,Savla
complexionandlanky.Accordingtothewitness,hemusthavebeenin
theagegroupof25years.Shedescribedtheotherpersonofthesame
complexion,mediumbuiltandheightabout5.4,withintheagegroup
of2530years.ThefirstinformationreportcametobelodgedbyP.W.7
ManaliwhichisprovedatExh.177. Herstatementwasalsorecorded
atRajawadihospital,bythepoliceofficerofSakinakapolicestation.
58. Herevidencefurtherindicatesthaton20
th
June,2008,she
wassummonedtotheOfficeofCrimeBranch,UnitIIIwhereP.W.33API
Shelke of DCB,CID, Unit III was present. The Special Executive
Magistrate P.W. 24 Mr. Dattaram Kambli was also present over there.
Mr.ShelkeintroducedP.W.7ManalitoP.W.24.Twomorepersonswere
presentwhoweresupposedtoactaspanchwitnesses.Fromtheoffice
ofDCB,CID,allofthemwenttoArthurRoadJail. P.W.7Manaliwas
askedtoremaininaroomalongwithP.W.12MotilalChaudhari.They
wereinformedthatsomebodywouldcometofetchthemonebyone.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 50
After some time, one of the panch came to call her. He took her to
another room meant for holding T.I. parade. There were 14persons
standinginarow.P.W.24KamblicalleduponP.W.7Manalitoidentify
the suspect from amongst those persons pursuant to which, P.W. 7
testified that she had identified a person who had fired at her uncle
KamlakarJamsandekar,whowasarmedwithafirearm.Sheidentified
bytouchinghim. Thesaidperson,onbeingasked,statedhisnameas
VijayGiriA2.Thereafter,shelefttheroomandwaskeptinsomeother
room. After some time, the same panch again called her in the T.I.
parade room. There was a row of 14 persons. On being asked to
identifythesuspectbyP.W.24Kambli,sheidentifiedtheonewhowasin
the company of the earlier accused and to whom she had noticed
runningawaywiththefirstone. Thesaidaccusedgavehisnameas
NarendraGiri.P.W.7Manalihasalsoduringthecourseofherevidence
rightlyidentifiedthesaidtwoaccusedinthecourt.Thisiswhatisthe
oralevidenceofP.W.7Manali,theonlyeyewitnessoftheincident.
59. This witness has been extensively crossexamined by Mr.
Pasbola, the learned counsel appearing for Accused nos. 1 to 3 and
7,11,14&16.Itispertinenttonotethatthedefencehasnotdisputed
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 51
thepresenceofP.W.7Manalionthespot,atthetimeoftheincident.
ThedefencehasalsonotdisputedthedeathofthedeceasedKamlakar
duetofirearminjury. Itrevealsfromhercrossexaminationthatlarge
number of persons, relatives and neighbours from the ward gathered
overthereandalsointhehospitalwhoweretalkingabouttheincident.
The witness volunteered that while the last journey of her uncle
commenced,thepeoplewerewhisperingthatitmightbetheworkof
uncleBhintandeandSurve,referringtoA6andA7. Sheadmitsthat
for the first time, she has deposed about this fact in the court.
AccordingtoP.W.7Manali,asshewasmentallydisturbedduetothe
incident,shecouldnotspeakaboutittoanyoneelse. Itwasaskedto
herbythedefencecounselastowhethershecannamethepersonswho
were whispering about A6 Bhintade and A7 Surve to which she
expressedherinability.Itisnotthesuggestionofthedefencethatnone
in the crowd were whispering about A6 Bhintade and A7 Surve.
Furthercrossexaminationmainlypertainstotheminutedetailsabout
carryingJamsandekartothehospitalbythepoliceaswellasregarding
herstatementetc.Shetestifiedthataftersomedays,sherealizedthat
shemissedtostateinherstatement,certainmatterstothepolice,but
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 52
she could not brief relatives about the same. The crossexamination
furtherrevealsthatatthetimeofincident,Saili,thedaughterofthe
deceasedwaspresentinthehousealongwithher.Shedidnotgoclose
toheruncletostopthebleedingandtoseetheinjuries.Shedeniesof
sayingKakanaWachva,whilecomingoutofthehouse.Asamatterof
fact,ifanincidentofsuchgruesomemurderoccursinpresenceofagirl,
in a broad day light in a house, it is quite obvious that in such a
situation, what would be the mental condition of a person. It can
hardlybeexpectedfromapersontogivealltheminutedetailsabout
herorhisbehaviourorthereactionafterhaving noticedsuchanact.
P.W. 7 Manali further deposed that after some time, P.W. 1 Komal
returned home and thereafter she accompanied her to the hospital.
Thereafter,certainquestionswereaskedtoP.W.7aboutthetopography
oftheroomwhereinshehadexplainedthatoneithersideandinfront
of their room, there are other rooms. To the right side of the room,
there is a pipeline road, whereas to the left side, there is link road.
There are about six rooms between her room and the pipeline road.
Thereareeightroomsinfrontoftheserooms.Towardsleftside,there
isanarrowlanethroughwhichoneortwopersonscouldpassatatime.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 53
60. Certain important aspects have been surfaced during her
crossexaminationespeciallyinparagraphs10,12and14fromwhichit
appearsthatatthetimeofincident,P.W.7Manaliwascleaningutensils
in kitchen when she heard a sound like atom bomb and when she
turnedimmediately,shenoticedthetwopersonsrunningawayfromthe
dooroftheroom. ItisarguedbyMr.Pasbola,thelearnedcounselfor
accusedthatshehadnooccasiontoseethefacesofassailantsasshe
couldseeonlytheirback.ItisnowheredeposedbyP.W.7Manalithat
whenshewitnessedthosetwoassailantsrunningawayfromthespot,
she could see only their back. She deposed that she noticed them
running away from the door. It is specifically brought out in her
evidence during cross that after cleaning the utensils when she was
engagedinplacingthemattheirrespectiveplaces,sheheardthesound.
Itispertinenttonotethateventhefirstinformationreport Exh.177
indicatesthattwounknownassailantswhofiredashotonthepersonof
KamlakarJamsandekarandescapedfromthespot,wereseenbyher.A
minor omission was brought on record to the effect that there is no
mention in the FIR that she noticed those two unknown persons,
presentbythesideofheruncle.ItistruethatP.W.7Manalicouldnot
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 54
describetheclothesontheirperson.Evenifshedescribedtheunknown
assailantsintheFIR,asalreadystated,inthenaturalcourseofevents,
evenaverycourageousandbraveheartedpersonwouldfinditdifficult
todescribepersonsinsuchasituation.Itispertinenttonotethatthe
FIRispromptwhichappearstohavebeenregisteredat16.56hoursi.e.
justaftertheincidentinquestionwhichoccurredaround16.45hours.
Thereishardlyanyquestionofembellishmentorafterthought.
P.W.32ArunKirtawde(Exh.404)wasattachedtoSakinakaPolice
station in the month of March, 2007. On the day of murder of Jam
Sandekarhewasonduty whenhegotamessageatabout16.58hrs.
thatthedeceasedwasfired. HeinformedaboutittoSr.P.I.Khandagle
anddutyofficerShri.Kasar. Theyproceedtothespotaftermakingan
entryinthestationdiarywhichisprovedatExh.276.Thecontentsare
inhishandwriting. Bythetimehereachedatthespot thedeceased
was already taken to the hospital. When this witness went to the
hospital,asperdirectionofPIKhandagaleherecordedthestatementof
P.W.7Manali.HecalledtheprescribedformoftheFIRfromthepolice
stationandthereafterPSINalawadereduceditintothewriting. The
FIRisalreadymarkedas Exh.177. HetestifiedthatP.W.7Manalihas
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 55
categorically described the incident. P.W.32 then prepared inquest
panchanama which is proved at Exh.162. He collected the blood
sampleandthebulletetc.givenbythedoctorwhichhedeposedatthe
policestationandmadeentryaccordinglyinthestationdiarywhichis
provedatExh.277.
During cross examination by the defence he testified that the
information about the attack was received from wireless set. The
wirelessoperatorgavehimtheinformationwhichwasinsufficientand
thereforehedidnottakecognizanceofit.Itwasalsonotknownatthat
timeastowhogavetheinformationtothe
wireless control room. According to him the information that three
unknownpersonsassaultedKamlakarJamSandekarwasnotsufficient
to lodge a report. Thereafter, he testified that the FIR is in the
handwriting of PSI Nalawade. Certain questions were asked to the
witnessaboutmakingentriesinthestationdiarywhenhereturnedto
thepolicestationandabouttheentryinthestationdiaryofthenameof
the person who brought the form of FIR. No such entries have been
made.However,thecontentsofExh.277areinthehandwritingofthis
witness which has been substantiated during cross examination. It
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 56
further reveals from cross that while recording the report of P.W.7
Manali shewasinasoundcondition.Hefurtheradmitsthathetook
theclothesofthedeceasedinhiscustodyatRajawadiHospitalafterthe
inquest panchanama. The witness was confronted with photographs
Exh.163 which does indicate the images of PI Khandagle and PSI
Bansode. Thus, it can be seen that the defence has made an
unsuccessfulattempttoshakethetestimonyofthiswitnessonthepoint
ofFIR. Thereisnothinginhisevidencewhichwouldindicatethathe
hadcommittedsomegrossillegality. TheFIRisprompt. Thereisno
after thought. The witness has clarified as to how it was the first
informationrelatingtothecommissionofacognizableoffencereceived
byhim.Sincetherewerenosufficientdetailsreceivedthroughwireless
message and therefore Exh.177 can be said to be FIR in terms of
Section154oftheCodeofCr.P.Thetelephonicinformationgiventothe
policestationwithoutitsnaturebeingknowntothepoliceauthorities,
cannotbesaidtobethefirstinformationreport.Thisratiohasbeenlaid
downbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtincaseofT.T.Anthonyvs.Stateof
Kerala2001Cr.LJpage3329(S.C.)andAIR2001S.C.2637.
60A. The learned counsel Mr. Pasbola suggested that first Saili
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 57
raisedcriesbysayingMazyaWadilanaWachva (savemyfather)and
thenshecameoutoftheroomwhichthewitnesshasdenied.Shealso
deniedthesuggestionthattheycameoutoftheroomandthenraised
shoutsKakanaWachva. OnethingiscrystalclearthatP.W.7Manali
was verymuch present on the spot at the time of incident. She had
witnessed the assailants running away from the scene of occurrence
withinafractionofsecondjustfiringashotonthedeceasedKamlakar
Jamsandekar who probably died on the spot itself. Now, so far as
identification of the assailants is concerned, P.W. 7 Manali has rightly
identified the two assailants in a T.I. parade, conducted by P.W. 24
DattaramKambli.
61. Even on the point of T.I. parade, P.W. 7 Manali has been
subjectedtoasearchingcrossexaminationbyMr.Pasbola.Accordingto
Mr.Pasbola,thelearneddefencecounsel,P.W.7Manaliwasnevercalled
by Sakinaka police station for T.I. parade. She was never asked to
attend any T.I. Parade by Sakinaka police station. As such, it is the
contentionofthelearnedcounselMr.PasbolathattheevidenceofP.W.7
Manaliasaneyewitnessisneithercrediblenorreliableasshefailedto
identifythetwounknownpersons.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 58
62. It is further argued that Sakinaka police station had
examinedtwoallegedwitnessesviz.Ms.NitaShahandMr.Mayuresh
Tandel.Thesaidpolicestationhadpreparedasketchofthesuspectson
thebasisofinformationgivenbyMs.ShahwhichwasalsoshowntoMr.
Mayuresh Tandel. Both these witnesses attended T.I. parade held on
31.5.2007and1.7.2006Exhs.470and471. WitnessMs.NitaShah
hadidentifiedA16SubhashUpadhyay andwantedaccusedSantosh
whilewitnessMayureshTandelhadidentifiedA16SubhashUpadhyay,
A19BadrealamFaruquiandA18Mohd.Faruquiandwantedaccused
SantoshSingh. Inthelightofthesame,theevidenceofthesoleeye
witnessP.W.7Manalicannotbesaidtobereliable.
63. Ontheotherhand,Mr.Thakare,thelearnedSPPsubmitted
thataftertheinvestigation,Sakinakapolicestationhadfiledthecharge
sheet on 11.6.2007 against the seven accused persons which include
A12 Pratap Godse and A13 Ajit Rane. However, no weapon was
recoveredduringtheirinvestigation.Theonlyaspectwhichwasbrought
toforewasthatthedeathofthedeceasedwascausedduetoa12bore
cartridge fired from a country made 12 bore weapon. It is further
argued by Mr. Thakare that although the investigation of Sakinaka
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 59
policestationrevealsthatfouraccusedwereidentifiedbywitnessesMs.
Nita Shah and Mr. Mayuresh Tandel (not examined) who were seen
runningawayfromnearthesceneofoccurrence,itwasnotthespecific
case of the Sakinaka police station that either of them were actual
assailants.Moreover,onceoutofthosefour,threeaccusedhavealready
beendischargedbythiscourtandtheremainingoneisstillabsconding,
therewasnoproprietyinexaminingtheconnectedwitnesses.Asunless
the executive officer and two witnesses on that T.I. parade are
examined,noevidentiaryvaluecanbeattachedtoExhs.470and471.
HefurtherarguedthatatthetimeofinvestigationbySakinakapolice
station,thewidowofthedeceasedP.W.1KomalJamsandekardidnot
permit to send P.W. 7 Manali or for that matter, daughter Saili for
identification, probably due to the agony with which the family was
suffering, therefore, no blemish can be cast on the case of the
prosecution. HearguedthatthishasalsobeentestifiedbyP.W.21P.I.
KasarofSakinakapolicestationathisevidenceat Exh.272. Iamin
fullagreementwiththeargumentoflearnedSPPMr.Thakarefor,he
has rightly justified non examination of Nita Shah and Mayuresh
Tandel.Therewasnoproprietyinexaminingthem.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 60
64. Now,comingbacktotheT.I.parade,duringhercross,P.W.7
ManaliadmitsthatshedidnotstateinthestatementrecordedafterT.I.
parade that the suspect whom she identified i.e. A2 Vijaykumar Giri
hadfiredatdeceasedKamlakarJamsandekar.Accordingtoher,shehad
onlystatedthatthesaidsuspectwasarmedwithafirearm. Thenext
partofthecrossexaminationisnothingbuttherepetitionofwhathas
beenstatedbyherinherexaminationinchiefastohowshevisitedthe
CrimeBranchOfficeandthereafter,wenttotheArthurRoadjailforthe
purposeofT.I.parade.Interestingly,thelearnedcounselMr.Pasbolafor
theaccusedduring crossexamination hasbrought in details from the
mouthofP.W.7ManaliastohowshewastakentotheroomwhereT.I.
paradewasconducted byP.W.24DattaramKambli. Itisalsobrought
in crossexamination about the detail questions put to her by P.W. 24
andhowshewasaskedtoidentifythesuspect. Thecrossalsoreveals
theprecautionstakenbyP.W.24Mr.Kambliaspertheguidelinesgiven
in Criminal Manual Chapter I, paragraph 61 (1). Even the detailed
descriptionoftheroomwheretheT.I.paradewasconductedhasbeen
broughtoutwithallminutedetails.ItisdeposedbyP.W.7Manalithat
therewerecurtainsfromallthefoursidesattheplaceofT.I.parade.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 61
TheroominwhichtheT.I.paradewasheldhadonlyonedoorbutshe
hadtogothroughtwodoorstoenterthesaidroom. Shedeniedthe
suggestionthatT.I.paradehadawallof3feetheightfromallitssides
andtherewasgrilloverthewalls.Shedeniedthatbehindthecurtains,
therewasacavity.ThebasicaspectwhileconductingtheT.I.paradeis
thatthereshouldbenooccasionfortheidentifyingwitnesstoseethe
suspectsbeforeconductingT.I.paradenorthereshouldbeanyhintor
suggestion given to the identifying witnesses which have been duly
followedintheT.I.paradebyP.W.24Mr.Kambli.Shehasalsodenied
the suggestion that the description of all the 14 persons in a row as
regardstheirheight, complexion, builtwasdifferentfromeachother.
She specifically deposed that seven of the fourteen persons did have
interse similarity about their height, complexion and built and
remainingsevenhadintersesimilarityabouttheirheight,complexion,
built. Shealsodeposedthatthedistancebetweentheroominwhich
shewasplacedbeforecommencementoftheT.I.paradeandtheroom
in which she was kept after the first round of T.I. parade was about
1015feet.Shewasinthesecondroomforabouthalfanhourandthat
duringthattime,nopersoncametothesaidroom. Shealsotestified
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 62
thatduringthesecondroundofT.I.parade,sherealizedthatthegroup
ofsevenpersonsweredifferentfromtheearliergroupofsevenpersons.
65. Interestingly, in paragraph 16 of her crossexamination, it
has been reiterated by the defence that the first suspect which she
identifiedinT.I.paradewastheonetowhomshehasdescribedfirstin
the complaint. She deposed that the shorter suspect was of a slim
built. ShehasalsodulyidentifiedthosesuspectsinthecourtasA2
VijaykumarGiriandA4Narendra@Kandi@GudduLalmaniGiri.She
admits that A4 Narendra Giri is taller than A2 Vijay Giri. This
particular aspect buttressed the prosecution case that at the relevant
time,itwasA2VijayGiriwhofiredashotfromthe.12borecountry
made handgun Art. 5 on the person of deceased resulting into his
death.Thewitnessisaskedwhethershecouldbeinapositiontotell
that A2 Vijay Giri is appearing to be of 5.6 in height to which she
answered,sheisunabletostateaboutheight.Suchquestionsarenot
of vital importance as an ordinary prudent man would not be in a
position to give the exact height of any person with a bare look.
Surprisingly, the further crossexamination reveals that the witness is
suggested that she was not at home at the time of incident and,
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 63
therefore, sheisunabletodescribethosetwopersonswhichshehad
denied. Onceithasbeenbroughtoutintheevidencebythedefence
about the presence of witness at the time of incident, suggesting the
witness about her absence in further crossexamination, is of no
consequence. She also denied the suggestion that the description
whichshehadgivenintheFIRisonthebasisofinformationgivenby
neighboursandothers. Shealsodeniedthesuggestionthatsinceshe
hadnotseenthetwoassailants,shedidnotgototheSakinakapolice
station for the identification of the arrested suspects. A very strong
circumstanceappearingintheFIRinherlasttwolinesisthatshewould
identify those two unknown persons if they are again shown to her.
Thisspeaksvolume.ShealsodeniedthesuggestionthatA2VijayGiri
andA4NarendraGiriwereshowntoherattheofficeofCrimeBranch,
UnitIIIbeforeconductingT.I.paradewhichhasalsobeendeniedbyher.
66. DuringhercrossexaminationbylearnedcounselMr.Sejpal,
appearingforAccusednos.4,5and10sheadmitsshecannotstatewho
hadaccompanieddeceasedKamlakartothehospital.Itmightbeoneof
the two panchas viz. Sudhir Anjlekar. She denied that the panchas
Sudhir Anjlekar and Sanjay Govind Nachanekar are her relatives.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 64
DuringcrossbylearnedcounselMr.RasalforAccusednos.8,12and13
shedeniedthe suggestionthat Kamlakar passed away atthe hospital
whileundertreatment. Shedeposedthatthepoliceofficerswhohad
beentotheirresidencemighthavetakenKamlakartothehospital.She
admits that she did not have a talk with those officers who took
Kamlakar to the hospital. She also admits that she did not ascertain
whether deceased was alive at home. This question appears to be
strange,for,insuchasituation,howcanagirlshockedandterrorized
withsuchanincidentwouldascertainwhetherherunclewasaliveor
not. She denied that she was not present on the spot. Rest of the
defencecounselhavedeclinedcrossexamination.
67. ItisarguedbyMr.Pasbolathatthereisadelayofabouttwo
months in conducting the T.I. parade for which no reasonable
explanationhasbeengivenbytheprosecutionand,therefore,onthis
groundalsotheidentificationofA2VijayGiriandA4NarendraGiriby
P.W.7Manalirequirestobediscarded. Iamafraid,Icannotbuythe
argumentofMr.PasbolaforthereasonsthattheCrimeBranch,UnitIII
tookinvestigationofthecrimeon28.4.2008.Accusednos.2,3,4and
5 were arrested pursuant to a trap laiddown by the Criminal
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 65
IntelligenceUnit,CrimeBranchon26.4.2008nearGovindLachhiram
Snack and Tea Restaurant where they were preparing to commit a
dacoity. Theaccusedwereremandedtojudicialcustodyon6.6.2008.
The T.I. parade was conducted on 20.6.2008 i.e. just within 14 days
whichcannotbetermedtobeadelayatallinthegivencircumstances.
68. P.W. 12 Motilal Chaudhari Exh. 190 is another important
witnessonthepointofidentificationofaccusednos.2to5thoughhe
hadnotactuallywitnessedtheincidentinquestion.P.W.12Motilalisa
hotelierbyprofessionwhowasrunningahotelviz.KamlaAaharGruha
onAndheriGhatkoparLinkRoadatAsalfaVillage. Hishoteltimings
werefrom5.30a.m.to11.30p.m.Heusedtoserveeatablesandmeals
to the customers. He deposed that Komal Jamsandekar P.W. 1 is a
sittingcorporatorfromthewardinwhichhishotelislocated. Before
her election as a Corporator, her husband deceased Kamlakar
Jamsandekar was the Corporator from the same ward. The distance
betweenhishotelandresidenceofdeceasedKamlakarwasabout57
minutesbywalk. HetestifiedthatinthemonthofJune2008,some
police personnel had been to his hotel who were enquiring in the
neighbourhoodaboutthemurderofdeceasedKamlakarJamsandekar.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 66
Hewenttohiscounterandrecalledfromthememorythatsomefour
unknownpersonsusedtovisithishotelduringthosedayswhowerenot
theregularcustomersasheknewthatalmostallwerefromthesame
areaandsomeofthemwererikshawdriversandsomewereworkingin
thenearbyindustry.Thosefourpersonsusedtohavebreakfastandgo
nearBusStopofbusno.340. Evenonthedayofmurderofdeceased
Kamlakar,threeofthosefourhadbeentohishoteltotakebreakfast.
Thosefourpersonswouldvisithishotelandtakelunchduringthose20
days. However,onthedayofthemurderofKamlakar,noneofthem
visitedhishotelforlunch.Theystoppedvisitinghishotelfromthenext
dayofthemurderofKamlakarJamsandekar. Henoticedoneofthem
usedtohaveaplasticbag. P.W.12Motilal,therefore,informedabout
thesametothepolice.AttheOfficeofCrimeBranchatLowerParelon
the next day, he was asked to meet officer Mr. Shelke P.W. 37. He
reiterated what he had noticed and gave description of those for
persons. Four days after his statement was recorded, he was again
summonedtotheOfficeofCrimeBranchwherehewasintroducedwith
P.W.24DattaramKambli.P.W.7ManaliandP.W.1KomalJamsandekar
who were also present. They were introduced to each other.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 67
Thereafter,P.W.33Mr.ShelkeintroducedP.W.24DattaramKambliwith
P.W.12Motilalandothers.AllofthemweretakentoArthurRoadJail.
Atthegateofthejail,allofthemgotdownfromthevehicle. APIMr.
ShelkeplacedsomedocumentsinthecustodyofP.W.24Kambliandleft
theplace.AllofthementeredtheArthurRoadjail.Inthejail,thegirl
i.e.P.W.7Manaliandthiswitnesswereaskedtobeinoneroom.After
ten minutes, one of the two panchas took P.W. 7 Manali to another
room.After15minutes,thesamepanchastookP.W.12Motilaltoone
largeroom.Helockedthedoor.Anotherpanchopenedthedoor.P.W.
12Motilalandthefirstpanchenteredtheroom. P.W.24Kambli,the
SEOwaspresentthere.Therewasarowof14persons.P.W.24Kambli
calleduponP.W.12Motilaltoidentifythefourwhousedtocometohis
hotelfromamongstthe14intherow.P.W.12Motilaldeposedthathe
identifiedtwopersonsintherowwhousedtocometohishoteltotake
breakfast and lunch. The two toldtheir names to P.W. 24Kambli as
'Giris'P.W.24Kamblimadesomewritingandthenthesamepanchtook
himtobacktotheroomwherehewaskept. HetestifiedthatP.W.7
Manaliwasnotintheroom.Afterhalfandhouragainthesamepanch
took P.W. 12 Motilal to the same room. P.W. 24 Kambli was present.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 68
Therewasarowof14personsdifferentfromtheearlier14persons.
P.W. 24 Kambli again called upon P.W. 12 to identify remaining two
suspects who used to visit his hotel. P.W. 12 Motilal thereupon
identifiedtwomorepersons.Oneofthemwasofheightof5.10with
wheatishcomplexion.Theotherwasshortoneandsomewhatofdark
complexion. OnbeingaskedbyP.W.24,theytoldtheirnamesasGiri
andJaiswarrespectively.ThepanchtookP.W.12Motilaltothegateof
thejailandwasaskedtogoback.Atthegate,hereturnedthetokento
the gateman. Outside the gate, P.W. 33 Officer Shelke was present
alongwithgirli.e.P.W.7Manali. Thereafter,theyweretakentothe
Office of Crime Branch. Thereafter, statement P.W. 12 was recorded.
ThiswitnesshasidentifiedA2VijayGiri,A5AnilGiri,A3Ashokkumar
JaiswarandA4NarendraGirifromamongstthefourinthedock.He
deposed that these four persons used to come to his hotel to take
breakfastandlunchandthattheystoppedvisitinghishotelfromthe
verynextdayofthemurderofKamlakarJamsandekar.
69. This witness was also subjected to searching cross
examinationbythelearnedcounselMr.Pasbola. Thequestionsonthe
point of T.I. parade are similarto that of put to P.W. 7 Manali which
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 69
mainlypertainedaboutthemannerinwhichT.I.paradewasconducted
by P.W. 24 Kambli and about the topography of the room where the
paradewasconducted. Duringhiscrossexamination,P.W.12Motilal
deposedthatin2008,hehadclosedthehotelKamlaAaharGruhaasit
wastakenbyhimonrent.DeceasedKamlakarJamsandekarhadnever
beentohishotelinconnectionwithhiselection.Hedeposedthatshops
and hotels of the ward were closed on the day of assassination of
Kamlakar. He did not visit the house of the deceased to offer
condolencenordidheattendfuneral.Headmitsthattherewasheavy
Bandobast ofpoliceinthewardattherelevanttime.Therewere78
employeesinhishoteloutofwhichthreeofthemwerewaiters. He
candidly admits that even on the day of incident, he did notsuspect
thosefourpersons. Thereisapolicechowkyatabout150feetaway
fromhishotel. Hefurtherdeposedthatfromthemovementsofthose
fourpersons,hedidnotsuspectthemnorhadtherebeenanysuspicion
whentheystoppedvisitingthehotel. Thiswitnessbeingahotelier,it
wouldhardlycometohismindthatthosefourpersonswereconspiring
orplanningtokilltheCorporatorofhisward. Thecrossexamination
furtherrevealsthatanofficerofCrimeBranchhadbeentohishotelin
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 70
the month of June 2008. When the police were enquiring in the
neighbourhoodofhishotelthenherealizedaboutthosefourunknown
personsvisitinghishotel.Headmitsthattillthatday,thepolicedidnot
visittheareasurroundinghishotelforenquiringabouttheincident.He
wasnotawareaboutthearrestofsomepersonsinconnectionwiththe
murder of Kamlakar. The learned counsel Mr. Pasbola again brought
fromhismouthwhathasbeentestifiedbyhiminhischiefaboutthe
visitsofthosefourpersonsfor20daysfortakingbreakfastandthen
goingatthebusstopofBusno.340.Accordingtothelearnedcounsel
Mr. Pasbola, this is an omission and, therefore, his evidence on that
point cannot be relied upon. It is of common knowledge that no
prosecution witness can reproduce each and every word from his
statement recorded by the police u/s. 161 of Cr.P.C. as it is a settled
position that a very limited use of such statement for the purpose of
contradictionandomissioncanbemade. Inhisstatementbeforethe
police, P.W. 12 Motilal had briefly stated that by the end of February
2007, before the murder of Kamlakar Jamsandekar, four unknown
personsusedtovisithishotelforbreakfast,teaetc.andtheyusedto
loiter around the hotel in that area. After the murder of Kamlakar
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 71
Jamsandekar, he had never seen them again. In view of the said
statement,whathasbeenreiteratedduringcrossbythedefencecannot
besaidtobeamaterialomission.Thereisnoreasontodisbelievethis
witnesssofarashisevidenceonoathisconcernedaboutthevisitof
fourpersonsi.e.Accusednos.2to5tohishotelashehasnoaxeto
grindagainstthem.Heisanaturalwitnesswhohasevensupportedand
corroboratedthetestimonyofP.W.7Manaliinmaterialparticularsinso
farasidentificationoftheseaccusedareconcerned. Thedefencehas
alsotriedtobringonrecordcertainotheromissionswithrespecttohis
supplementary statement recorded on 20.2.2008. In the said
supplementarystatement,P.W.12Motilalhadbrieflystatedaboutthe
identificationoftheaccusedfromtherowof14personswhichwereat
Sr.Nos.5and11whostatedtheirnamesasAnilGiriandVijayGiriand
thereafter,insecondroundofT.I.parade,heidentifiedNarendraGiri
A4andAshokkumarJaiswarA3.Allminoromissionsareimmaterial.
Theomissionscanonlybeconsiderediftheyarematerialasmaterial
omissionsamountstocontradiction.ThefactthathevisitedtheArthur
RoadJailtoidentifythesuspectsandintheT.I.paradeconductedby
P.W.24Mr.Kamblihasnotbeendeniedbythedefenceasithasbeen
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 72
elicited from this witness that pursuant to a letter received from the
ACP, D1 South he attended the T.I. parade. He also reiterated that
during identification of the four accused, he did disclose to P.W. 24
Kamblithatthosefourusedtovisithishotelforbreakfastandlunch.It
isfurtherelicited from this witness thathe identified those fourwho
mighthavebeenvisitinghishotelastherewasalapseofaboutayear.
Finally,hedeniedtohaveadducedfalseevidenceatthebehestofthe
police.
70. The learned counsel Mr. Sejpal has adopted the cross
examinationconductedbylearnedcounselMr.Pasbola
71. P.W.24DattaramKambliExh.298testifiedthathereceived
a letter on 18.6.2008, written by ACP Mr. Durafe P.W. 37. He was
requestedtoholdaT.I.paradeon20.6.2008.Heacknowledgedreceipt
of the said letter which is proved at Exh.299. His evidence further
revealsthaton20.6.2008,atabout10a.m.,hewenttotheOfficeof
CrimeBranchandmetAPIShelkeP.W.33whobriefedhimaboutthe
facts of C.R. No. 69/2008 and requested him to hold T.I. parade at
ArthurRoadjail.P.W.24KambliaccordinglydecidedtoholdT.I.parade
atArthurRoadjailasthesuspectswerelodgedtherein. Herequired
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 73
two persons to act as panch witnesses. Accordingly, he selected
Subhash Anjarlekar and Sanjay Nachanekar, after having ascertained
theirantecedents.Bythattime,complainantandthewitnessarrivedat
theOfficeofDCB,CID. TheywereintroducedbyP.W.33Mr.Shelke.
P.W.24Kamblithereafterenquiredaboutthenames,addressesetc.of
thewitnessesandtoldthemabouttheT.I.paradetobeheldatArthur
Road Jail. He also made them aware of the rules pertaining to T.I.
parade. He ascertained from the complainant and witnesses as to
whetherthepolicehaveshownthemthesuspectsbefore,towhich,they
answeredinnegative.Hisevidencefurtherindicatesthatthereafter,all
ofthemwenttoArthurRoadjailinapolicevehicle.ExceptP.W.33API
Shelke, they entered the Arthur Road Jail. They met Deputy Jail
SuperintendentMr.Khedkar.HemadehimawareabouttheT.I.parade
offoursuspects.HegavehimtheCourt'sorderandtheletterofSr.P.I.
in that regard. The said letter is proved as Exh. 300. Mr. Khedkar
asked his subordinate to make arrangement to T.I. parade. P.W. 24
Kambli asked Mr. Khedkar to make arrangement for separate stay of
boththewitnesses.Accordingly,Mr.Khedkarmethischamberavailable
forthewitnesses. Thereafter,P.W.24Kambliwenttotheroommeant
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 74
forholdingT.I.parade. Aftersometime,Mr.Raocamewiththefour
suspects. P.W. 24 Kambli enquired with them about their names and
addressesetc.Healsoensuredastowhetherthepolicehadevershown
them to the witnesses to which they denied to have shown to the
witnesses.Thereafter,heaskedtheJailorMr.Raotomakearrangement
ofsomethirtypersons. Accordingly,Mr.Raoproducedthirtypersons
before P.W. 24 Kambli. He selected 24 out of them who had looks
similartothefoursuspects.Heaskedremainingsixtogoback.
72. P.W.24Kamblifurtherdeposedthathedecidedtoconduct
theT.I.paradeintwophases. Heselectedtwofromthefoursuspects
and12fromthe24dummiesforfirstround. Herecordedthenames
andotherdetailsofthe12dummiesandaskedthemtostandinarow.
He asked remaining two suspects and the dummies to go to the T.I.
paraderoom.Heagainenquiredwiththetwosuspectstheirnamesand
addresseswhostatedtheirnamesasVijayHariharGiriA2,age28years
and Anil Sherbahadur Giri, age 24 years. Thereafter, P.W. 24 asked
panch Mr.Nachanekartofetchthewitnesses.When Mr. Nachanekar
lefttheroom,heaskedtheotherpanchtobolttheentrancedoorofthe
T.I.paraderoom.HeaskedaccusedVijayGiritostandatanyplacein
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 75
therow. AccusedVijayGiripreferredtostandbetweendummynos.4
and 5. Accordingly, accused Anil Giri preferred to stand between
dummynos. 9 and10. P.W. 24Kambli also askedthesuspectsasto
whether they wanted to change their clothes to which they refused.
There was a knock on the door as panch no.2 had brought the
complainant. Panchno.1openedthedoor. P.W.24Kambliaskedthe
girlhernameandaddressetc. ShegavehernameasManaliKeshav
HireP.W.7. Thereafter,P.W.24Kambliaskedhertoobserveallthe14
personsintherow. Afterhavingobservedthem,P.W.7Manalipulled
out a person standing between dummy nos. 4 and 5. She narrated
some matter which had been recorded by P.W. 24 Kambli in the
memorandumofT.I.parade.Onbeingasked,thesuspecttoldhisname
asVijaykumarHariharGiri. Thereafter,panchno.2tookP.W.7Manali
outsidetheT.I.paraderoomandkeptherawayfromtheotherwitness.
P.W.24Kambliaskedthepanchtobringanotherwitness.Thedoorwas
closed.P.W.24againaskedthesuspectthepositionandtheclotheson
their person, if they desired. Both the suspects refused. Thereafter,
another panch knocked the door. After opening the door by the co
panch, the said panch entered with the second witness who told his
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 76
nameasMotilalChaudhari. P.W.24askedhimtoidentifythesuspect
fromamongstthe14intherow.Afterhavingobserved,P.W.12Motilal
pointedoutthesuspectsstandingbetweendummynos.4and5and9
and10.P.W.12MotilalinformedP.W.24Kamblithatthosetwopersons
used to visit his hotel along with two more persons. It was put in
writinginthememorandumbyP.W.24Kambli.Onbeingasked,those
two suspectsstated theirnamesandaddressed. Thereafter,he asked
panch no.2 to call the Jailor. As per the instructions of P.W. 24, the
Jailortookbackthetwosuspectsandthe12dummies.
73. P.W.24Kamblifurthertestifiedthatthenheaskedpanchno.
1tocalltheremainingtwosuspectsand12dummiesandtheycame.
Herecordedtheirnames. Heenquiredwiththesuspectstheirnames
andaddressesuponwhichtheystatedtheirnamesasNarendra@Kandi
@GudduLalmaniGiri,age21yearsandAshokkumarJaiswar,age21
years.Theywereaskedtotaketheirpositionsintherowofdummies.
Accordingly,AshokkumarJaiswarstoodbetweendummynos.3and4
whileNarendraGiritookpositionbetweendummynos.8and9. P.W.
24Kambliaskedthemwhethertheywanttochangetheirclotheswhich
theyrefused.Thereafter,panchno.2camewithP.W.7Manali.Manali
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 77
pointedoutthesuspectwhowasstandingbetweendummynos.3and
4. HerversionwasrecordedinthememorandumbyP.W.24Kambli.
ThesaidsuspectstatedhisnameasNarendraLalmaniGiri.Thereafter,
thepanchwitnessescortedManalioutoftheT.I.paraderoom.P.W.24
KambliaskedtheothercopanchtofetchMotilal.BeforearrivalofP.W.
12Motilal,P.W.24Kambliaskedthesuspectwhethertheywantedto
changetheirclothesontheirperson.Theydeclined.Panchno.2came
withthewitness. Hewasaskedtoidentifythesuspects. Thewitness
identifiedboththesuspects.P.W.24hadaccordinglyrecordedaboutit
in the memorandum of T.I. parade whatever stated by the witness.
Thereafter,hecalledtheJailorandhandedoverthecustodyofdummies
andboththesuspectstohim.Thereafter,P.W.24Kamblicompletedthe
memorandum of T.I. parade in the presence of both the panch
witnesses.Hereadoverthememorandumtoboththepanchwitnesses.
The recording of the memorandum was made as the T.I. parade
progressed, simultaneously. The T.I. parade was conluded by 13.40
hours. He obtained signatures of both the panchas on the
memorandum. Hesignedthesameandputrubberimpressionofhis
office. ThememorandumisprovedatExh.301. Thereafter,hecame
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 78
outoftheArthurRoadJailandgavethememorandumofT.I.paradeto
P.W.33APIShelke.
74. During his crossexamination by Mr. Pasbola, the witness
testifiedthathehadconductedabout250T.I.parades. Hedeniedof
havingconductedmostoftheT.I.paradesofCrimeBranch. However,
headmitsthathehadconducted35T.I.paradeforthedifferentunitsof
Crime Branch. His crossexamination reveals that he maintains a
registerofT.I.paradeswhichhehadconducted.Hehadproducedthe
registerfortheyear2008.Hedeposedthatthereisaseparateplacefor
T.I.paradeinArthurRoadJail. HisattentionwasdrawntoExh.301,
whichissilentaboutthedetaildescriptionoftheplacewheretheT.I.
paradehasbeenheld.Headmitsthathedidnotmakeanynoteinthe
registerabouttheantecedentsofthepanchwitnesses. Furthercross
examination pertains to the visit of API Shelke, panch witness,
identifying witnesses proceeding towards Arthur Road Jail and about
the directions given by the Jailor Mr. Rao to the Superintendent Mr.
Khedkar to make available 30 prisoners to act as dummies etc. The
witnessadmitsthatthereisnomentioninthememorandumaboutthe
place where the remaining 12 dummies and two suspects were kept
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 79
duringthefirstroundofT.I.parade. Thereisalsonomentioninthe
memorandumthatnopoliceofficerortheirofficialwaspresentinthe
T.I.paraderoomduringtheparade. However,thewitnessreferredto
the certificate appended to the T.I. parade memorandum. P.W. 24
Kambli has further deposed during cross that P.W. 7 Manali took 45
minutes to identify the suspects. Similarly, she took that much time
duringthenextround. Theotherwitnessalsotookabout45minutes
during both the rounds. Though the memorandum is silent to that
effect,nevertheless,thedefenceitselfhaselicitedfromthiswitnessasto
thesignaturetakenofboththewitnessestoidentifyallthefoursuspects
whichisincorroborationtotheevidenceofP.W.7ManaliandP.W.12
MotilalChaudhariwhotestifiedabouttheidentificationofthesuspects
during the T.I. parade. The witness further admits that there is no
mentioninthememorandumthatallprecautionsweretakentoseethat
thesuspectsarenotseenbythewitnesseswhilebringingtheminthe
T.I.paraderoom.Thereisalsonomentioninthememorandumabout
the place where Panch no.2 took the first witness Manali after her
participationinboththerounds.Thewitnessisshownthesketchofthe
T.I.paraderoomwhichismarkedasX61.Hisattentionwasdrawnto
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 80
view5inX61 whereinthewitnessadmitsthattheview5iscorrect
except there is no tarpaulin sheet. He admits that if there is no
tarpaulinsheet,thenT.I.paraderoomisvisiblefromoutside. P.W.24
KambliadmitsthatheisawareoftheguidelinesgivenbytheHon'ble
HighCourtandthatthecertificateisappendedaspertheguidelines.
Healsoadmitsthatthereisnomentionoftimeatwhichhecommenced
recordingmemorandumandconcludedthesame.However,hedenied
that he did not take any precaution as has been mentioned in the
certificate.AperusalofExh.301thememorandumshowsthattheT.I.
paradehasbeenconductedbyP.W.24D.Kambliinaflawlessmanneras
per the guidelines given in Chapter I paragraph 16 of the Criminal
Manual.Thesearetheguidelines.Thebasicpurposeisthattheparade
shouldbearrangedinaroomorplacewhichissuchthattheidentifying
witnesses,aswellasthepersonsconnectedwiththepolice,shouldnot
beabletolookintoit. Itisnottherequirementofthelawthatthere
shouldorshouldnotbeanydoororwindowsorthatitshouldbeavery
tightlyclosedroomsfromallsides. Thepurposeandobjectforwhich
the T.I. parades are to be conducted has been duly observed by this
witness and, therefore, I do not see any reason to disbelieve the
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 81
unrebutted testimony of P.W. 24 Kambli. His evidence has not been
rebuttedduringcrossandandhasinspiredconfidence. Thecertificate
annexedtoExh.301clearlyindicatesthathetookallprecautiontosee
thatnoconcernedpoliceofficerwaspresentatthetimeofT.I.parade
andthathealsotookprecautionstoseethatthewitnessesdonotsee
thesuspectsinanymanner.Italsodepictsthetimeatwhichitstarted
and the time at which it concluded. The signatures of the panch
witnessesarealsotaken.
75. Thedefencehaspressedintoserviceseveralrulingsonthe
pointoftestidentificationparade. Ishallreferthesaidauthoritiesas
shownhereinbelow:
(i)2008Cr.L.J.page3036(SupremeCourt)
in the case of Mahabir v. State of Delhi.
The broad principles laiddown by the
Hon'bleSupremeCourtareasunder:
(A)EvidenceAct,Section9T.I.parade
Do not constitute substantive evidence
Identification can only be used as
corroborativeofstatementinCourt.
(B) Necessity for holding parade can arise
only when accused persons are not
previouslyknowntowitnesses.
(C)Mainobject,duringinvestigationstage,
is totest memory of witnesses basedupon
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 82
first impression and also to enable
prosecutiontodecidewhetheralloranyof
them could be cited as eye witnesses of
crime.
(D) It should be conducted as soon as
possible after arrest of accused. This
becomesnecessarytoeliminatepossibilityof
accused being shown to witnesses prior to
parade.
(E) The purpose is to test and strengthen
trustworthiness of that evidence. It is
accordingly considered a safe rule of
prudence to generally look for
corroboration of sworn testimony of
witnessesinCourt.
(F) There is no provision in Cr.P.C. which
obliges investigating agency to hold or
confers a right upon accused to claim test
identificationparade.
(G)ItisessentiallygovernedbySect.162of
Cr. P. C. Failure to hold same would not
makeinadmissibleevidenceofidentification
inCourt.
(H)Inappropriatecases,Courtsmayaccept
evidence of identification even without
insistingoncorroboration.
Similar ratios have been laiddown in the following authorities
citedbythedefence:
(i) 2004SupremeCortCases(Cri)Supp
489inthecaseofLalsinghandothers
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 83
versusStateofU.P.
(ii) 2010 SAR (Criminal) 227 Supreme
CourtinthecaseofMusheerKhan@
BadshahKhan&anr.versusStateof
M.P.
(iii) AIR 1993 Supreme Court 2618 in
the case of Girja Shankar Misra v.
StateofU.P.
(iv)1979SupremeCourtCases(Cri)147
(1979)1SCC79inthecaseofAntar
Singhvs.StateofM.P.
Inthiscasetherewasdelayofabout12months,whereasin
theinstantcase,thedelayisonlyof14days.
(v) 1931 Supreme Court Cases (Cri)
634inthecaseofWakilSinghand
othersvs.StateofBihar.
(vi) 1993 Crimes 466 in the case of
StateofMaharashtravs.Subhaiya
KanakManiah&Ors.
(vii) 1998 ALL MR (Cri) 471 in the
case of The State of Maharashtra
Vs. Rajesh alias Kaka Madanlal
Soni&others.
76. On the other hand, SPP Mr. Thakare has placed useful
reliance on the authorities of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt reported in
2010 (3)AIR Bombay R (S.C.) 551(S.B. Sinha,Dr. Mukundakam
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 84
Sharma,JJ),Mohd.Farooqandanr.v.StateofMaharashtra. Itis
heldbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtinparagraph76whichreadsthus:
Thecontentionofthelearnedcounselappearing
for accused persons that there was inordinate
delayinconductingtheTIPcannotbeacceptedin
view of the fact that both the accused persons
weretakenintocustodyon25.06.1999whereas
theTIPwasheldon10.,8.1999. Therefore,the
TIPwasconductedonlyafteraperiodof45days
whichisnotsuchalongperiodtocastanydoubt
over the evidentiary value of the TIP. Even
otherwise, a TIP doesnot constitute substantive
evidencebutcanonlybeusedforcorroboration
ofthestatementcourt.Itisprimarilymeantfor
the purpose of helping the investigating agency
with an assurance that their progress with the
investigationisproceedingontherightlines.The
substantive evidence is the evidence of
identificationincourt,whichinthepresentcase
hasbeendonebyP.W.18.ThisCourtinthecase
of Amitsingh Bhikamsingh Thakur v. State of
Maharashtra,(2007)2SCC310,atpage315,
hassuccinctlyobservedasfollows:
AswasobservedbythisCourtinMatruv.State
of U.P. 1 identification tests do not constitute
substantive evidence. They are primarily meant
for the purpose of helping the investigating
agency with an assurance that their progress
with the investigation into the offence is
proceeding on the statement in Court. (See
SantokhSinghv.IzharHussain2).Thenecessity
for holding an identification parade can arise
onlywhentheaccusedarenotpreviouslyknown
to the witnesses. The whole idea of a test
identificationparadeisthatwitnesseswhoclaim
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 85
tohaveseentheclupritsatthetimeofoccurrence
are to identify them from the midst of other
personswithoutanyaidoranyothersource.The
testisdonetocheckupontheirveracity.Inother
words, the main object of holding an
identification parade, during the investigation
stage,istotestthememoryofthewitnessesbased
upon first impression and also to enable the
prosecutiontodecidewhetheralloranyofthem
couldbecitedaseyewitnessesofthecrime.
ThisjudgmentoftheHon'bleSupremeCourtisundertheprovisionsof
MCOC Act. In the said case, the T.I. parade was conducted after a
periodof45dayswhichaccordingtotheHon'bleSupremeCourtisnot
suchalongperiodtocastanydoubtovertheevidentiaryvalueofthe
T.I.parade. ItisobservedthatevenotherwisetheT.I.paradefalsified
substantial evidence, but can only be used for corroboration of the
statement in Court. It is practically important for the purpose of
helpingtheinvestigatingagencywithanassurancethattheirprogress
withtheinvestigationisproceedingwiththerightline.Thesubstantive
evidence is the evidence of identification in Court which is in the
presentcasehasbeendonebyP.W.18.Theratioisclearlyapplicableto
theinstantcaseasthereisonlyadelayof14daysandthatnotP.W.7
Manaliwhoseunimpeachableandtrustworthyevidenceestablishedthe
complicity of A2 Vijaykumar Giri and A4 Narendra Giri and more
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 86
particularlytheroleplayedbyA2VijaykumarGiriinassassinatingthe
deceased,butitisalsocorroboratedbythenaturalevidenceofP.W.12
Motilal Exh.190 andalsosupportedbytheevidenceofP.W.4Abdul
RehamanExh.167,whichIshalldiscussattheappropriatestage.
77. Theprosecutionhasthus,provedbeyonddoubtthattheA2
VijaykumarGiriandA4NarendraGirihadtrespassedintothehouseof
the complainant on 2
nd
March 2007, armed with a country made
handgun and opened fire upon Kamlakar Jamsandekar. The kind of
weapon used and the vital part of the body chosen by the shooter
clearly manifesttheir intention and knowledge aswellas mensrea to
eliminatethedeceased.Theyalsoknewthatasingleshotatpointblank
range would, in all probability cause death of deceased who was
unarmedanddefenceless.Thereisnoroomfordoubtinsofarasthe
identificationofA2VijaykumarGiriandA4NarendraGiriinthelight
ofthetestimonyofP.W.7Manaliisconcernedandabouttheothertwo
accused i.e. A3 Ashokkumar Jaiswar and A5 Anil Giri who used to
roamaroundthehouseofthedeceasedandvisitingthehotelofP.W.12
MotilalChaudhari.Howandwhytheseaccusedinfurtheranceoftheir
common intention committed the murder of Kamlakar Jamsandekar
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 87
wouldalsobediscussedattheappropriatestage.
78. Now,thenextimportantquestionwouldbeastowhether
theweaponArt.5seizedbytheinvestigatingagencyistheoneusedby
the assailants to eliminate Kamlakar Jamsandekar and how the said
weaponwasprocured?
79. P.W. 13 Shyamsundar Shridhar Munj Exh. 192 was an
AssistantChemicalAnalyserintheBallisticDepartmentofCFSL,Kalina.
HeisB.Sc.inPhysicsandChemistry. Hehasundergonedepartmental
training in ballistic and has experience of ten years. He examined
firearms and ammunitions as well as examined empty cartridge and
bulletretrievedfromthebody. Thefirsttwoparasofhisevidenceon
oathgives the nature of his work, how the articles are received in a
sealedconditionandhowtheexaminationsandanalysisareconducted
inthelaboratory.
80. Hetestifiedthaton7.3.2007,hisofficerreceivedfoursealed
parcels and one sealed bottle along with forwarding letter by ACP
Sakinaka Division pertaining to C.R. No. 82/2007, along with a
messenger. It wasdulyacknowledged,whichisproved at Exh.193.
TheoriginalforwardingletterisprovedatExh.194.Followingarticles
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 88
werefoundintheparcel:
1. Exh.1onewoodenforearmwithmetalatoneendinapolythene
bagwrappedinpapermarkedExh.A1(inMarathi=).
2. Exh.2sandowbaniyan(cut)wrappedinpapermarkedasExh.
+.
3. Halfpant(Bermuda)wrappedinpapermarkedasExh.+-.
4. JangyawrappedinpapermarkedasExh.+-.
5. ReddishliquidinbottlemarkedasExh.=-.
81. Thewitnesstestifiedthatafterdoingphysicalandchemical
examination of Exhibits 1 to 4, he sent Exh. 5 to the Biological
Department.Theresultofanalysiswasasfollows:
Exh. 1 is crudely prepared gripping piece
(forearm)ofagun.Itisalsoknownasscarbutt.
Shot holes were not observed on the baniyan,
half pant and the jangya (Exhs. 2 to 4
respectively).
Thereportgivenbythiswitnessisprovedat Exh.195. Thescarbutt
i.e.thegriphasbeenexaminedbyhimbearingNo.BL215/07andBL
456/2008. Awrapperisshowntothewitnesswhichpertainstothe
same article which was again received by the office. The report is
markedas Art.1B. Thisarticlewasreceivedtwicebytheofficeand,
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 89
therefore,thereweretwolabels.Thewitnessthereafter,referredtothe
BL 216/07, which according to him was brought by police constable
bearing Buckle No. 4064 of Sakinaka police station who deposited a
sealed plastic container along with a forwarding letter signed by the
officerofJ.J.P.M.Centre,Byculla,Mumbai.Thesealedwasperfect.It
wasacceptedalongwithaforwardingletter.Theparcelwasopenedby
thewitnessonthesameday.ItcontainedExh.1deformedleadpellets
(No. 71), Exh. 1A deformed Air cushion plastic wad, Exh. 1 and 1A
togetherputinaplasticcontainerlabelledASG/21/27dated2.3.2007
with name of the deceased and ADR No.23/2007, Sakinaka police
station. Thewitnessconductedphysicalandchemicalexaminationsof
pelletsandwad.Hegavehisreport.Hefoundthepelletswhichhave
beenwereofshotsizeno.1. Thosearegenerallyusedinashotgun.
Exhibit1isafired12boreplasticaircushionwad.Thedeformedlead
pelletsinExhibit1andaircushionwadinExhibit1areconsistentwith
12boreshotgun,cartridgesofshotsizeno.1.Thereportdulyprovedat
Exh.196.
82. Healsonoticedlargenumberofpelletsintheaircushion
wad recoveredfromthebodyofthedeceasedindicatingthatitwasa
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 90
closerangefiring. TheoriginalforwardingletterfromJ.J.Hospitalisi
provedatExh.197.
83. He deposed that on 7.3.2007 P.C. No. 4064 of Sakinaka
policestationdepositedtwosealedbottlesintheballisticdepartmentof
CFSL along with forwarding letter of Medical Officer of J.J. Post
Mortem Centre. It was given a number as BL 217. The parcel
containedaturbidliquidinthebottlelabelledrighthandwash.Exh.2
Turbidliquidinabottlelabelledlefthandwash. Italsolabelledthe
nameofthedeceased.
84. The witness testified that after physical and chemical
examinations,hepreparedhisreport. Hefoundthegunshotresidues
(suchaslead,nitrate,antimony,barium)inaliquidinExhibits1and2
areinconclusive.ThesaidreportisatExh.198.Theforwardingletter
ismarkedatExh.199. Onthesameday,healsoreceivedarticlesina
sealed plastic bottle which contained skin piece in a bottle, labelled
ASG/21/07dated2.3.2007ofKamlakarBhaskarJamsandekar. After
examination, he detected metallic lead around the periphery of shot
hole of Exhibit 1 is consistent with the passage and wipe of lead
shots/lead pellets. The said report is proved at Exh. 200 and the
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 91
forwardingletteratExh.201.
85. Hefurthertestifiedthaton3
rd
June2008,policeconstable
Lakhan Lamba bearing No. 31941 from CID D1, South Mumbai
submitted a sealed plastic parcel of one sealed parcel in ballistic
department along with forwarding letter of ACP, CID, D1. The case
was given number as BL 456/2008. After opening the parcel, he
noticedfollowingdescriptionofthesaidparcel:
Exh.1A is one single long barrel breech loading country made
handgunwithoutforearm(grippingpiece).
Exh.1Boneintact12boreshotguncartridge.
Exh. 1A and 1B together wrapped in plastic and labelled,
VijaykumarGiriExh.AandA1.
Exh. 2 one wooden forearm with metal at one end put in a
polythenebagandwrappedinpaper,labelled,Sakinakapolicestation,
Mumbai,C.R.No.82/2008,BL215/07andhavingasealFORESNSIC
LABORATORYBOMBAY,BL.Exh.1.
86. After conducting physical and chemical examinations, he
framed his report. Exh. 1A is a single long barrel breech loading
countrymadehandgunwithoutforearm. Exh.2isawoodenforearm
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 92
(gripping piece). The country made handgun Exh. 1A and wooden
forearminExh.2wasproperlyassembledtoformasinglelongbarrel
breechloadingcountrymadehandgunandnowitwasinworkingorder.
Hetestifiedthatresidueoffiredammunitionsnitratewasdetectedin
thebarrelwashingofcountrymadehandgunassembledbyExhibit1A
andExhibit2,showingthatassembledhandgunwasusedforfiring.
87. According to this witness, 12 bore shotgun cartridge from
laboratorystockwassuccessfullytestfiredthroughthecountrymade
handgun assembled by Exhibit 1A and Exhibit 2. Fired pellets
completelypenetratedthroughsoftwoodenplankofthickness3.4kept
at a distance of 2' away from muzzle end. Thus, according to this
witness, assembled country made handgun is effective for causing
casualtyfromcloserange.
88. The12boreshotguncartridgeinExhibit1Bwasdismantled
inthelaboratoryforexaminationandcapofthiscartridgewasfoundto
beliveontestfiringthroughthecountrymadehandgunassembledby
Exhibit1AandExhibit2.
89. Thereport,accordinglywaspreparedbyhimandprovedat
Exh. 202. The forwarding letter is proved at Exh. 203 and the
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 93
acknowledgmentofthereceiptisprovedatExh.204.
90. Hedeposedthatsincetherewasaqueryregardingmatching
fitofsinglebarrelcountrymadehandgunandthegripi.e.forearmin
Exhibit 2, the said articles were sent for examination to the Physics
DivisionoftheLaboratoryon4.7.2008.Thewitnesshasidentifiedthe
shotgunmarkedasArt.5andtestifiedthatitisthesamearticlewhich
hehadexamined.Hehasalsoreferredthewrapperbearingofficeseal
marked as Art. 5A. A packet containing empty cartridge of 12 bore
whichwasdismantledinthelaboratorycontainingpelletscollectively
markedasArt.no.9.
91. On 1.8.2008, along with P.C. No. 27602 who cameto the
Officewithaletterdeliveredallthemuddemalalongwiththereports
Nos.K241/2008andBL456/2008.Heobtainedtheacknowledgment
of the concerned constable Exh.205. He testified that after firinga
shotfromthiskindofgun,theemptycartridgewouldremaininagun
itself.
92. Mr. Pasbola, the learned counsel devoted first four
paragraphsofcrossexaminationmainlyaboutaskingthequestionsto
the witness as regards the qualification and working about his
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 94
laboratory function, the manner in which the articles are received,
opened,sealedandsoon.Thispartisimmaterial.Whatismaterialis
thatwhattheexpertactuallydidsincethewitnesshasalreadytestified
thathisexperienceandthemannerofworkinginthelaboratory. Itis
needlesstoreiteratethesamethingagain. Hedeniedthesuggestion
that he was not supposed to examine about any particles or metallic
discharged on the clothes. He testified that even if no shot hole is
noticed by naked eye, microscopic examination is still made. Two
queries were made by the police which were about the wooden scar
butt(grip)whichare:(1)whatkindofarticleitwasand(2)ofwhat
kindofborefirearmitwasrelatedto?Thewitnessansweredthatfrom
the scar butt itself, it could not be determined to what kind of bore
forearmitwasrelated.Hedeniedthatthesaidscarbuttcanfitinwith
any kind of bore firearm. He further deposed that it was difficult to
stateintheabsenceofweaponthatwhatkindofboreforearmthatfit
in. It is pertinent to note that Sakinaka police station only could
recoverthisscarbuttatthesceneofoccurrencewhichisevidentfrom
the photographs of the scene of occurrence and subsequently the
DCB,CIDcoulddetectthehandgunArt.5fromA2VijayGiriduringthe
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 95
raidconductedwhentheA2VijayGiri,A3AshokkumarJaiswar,A4
NarendraGiriandA5AnilGiriwerepreparingtocommitadacoity.
93. Admittedly, the report of ballistic expert does not indicate
the distanceof firingasno such querywasmadeeither by Sakinaka
policestationorbyCrimeBranch.However,headmitsthatthedistance
offiringcanbeascertainedonthebasisofexaminationofclotheson
thepersonofthevictimandhisbody.Healsoadmitsthatadetection
ofmetallicleadontheperipheryofshotholesontheskinpiecewould
notdeterminethefiringdistance.Healsoadmitsthatincaseofcountry
madehandgun,thepelletscomeincontactwithasmallportionofthe
barrel and, therefore, the markings are insufficient to connect such
pellettoaparticularfirearm. Itisreiteratedthatheonlydidonetest
fire. Thereafter,theattentionofthewitnesshasbeendrawntopage
nos. 226, 229, 230, 231, 240 of Book on firearm in Criminal
Investigation and Trial by Dr. B.R. Sharma. Obviously, the witness
wouldagreewiththepropositionsmadebytheauthorinthesaidbook
whichrelatetothebullets.Thewitnesshasrightlyansweredthatthose
propositions relate to bullets and not pellets. His attention was also
drawntopageno.240ofthebookwhichrelatestowalkerstestwhichis
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 96
also conducted in the laboratory. Further, the witness testified that
sometimes,cushion wadsare used in placeof firearmlinkage. It is
very rarely useful because air cushion wads do not get any marking
inside from the barrel which is a characteristic of that weapon. He
testifiedthattheoreticallyitisonlypossibleandnotpractically. Itis
pertinenttonotethatthewitnesshascategoricallydeposedincrossthat
even without the forearm, firing was possible. However, there is
possibilityofburstingofbarrel.Assuch,nothingcouldbeelicitedfrom
this witness which would render his testimony unworthy of credence
andIdonotseeanyreasontodisbelievetheopinionoftheexpertwho
hadexaminedthefirearmArt.5andgavehiscandidopinionthatitwas
thesameweaponusedbytheculpritsatthetimeofincident.Allother
possibilitiesandhypothesishavebeenruledout. Thebulletsretrieved
from the dead body of deceased Kamlakar Jamsandekar, plastic wad,
examinationofskinpieceinabottleandotheraspectsclearlyshows
thatArt.no.5i.e.countrymadehandgunwasusedineliminatingthe
deceased.Thiswitnesswasnotcrossexaminedbyanyoftheremaining
defencecounsel.
94. TheevidenceofanotherexpertP.W.14Mrs.AnjaliBadadeis
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 97
on the point of examination of the scar butt i.e. the forearm. Her
evidenceisatExh.206. Shetestifiedthatshehasbeenworkingasan
AssistantChemicalAnalysersince2005. HerqualificationisM.Sc.in
OrganicChemistry.
95. On5
th
July2008,somepaperswerereceivedfromBallistic
DivisionwithanotetoanalyseExhibits1Aand2.Exhibit1contained
onesinglebarrelbreechloadinghandgunwithoutforearmwrappedina
plasticandagainwrappedinapaper,markedExhibitABL456/08/Ex.
1A.Exhibit2containedoneforearmputinapolythenebagwrappedin
plasticandwrappedinpaperlabelledBL456/08/Exh.2. Thewitness
testifiedthatwhenshetriedtofixExhibit1AwithExhibit2,thesame
exactlyfixedwithExhibit1A.Shehasdulyidentifiedthearticlesinthe
courtandopinedthatscarbuttlikepartcouldgiveawaysoonaftera
firingofashot.SheprovedherreportwhichisatExh.207.
96 Incross,shetestifiedthatshehadundergonedepartmental
training of six months. She had undergone training in soil analysis,
paintanalysis,glassanalysis,matchingfitetc. Shehadgivenopinion
about50casesinafieldofmatchingfitarticlessuchasbangles,roap,
woodenlogsetc.However,shehasnotundergonetrainingasregards
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 98
identificationofwood.SheadmitsthatherreportExh.207issilenton
thepointthatthescarbuttcouldgiveawaysoonafterfiringofshot.
Thatitselfdoesnotfalsifyherevidencebecausewhathasbeentestified
byherisanexpertinmatchingfitisquiteinspiringandtrustworthyas
it cannot be said that the said scar butt detached from the weapon
wouldfitwithanyotherweaponsinceitwasacountrymadehandgun.
Even,itisnotnecessarythatthewoodofthehandgunandthatofthe
scarbuttshouldbethesame.Thereisnoeffectivecrossexaminationof
thiswitnessalso.Hertestimonyhasnotbeenshakenbythedefence.It
hasrightlybeendeposedbyherthatiftwoarticlesarefixedtogether
andiftheyappearedtobeone,thentheyarestatedtobenatural.She
had handed over both the articles back to the Ballistic expert on
1.8.2008. This witness was not crossexamined by any of the other
defencecounsel.
97. The following points would, therefore, substantially
establish the connection with the recovered handgun Art. 5 and the
offenceofthemurderofKamlakarJamsandekar:
(a) Art. 5 is a single barrel breech loading
countrymadehandgun(Exh.202).
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 99
(b) The scar butt/forearm is missing (Exh.
202).
(c) The barrel washing shows the handgun
(Art.5)wasusedforfiringpriortoitsreceipt
inthelaboratory.
(d)Thewoodenfirearm(Art.1)iseasilyand
properly assembled with the country made
handgun (Art. 5) for usage of ballistic
examination(Exh.202).
(e) 12 bore cartridges could successfully be
test fired through the country made handgun
(Art.5).
(f) The scar butt/forearm (Art. 1) shows
characteristic matching fit with the
correspondinghandgun(Art.5)(Exh.207).
98. The oral evidence of P.W. 22 Dr. Bansude Mahadev
Eknathrao Exh. 279, post mortem report Exh. 281, the report of
ForensicScienceLaboratoryExh.198,Exh.195,Exh.196,Exh.202,
Exh. 207 visavis the evidence of Dr. Munj and P.W. 14 Mrs. Anjali
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 100
Badadeifviewedtogether,clearlyestablishedthatitwasthehandgun
(Art.5)usedasaweaponincommissionofthemurderofKamlakar
Jamsandekar.
99. The 16 coloured photographs collectively marked at Exh.
163clearlyindicatesthepositionofthevictiminhisroomandthescar
buttlyingnearhisfootontheflooraswellastheenlargedphotographs
of the said scar butt, that it unfixed and fell down at the time of
opening fire by A2 Vijaykumar Giri on the deceased. There is
absolutely no room for any doubt that this gruesome murder was
committed with daring by the A2 Vijay and A4 Narendra with A3
Ashokkumar,inabroaddaylightbytrespassingintothehouseofthe
deceased. The photographs of the scar butt/wooden forearm also
clearly depicts its metallic part embedded in the wood which got
detached/unfixedfromthehandgun.Asamatteroffact,noexpertiseis
requiredtoshowthatitmatchfixedwiththehandgunwhichevenan
ordinarymanofprudencecansaywithcertainty.
100. Now,thenextimportantquestionwouldbeastohowthe
DCB,CIDcouldlayitshandonthecountrymadehandgunArt.5. As
alreadystatedintheprecedingparagraphs,CriminalIntelligenceUnit
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 101
(CIU),aunitofCrimeBranch,Mumbaiuponcertaininformation,on
26.4.2008, laida trap near Govind Lachhiram Vegetarian Snacks and
Thali Restaurant, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai, within the jurisdiction of
L.T. Marg police station and arrestedA2 Vijay Giri, A3Ashokkumar
Jaiswar,A4NarendraGiriandA5AnilGiriwhiletheywerepreparing
to commit dacoity. In that regard, the evidence of P.W. 26 Ashish
KrishnarayanShukla,apanchwitnessandP.W.27APIAjayJoshi Exh.
313 and P.W. 31 H.C. Ramesh Bhokare Exh. 399,would be relevant.
Evidenceofthesewitnessesfindfullcorroborationfromthedocuments
viz.panchanamaandFIRlodgedbyP.W.31Exh.314andStationdiary
entriesExh.316(colly.).
101. The evidence of P.W. 31 Ramesh Bhokare indicates that
pursuant to an information on 26.4.2008 when he was attached to
DCB,CID, CIU, Mumbai about a dacoity to be committed near
Govindram Lachhiram Hotel, he informed about the same to P.I.
Sandbhor of the DCB,CID, CIU, Mumbai. Accordingly, a squad
comprisingPSIAjayJoshi,HCKharat,RaneandPNPawarwasformed.
P.W.31Bhokaresharedtheinformationandaccordinglytheyproceeded
towardsthesaidGovindramLachhiramHotelintwodifferentvehicles
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 102
bearing registration No. MH01BA 843 and MH 01 BA 939. They
reachednearKalbadeviRoadatabout2p.m. Theylaidatrapunder
thedirectionsofPISandbhor.ThiswitnessandPISandbhorwithpolice
naikPawarstoodneartheGovindramLachhiramhotelwhilePSIJoshi,
HCRaneandHCKharatstoodnearRamMandir,Ramwadi. At3.15
p.m.,threepersonscameoverthereandafter15minutes,theothertwo
persons came over there on a motor bike. All of them thereafter
enteredintoGovindramLachhiramHotel. Thiswitnessalsofollowed
themandoccupiedthebackseatinthehotelwheretheaccusedwere
discussingthatPintuTuterasamanlekePrakashGoldPalacemechale
jana, tere baad mai, Kandi aurAshokapnaapnasaman leke pahunch
jayengeaurkamhotehi,maiterasamanlekemotorcyclekepasspahunch
jaunga,phirapunlokDahisarmemilengeP.W.31Bhokareimmediately
cameoutof thehoteland gavethesaid informationtoPISandbhor.
Uponit,PISandbhoralertedeverybody.Oneofthefiveaccusedcame
outofthehotelandproceededtowardsPrakashGoldPalace. Another
fouralsocameoutofthehotel,butsomehowtheygotthehintabout
the presence of police personnel and, therefore, they tried to get
separatedfromeachother.Suddenly,PISandbhormadeasignaltonab
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 103
themandaccordinglyfourofthemwerearrestedonthespotwhileP.W.
31whowasfollowingoneofthemtowardsPrakashGoldPalacecould
not catch hold of him. Thereafter, the accused were asked as to
whethertheywantedtoeffectsearchofthepanchwitnessestowhich
they refused and on being asked, the accused gave their names and
addresses.TheywereVijaykumarHariharGiri,residentofKokaniPada,
Dashisar, Mumbai, Ashokkumar Shivkant Jaiswar, resident of Pratap
Nagar, Bhandup, Mumbai, Narendra @ Kandi @ Lalmani, resident of
HanumanTekadi,Dahisar,MumbaiandAnilSherbahadurGiri,resident
of Chandiwali, Andheri, Mumbai. While effecting the search of A2
Vijay Giri, the raidingparty found a handgun with a wooden handle
concealedneartheleftwaist.Thehandgunwasloadedwithalivered
coloured cartridge over which Special 65 MM Agnisham Factory
Khadki was scribed. It has a metal cap over which KF 12 was
embossed.Adrivinglicenceandabadgewasfoundinthepocketofthe
shirtalongwithamobilehandsetofNokiacompany.CashofRs.70/in
thedenominationofRs.50x1andRs.10x2wasalsofoundonthe
personofA2VijayGiri.
102. Thereafter,thepoliceofficerfounda12inchesknifewith7
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 104
inch blade with a compass on its handle and cash of Rs.40/ on the
personofA3AshokkumarJaiswar.
103. A12inchknifehaving3inchesmetalstripattheendofits
handle, a yellow colour wallet, a PAN card bearing name as
Satyendraalal B. Srivastav, a telephone diary, a pink coloured
attendancecardandcashofRs.30/wasfoundonthepersonofA4
NarendraGiri.
104. Lastly,A5AnilGiri,duringhissearch,wasfoundtohave
beeninpossessionof11incheslongknife,ablackcolouredrexinpurse,
an identity card of Film Studio Mazdoor Union, some visiting cards,
cashofRs.50//akeyofmotorbike,aNokiamobilehandset,Simcard
of Hutch company bearing Mobile No. 9920596508. The police also
found50gramsofchillypowderinapacketandsomestring(Sutal).
ThepoliceofficeralsotookintopossessionamotorbikebearingNo.MH
03AL8044,whichwasfoundtobeinworkingcondition.Itskeywas
found with A4 Narendra Giri. Those articles were duly sealed in
separatepacketsbydrawingapanchanama.TheA2VijayGirididnot
possesslicenceundertheArmsActtopossessthehandgun.Thereafter,
statementofP.W.31HCBhokarewasrecordedatthepolicestationin
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 105
S.C.No.482/2008.P.W.31hasidentifiedallthefouraccusedsittingin
thedock.HeespeciallyidentifiedA2VijayGiri.Hehasalsoidentified
allthearticlesincludinghandgunArt.5,seizedfromtheaccusedduring
thecourseofevidence.
105. Inhisexpatiatecrossexamination,thelearnedcounselMr.
PasbolaforAccusednos.1,2,3,7,11,14and16triedhisbesttoshow
astohowafabricatedpanchanamawaspreparedbyfalselyimplicating
these accused, alleged to be found in possession of country made
handgun Art. 5 along with other articles. In his crossexamination,
several aspects have been elicited which would rather supported the
prosecutionstoryinminutedetailswhichhavenotbeentestifiedbythis
witnessduringhisexaminationinchief. Ithasbeenelicitedthatthe
person who gave secret information to P.W. 31 HC Bhokare had also
givensuchinformationonsomanyoccasions.Onthebasisofhissuch
information, the police machinery succeeded in nabbing the accused.
Theinformerhadalsointimatedthetimeandplaceofthegatheringof
the accused/dacoits to this witness. P.W. 31 HC Bhokare thereafter,
briefedhisseniorPISandbhoraboutthesameandaccordinglytheteam
proceeded to the spot. Within five minutes, they reached the spot,
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 106
however,therewasnodiscussionaboutthecallingforpanchwitnesses.
PISandbhoraskedthepolicepersonneltocarrysealingmaterial,inter
aliadirectinganentrytobeeffectedinStationdiaryExh.316i.e.Entry
at Sr. No. 3 dated 26
th
April 2008 in the handwriting of police Naik
BuckleNo.26097Mr.Pawar.
106. Thecrossexaminationfurtherrevealsthataround2.15p.m.
theytookpositionsaroundthesaidhotel. Instructionsweregivenby
P.I.Sandbhorasregardsgivingsignalafteridentifyingtheculprit.The
secretinformerwasalreadypresentoverthere. Thepolicepersonnel
wereinstructedtohearthetalksbetweenthedacoits. Theywerealso
instructedtofollowthosepersonsandgetinformation.Theseactivities
aretobecarriedoutbyP.W.31Bhokare. Sr.P.I.SandbhoraskedHC
24990tobringthepanchas.Thecrossfurtherrevealsthatthreeofthe
accusedwerestandingontheoppositesideoftheroad.Theremaining
twohadparkedtheirbikewheretheotherpolicepartywaspresent.The
informer was 30 feet away from them i.e. near hotel Govindram
Lachhiram. Theinformerwasnotintroducedtotheothermemberof
theteam.Notonlythat,whenPISandbhorandPSIJoshiaskedP.W.31
abouttheinformer,hedidnotdisclosethemabouthim.WhenP.W.31
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 107
Bhokare confirmed that those were the same persons who were
preparingtocommitdacoity,heinformedaboutittoPISandbhorby
pointingouttowardsthosepersons.Whentheaccusedpersonsentered
hotelGovindramLachhiram,theywerefollowedbyP.W.31Bhokareand
withinfiveminutes,hecameoutandtoldPISandbhorwhatheover
heardfromthem,toPISandbhor.Thereafter,certainsuggestionswere
given to this witness about distance between hotel Govindram
LachhiramandPrakashGoldPalace,aboutthepositionstakenbythe
membersoftheteamonoppositesideoftheroad,notgivinganysignal
byPISandbhortocatchtheculpritsetc.whichhavebeendeniedbythis
witness.P.W.31Bhokareadmitsthatthoughhedidnotoverpowerany
ofthefouraccused,hehelpedtheminapprehending.Thefifthaccused
could not be nabbed, but it appears that his name was Pintoo. In
paragraph23ofthecrossexamination,P.W.31Bhokareadmitsthatthe
secret informer was verymuch present on the spot and confirmed
identity of those five persons which was the important aspect to be
mentionedintheFIR,butitwasnotdisclosedinit. Sincehedidnot
disclose about it to PSI Joshi as FIR is not an encyclopaedia. Its
purposeisonlytosetthecriminallawintomotionand,therefore,itis
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 108
not of that importance when the defence categorically confirmed not
only the same information by informer, but also nabbing of the four
accusednearhotelGovindramLachhiram,especiallyA2VijayGiriwith
acountrymadehandgunwithoutascarbutt. Thecrossalsoreveals
thatallofthemwerepresentnearhotelGovindramLachhiramtill5.45
p.m.TheinformationwasnotgiventoL.T.Margthoughthespotwas
situatedwithinthejurisdictionofL.T.Margpolicestation.P.I.Sandbhor
andPSIJoshihaddictatedthepanchanamaandalsoeffectedthesearch
oftheaccused.Inparagraph28ofthecrossexamination,thedefence
hasagainelicitedfromP.W.31Bhokarethatthreepersonsenteredin
the hotel to whom he saw for the first time when they were at a
distanceof100meters.Inthehotel,hewassittingatthebacksideof
the table where the accused were sitting. He could hear their
conversation,butthereisnodetailreportaboutitbyhim. Thisisall
about the evidence of P.W. 31 HC Bhokare which according to me
remainedunrebuttedbythedefence.
107. Now,theanotherimportantwitnessisP.W.26AshishShukla
whoinhisoralevidencetestifiedthat,whilepassingalongKalbadevi
Roadattherelevanttime,duringthelastweekofApril2008,hewas
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 109
calledbythepolicetoaplaceoppositeVitthalwadiMandironKalbadevi
Road where 56 policemen were present in civil dress. They had
apprehended 34 persons. This witness was asked as to whether he
wouldactasapanchwitnessuponwhichheagreed.Hetestifiedthat
during search of those persons whatever found was recorded
simultaneously. Hetestifiedthatoneofthosepersonshadagunwith
himwhile othershave chilly powder, knife, cell phone,cash etc. He
specificallytestifiedaboutthegunwithabarrelhavinglengthofabout
onefeet.Accordingly,apanchanamawasdrawninhispresencebythe
policeofficerwhichwassignedbyhimaswellasanotherpersonwho
was a bit aged. Thepolice officer also signed the panchanama. He
testified that the handgun was taken out from the waist of the
overpoweredpersoni.e.A2VijayGiri.Hecouldnotrecollectthename
ofthepersonfromwhomthegunwasrecoveredwhichisobviousthat
after such a long time, it cannot be expected of a normal man to
rememberthenameetc.Healsotestifiedthatoneofthepoliceofficer
hadopenedthegunintheirpresencewhereintheyfoundonebullet.
Allthearticleswerewrappedandthereafterdulysealed. Thewitness
couldnotrecollectthesequencewisesearchoftheaccusedandtestified
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 110
thathewouldidentifythearticleswhichwereseizedinhispresence.
Whenthe articles were shownto him, hehasidentifiedthe gunand
threeknives.TheknivesaregivenArt.no.10(colly.).Thewitnesshas
identifiedhissignatureoverthepaperslip. Hetestifiedindetailasto
howtheseizurewaseffectedbywrappingtheguninaplasticpaperand
by affixingpaperslip thereon. The gun isalready markedasArt.5.
ThewitnesshasalsoidentifiedcellphoneandwrapperArts.12,12A,
13,13A, thecurrencynotes Art.14 andwrapper Art.14A, currency
notes, driving licence and badge are marked as Art. 15 (colly.) and
wrapper Art. 15A, the bag and wrapper marked Art. 16, Art. 16A
respectively, wallet Art. 17 (colly.) and key is marked Art. 18 and
wrapper18A,seizedfromthedifferentaccused.ThestringmarkedArt.
19, thewrappercontainingchillypowderismarkedat Art.20. The
browncolourwalletcontainingcashismarkedas Art.21(colly.) and
wrapperArt.21A.Thus,theentirepanchanamahasbeendulyproved
withthesignatureofthiswitnessatExh.311. Thiswitnesscouldnot
identifythepersonfromwhomthegunwasseized.EvenintheCourt,
itseemsthatheexpressedhisinabilitytoidentifythosefouraccused
duetolapseoftime. Thewitnesswascalledupontogothroughthe
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 111
panchanama to refresh his memory, but he was unable to state the
nameoftheaccusedfromwhomthegunwasseized.Hewasnotunder
pressureorthreat. Itcanbesaidtobeaverynaturalconductofthis
witness. Hadhebeenagotupwitnessofthepolice,hewouldhave
identifiedA2VijayGiribynameasthepersonfromwhomthehandgun
wasseized.
108. This witness was also extensively crossexamined by Mr.
Pasbola,thelearnedcounselfortheaccused.Herealsocertainaspects
have been unearthed which would rather helpful to the prosecution
thanthedefence.HeadmitsthathecanreadMarathi.Healsoadmits
thathecouldidentifythearticlesonthebasisofwrappersandpaper
slips containing his signatures. His attention was drawn to Arts. 12,
12A,13,13A,14,15,18,19and20whereuponhesaidthathedidnot
recollectwhetherithappenedthatthegunandthethreekniveswere
first placed in the cardboard and then wrapped and the rest of the
articleswerewrappedinapolythenebag. Onethingisatleastclear
thatthegunandkniveswerewrappedinhispresencebythepoliceat
thetimeofdrawingthepanchanamaandweredulysealed.Thecross
alsorevealsthatoneofficertooksearchofallthefouraccusedwhose
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 112
namehe did not recollect. The crossalso reveals that whenhe saw
those four,theywere onthefootpathandhewas onhis motorcycle.
Therewasachaosand,therefore,hestoppedafternoticingthecrowd.
Hevolunteeredtoactaspanchwitnessandonepersoncameforward
fromthecrowdtoactasapanch.Thepoliceofficerhaddisclosedhis
identity by showing his identity card. Before commencement of the
search,apolicemanaskedthiswitnessandotherpanchtheirnamesand
otherdetails. Thiswitnesswasaskedwhetherhehadanypolicecase
against him. The cross reveals that during the entire period of
preparing panchanama, neither he nor another panch or the police
officialandthefouraccusedlefttheplace.Itiselicitedthathedidvisit
the Crime Branch Office in connection with some personal or official
workandhadalsovisitedL.T.Margpolicestation.Thiswitnessworked
with some Bank. The argument of Mr. Pasbola that he is not an
independent witness cannot be accepted for the reason that simply
becausehehadanoccasiontovisittheOfficeofCrimeBranchorL.T.
Margpolicestationdoesnotipsofactorenderhisevidencedoubtfulor
inadmissible.Thereisnosuchlaw.Evidentiaryvalueofawitnessora
trustworthinesscanbetestedduringcrossexamination. Hewithstood
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 113
thecross. Thedefencehasmiserablyfailedtoshakethetestimonyof
thiswitnessand,therefore,thereisnoreasontodisbelievehisevidence.
Assuch,thewitnesshasdulyprovedthepanchanamaExh.311.
109. At this stage, the relevant evidence is with regard to the
seizureofcountrymadehandgun fromthepersonofA2VijayGiri,
which the DCB,CID, CIU, Mumbai could get pursuant to the secret
informationreceivedbyP.W.31Bhokareandduringtheraidconducted
nearhotelGovindramLachhiram. AperusaloftheStationdiaryentry
Exh.316indicatesthattheinformationwasreceivedon26.4.2008and,
therefore, undertheleadershipof Sr. P.I. Sandbhor, rest of thepolice
personnelincludingPSIJoshiandothersproceededtowardsGovindram
LachhiramHotelatKalbadeviRoad.Thisentryismadeat13.45hours.
Subsequent entries are after the completion of raid and return of
raidingpartytothepolicestationandthereafter,lodgingofFIRbyPW.
31 Bhokare. The evidence of P.W. 31 HC Bhokare and P.W. 26 Ajay
Shukla corroborates each other along with documents FIR Exh. 314,
panchanamaExh.314andstationdiaryentryExh.316and,therefore,
thereisnoreasontodisbelievetheirevidenceinsofarasdueseizureof
thehandgunArt.5fromA2VijayGirion26.4.2008.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 114
110. P.W.27APIAjayJoshiwasintheteamofPISandbhoron
26.4.2008whileconductingtheraid. PISandbhorinformedAPIJoshi
about preparation for committing dacoity by the accused who were
going to gather near Govindram Lachhiram Hotel at Kalbadevi Road,
Mumbai. Hisevidenceisinconsonancewiththeevidenceof P.W.31
HCBhokare.P.W.27APIJoshiwasalsoattachedtoCIUattherelevant
time. Hetestifiedthatafterhavingobservedthemovementsofthose
personsnearHotelGovindramLachhiramandaftertheycameoutof
the hotel where they were heard conversing by P.W.31 HC Ramesh
Bhokare,theywereimmediatelydetainedaspertheinstructionsofPI
Sandbhorwhentheytriedtoscatter.Healsotestifiedaboutthesearch
ofalltheaccusedbythem,productionoftwopanchwitnessesbyH.C.
KharataspertheinstructionsofPISandbhor.HealsotestifiedthatPI
Sandbhoraskedthosefourpersonsastowhethertheydesiredtohave
search of police officials which they declined. On being asked, the
accused gave their names. The first one was Vijay Giri. During his
search,aredcolourdhandgunhavingwoodengripwasfoundtuckedat
hisleftwaistinsidethetrouser. Onexamination,itwasfoundwitha
livecartridgeSpecial65MM30GramAmunitionFactoryKhadki. The
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 115
gun was without scar butt. The length of the barrel of was 8 inch.
Likewise,hehas,indetaileddescribedthearticlesseizedfromallthe
remainingaccusedwhichincludecashamount,knives,mobilehandsets,
chillypowderetc. ThiswitnesshaddictatedthepanchanamatoH.C.
Rane. He has duly identified the gun Art. 5. He also identified his
signature over the panchanama Exh. 311. This witness has also
identified all the four accused viz. A2 Vijay Giri, A3 Ashokkumar
Jaiswar, A4 Narendra Giri and A5 Anil Giri. He identified the
signatureofRameshBhokareontheFIRExh.314.Onreturningtothe
office,herenumberedtheC.R.asDCB,CIDC.R.No.66/2008.
111. P.W. 27 API Ajay Joshi deposed that he did not see the
informantonthespotobviouslyforthereasonthatP.W.31HCBhokare
didnotintroducetheinformertotheofficer.Thecrossfurtherreveals
thatthefirstthreepersonscameovertherewhiletheothertwoarrived
on a motorbike after ten minutes. Hecorroborated the testimonyof
P.W.31RameshBhokareinmaterialparticularssofarastheentryof
P.W. 31 Ramesh Bhokare in the hotel following the accused and
thereafter, proceeding one of them towards Prakash Jewellers and
arrestingoftheotheraccusedwhentheycameoutofthesaidhotel.He
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 116
testifiedthatPrakashGoldPalaceshopisabout100metersfromthe
hotel Govindram Lachhiram. It has been specifically brought out in
paragraph 25 of his crossexamination that he apprehended one of
thosefouraccusedandP.I.SandbhoralongwithPCRane,Pawarand
HCKharatoverpoweredtheremainingthree. Hespecificallydeposed
that he apprehended A5 Anil Giri. His evidence further is in
consonancewiththeevidenceofP.W.31HCBhokareasregardscalling
the panchas, inquiring about their antecedents, effecting personal
searchofalltheaccusedanddrawingthepanchanamaaccordingly.No
doubt,thereisnodetailedmentioninthepanchanamaExh.311asto
who specifically apprehended which particular accused and about
specific search, but that itselfwould not falsify the evidence of these
three witnesses which is otherwise quite cogent, trustworthy and
believable. As a matter of fact, some detailed aspects have been
unearth during cross by the defence and thereafter, questions were
asked as to why these facts have not been incorporated in the
panchanamaorintheFIR. However,insubstance,itcanbeseenthat
theinvestigationinthesaidcrimehasbeenfaithfullyconductedbythe
officerandthereisnoreasontoconcoctastorytofalselyimplicateA2
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 117
VijayGiri,A3AshokkumarJaiswar,A4NarendraGiriandA5AnilGiri
inthesaidcase. Itis,therefore,rightlytestifiedbyP.W.27APIJoshi
thathehadfaithfullyrecordedalltheeventsinthepanchanamaasper
theorderinwhichtheproceedingswereconductedatrelevanttime.It
hasalsobeensubstantiatedincrossthatallthecellphones(Art.12to
15colly.,18,19and21(colly.)werewrappedwithcardboardsthough
thereisnospecificmentionaboutitinthepanchanama.Thecrossalso
revealstheregistrationnumbersofvehiclesi.e.939and843inwhich
theraidingpartyhadbeentothespot.Hetestifiedthatatthetimeof
registrationofcrime,therewereonlytwodocumentsviz.thestatement
ofP.W.31HCRameshBhokareandtheseizurepanchanama. Certain
factshavenotbeenmentionedinthestationdiaryandthepanchanama
such as the presence of fifth person over there and that the accused
weremakingpreparationtocommitdacoity.
112. ItappearsthatP.W.27APIJoshiinadvertentlyadmittedthat
the seizure panchanama does not disclose that the key of the
motorcyclewassealedonthespottoaquestion,toaquestionaskedby
thedefencecounsel. However,aperusalofthepanchanamaExh.311
at page 20 in the bottom, specifically shows that the key of the
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 118
motorcycleinaringoverwhichonarubbertagthewordHondawas
inscribed,wasseizedfromthespot.Hehasdeniedthesuggestionthat
allthefouraccusedwereinhiscustodyfrom24.2.2008onwardsanda
falsecasehasbeenregisteredagainstthem.
113. It is pertinent to note that Sakinaka police station had
alreadychargesheetedsevenaccusedpersonsinthecaseofmurderof
KamlakarJamsandekarand,therefore,itcannotbesaidthatitwasan
undetectedcase.Consequently,therewasnoreasonfortheCIUwhich
isoneoftheunitofCrimeBranchtofabricateevidenceoftherecovery
ofcountrymadehandgunandgunArt.5.Itisworthwhiletomention
thatwhenArt.5wasrecovered,itwaswithoutscarbutt. Soitwasa
continuation of investigation conducted earlier by Sakinaka police
stationandsubsequentlybytheDCB,CID,UnitNo.III,whichcouldlay
their hands on the weapon accidentally while conducting a raid
pursuanttoasecretinformationofpreparationofdacoitybythesefour
accused. Thisparticularunitofinvestigationhadnoreasontogoin
conflictwithinvestigationconductedbySakinakapolicestation.
114. P.W.3RameshBaluPatilExh.164isapanchwitnesstothe
panchanamatothesceneofoccurrenceExh.165(colly.).Hetestified
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 119
thaton2.3.2007,at6.45p.m.,heactedasapanchwitnessalongwith
oneHande,acopanch,inRoomNo.7whereKamlakarJamsandekar
wasassassinated. Ontherequestofthepolice,heagreedtoactasa
panchwitness. Hegaveadetaileddescriptionoftheroomwherethe
incidenttookplace.Theroomhasaplankdoorofabout6andfeet
inheight. Totherightsideoftheroom,therewasaslidingwindow
admeasuring4' x3and' Attherightsideoftheroom,therewasa
staircase going upward. Below the staircase, there was a cupboard
attached to a wall. Abutting to the staircase, there was one white
plasticchairwhichwassmearedwithblood,facingtowardstheother
sideoftheroomi.e.oppositethefrontdoor.Bloodwasspilledonthe
floor.Leftarmofthechairwasalsostainedwithbloodandsomepart
ofthebloodhaddried. Therewasonestooloverwhichtherewasa
newspaper and a telephone was found. On the paper, a matter
addressed to Mr. Uddhav Thakare and some figure was noticed. He
categoricallytestifiedthataboutadistanceof2feetfromtheleftleg,
therewasonewoodenpiecewithhandlebearingonemetalpiece(scar
butt). The room admeasuredby18x10ft. Restof the evidence is
aboutthedetaildescriptionofinternalroomandotherthingssuchasa
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 120
showcasefortelevisionset.Hetestifiedthatfromthemainhallwhere
thedeceasedwasassassinated,thekitchenroomwasvisible. Healso
testifiedthatthepoliceofficerswerenotingdownthescenariointhe
room.Theyhadcollectedthebloodintotwosmallbottleswhichwere
sealedandthesignatureswereobtainedalongwithcopanchonpaper
slips which were affixed on both the bottles. The dog squad also
arrivedwhichleftafterjobwasover.Hefurthertestifiedthatthepolice
tookchargeofwoodenpieceandplaceditinaplasticbag.Theplastic
bag was closed and a seal was applied. Signatures of both panchas
wereobtaiendonapaperthatwasfoundonthestool. By8.20p.m.,
thepanchanamawasover.Thus,thescarbuttalongwithotherarticles
weredulyprovedbythiswitnesswhohassignedthepanchanamaat
Exh.165.
115. Inhiscrossexamination,thedefencehasfailedtomakeany
dentinhisnaturalevidence.Theaspectthathewascloselyacquainted
withthedeceasedandsometimesusedtodrivehisvehiclewouldnot
ipsofactmakehisevidenceunworthyofcredence. Thefactofseizure
ofwoodenpiece,collectionofbloodsamplesaswellasotherarticles
fromthespotandsealingthembythepoliceofficerhasbeenreiterated
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 121
bythedefence. Certaininsignificantquestionshavebeenputsuchas
hedidnotgothroughthepanchanamaafteritwascompletedandthat
itwasnotreadovertohimetc.Thedefencehasalsoreiteratedthefact
of the photographs Exh. 153 (colly.). by putting specifically to this
witnessthatthosewerenotsnappedinhispresencewhichthewitness
does admit. That itself does not falsify his evidence as regards the
panchanamabecausethephotographswerealreadysnappedbeforethe
bodyofthedeceasedKamlakarwastakentothehospitalbythepolice.
Inparagraph10ofthecrossexamination,thewitnessfortifiedthathe
canstatewherethewoodenpiecewaslying.Accordingtohim,itwas
foundatadistanceoftwofeetawayaheadoftheleftlegofthechair.
Section58oftheEvidenceActcontemplatesthatfactsadmittedneed
notbeproved.Thewitnesswasagainconfrontedwiththephotographs
Exh.153(colly.)whereinwoodenarticleisseenattheplacewhichwas
deposed to by this witness. Since the defence has admitted the
photographsu/s.294ofCr.P.C.,itisneedlesstogothroughthecross
examinationonthatpoint. Inparagraph15ofcrossexamination,he
againreiteratedthatthearticleappearinginphotographatSr.No.4
whichisawoodenpiecewithametalaboutwhichhewasinformedby
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 122
thepolicethatitwasascarbutt.Hefurthertestifiedthatthewooden
piecehadsomesmallbloodstains.Hedidnottouchthesaidarticlenor
thepoliceofficerwhowrotethepanchanama.Hefurthermadeitclear
thatinthepanchanama,nonepresentovertheretouchedthearticle.
116. Mr.Rasal,thelearnedcounselforAccusednols.8,12,13
and21askedthewitnessaboutthedogsquadwhichhadarrivedonthe
spot. Hetestifiedthatthedogsquadcomprisedadogandhismaster.
Thesquadwasintheroomforabouttenminutes.Thereafter,itleftthe
room. Restofthedefencecounseldidnotcrossexaminethiswitness.
Thus,itisquiteexplicitthatArt.5whichwasseizedbytheDCB,CID,
CIU and the scar butt seized by Sakinaka police station during
panchanama, as stated above, if taken together along with the
photographs as well as the evidence of Ballistic expert, would
unerringly points out that it was the same weapon used by the A2
VijayGiriforassassinatingKamlakarJamsandekar.Thereisabsolutely
noroomfordoubtwhichconnectstheA2VijayGiri,A3Ashokkumar
Jaiswar,A4NarendraGiriandA5AnilGiri,theArt.5i.e.thehandgun
andscarbutt,whichwasusedincommissionofthemurder.Therefore,
thereisnoquestionoffabricatingorplantingofscarbuttbythepolice.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 123
117. ItisalsopertinenttonotethatA1ArunGawalialiasDaddy
wasalreadyarrestedon21.4.2008inDCB,CIDC.R.No.52/2008,who
was already in the custody of Crime Branch and a proposal for
application under the provisions of MCOC Act has been moved on
24.4.2008. Therefore,itcannotbesaidthattherecoveryofhandgun
Art. 5 on 26.4.2008 by CIU was doctored only in order to falsely
implicate A1 Arun Gawali in the murder of Kamlakar Jamsandekar.
The learned SPP Mr. Thakare in his memorandum of argument has
submittedthattheprosecutionhasonlyallegedthattheprocurementof
weaponwasbeinganillegalactwhichisreflectedinconfessionofA10
Shrikrishna alias Babu Gurav Exh. 251. Therefore, it is irrelevant
whether there is evidence to show that in fact it was used for such
purpose.Inanyevent,possessionofthesaidweaponitselfconstitutes
anoffence.
118. Secondly,itisarguedbyMr.Thakarethatthedefencehas
misinterpretedthattheweaponArt.5wasincapableoffiringwithout
scarbuttArt.1.TheevidenceofP.W.13,aBallisticexpertrevealsthat
onlyoneshotcanbefiredatatime.Evenwithoutforearm,firingwas
possible,butthereispossibilityofburstingofbarrel.Thenextlimbof
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 124
argumentofMr.Thakarewasthatconcealingtheweaponunderneath
theclotheswoulddependofthetypeofclothesthepersonwearingand
unlesssuchunlicencedarmiscapableofbeingcarriedclandestinely,no
personwouldtakeriskofpossessingitandsuchgunwouldnothave
beenprocuredbyanyonefromA8SurendraPanchal.
119. Asregardsthecontentionofthedefenceaboutthepresence
ofthefifthpersonwhoranawayfromtheplacewhereaccusednos.2to
5werearrestedfortheoffenceu/s.399ofIPC.Itissubmittedthatthe
such topicinfact isnot anissuein this case. What isrelevant isto
considerastowhethertheevidenceofarrest,searchandrecoveryfrom
thearrestedaccusedpersonsisacceptableandbelievable.Thepresence
of5
th
personwhoallegedlyranawaywouldbegermanetothetrialof
offenceu/s.399ofIPC.
120. ItisfurtherarguedonthepointofdelayinsendingFIRExh.
314. Theincidenttookplaceon26.4.2008,theFIRwasregisteredon
thesamedayat19.44hoursandrelevantentryinthediarywasmade
at CIU, DCB, CID at 19.30 hours. The next day was a Sunday and,
therefore, copy of the FIR was sent to the Court immediately on the
nextworkingdayi.e.28.4.2008and,therefore,therewasnodelayin
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 125
sendingFIRtotheCourt.
121. AusefulreliancehasbeenplacedbyMr.Thakareincaseof
State of Maharashtra V. Siraj Ahmed Nisar Ahmed and others
reportedin(2007)2SupremeCourtCases(Cri)472. TheHon'ble
SupremeCourt heldthatatthetimeofappreciationofevidencewhat
shouldbethedutyandapproachoftheCourt.Itisheldthatthecourt
tofirstseewhetherevidenceofwitnessreadasawholeappearstohave
a ring of truth. Once the said impression is formed, Court must
scrutinise the evidence, more particularly keeping in view the
deficiencies,drawbacksandinfirmitiespointedoutintheevidence,asa
whole,andevaluatethemtofindoutwhetheritisagainstthegeneral
tenorof theevidencegivenbythewitnessesand whetherthe earlier
evaluationoftheevidenceisshakenastorenderitunworthyofbelief.
Minordiscrepanciesontrivialmatternottouchingthecoreofmatterin
issue,hypertechnicalapproachbytakingsentenceoutofcontexthere
or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical
errorcommittedbytheinvestigatingofficernotgoingtotherootofthe
matter,wouldnotpermitrejectionoftheevidenceasawhole.Onfacts,
the discrepancies in statements of the two witnesses were not
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 126
infirmities.
122. Inthiscase,almostalltheprosecutionwitnesseshavebeen
crossexamined by the defence pointing minor discrepancies of trivial
matterwhicharenottouchingthecoreofmatterinissue,byadopting
hypertechnicalapproachandbytakingsentenceoutofcontesthereor
therefromtheevidence.Muchweighthasbeenattachedtotechnical
errors committed by the I.O. which are not going to the root of the
matter. Assuch,theratiolaiddownbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtis
clearly applicable to the present set of facts. The evidence so far as
discussed,definitelyappearstohavearingoftruth. Thecumulative
effectofthetestimonyofP.W.26AshishShukla,P.W.27APIAjayJoshi
and P.W. 31 HC Ramesh Bhokare visavis the FIR, panchanama and
stationdiaryentrywouldshowthattheseaccusedhavebeenarrested
by the police while preparing to commit dacoity and during that
process,thehandgunArt.5couldbeseized.Theirevidenceinspirefull
confidence.
123. Thenextimportantaspectwouldbeastohowtheweapon
came into existence. According to the learned SPP Mr. Thakare,
handgunArt.5wasgotpreparedfromA8SurendraPanchalwhoisthe
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 127
brotherofP.W.8NarendraVasudeoPanchalExh.180. Inthatcontext,
itwouldberelevanttoscantheevidenceofP.W.8NarendraPanchal
and P.W. 11 Ramchandra alias Dhaktya Gurav. It is argued by the
learnedSPPthatP.W.8NarendraPanchalhasdeposedthathisbrother
A8SurendraPanchalrepairsgunsetc.athisnativeplacenearRajapur
whogothisfather'slicencetransferredinhisnameforrepairingarms.
P.W.11RamchandraGuravaliasDhaktyaisrelatedtoA10Shrikrishna
alias Babu Gurav. It is argued that A10 Shrikrishna Gurav has
describedinhisconfessionalstatementastohowA12PratapGodsein
presence of A13 Ajit Rane asked A10 Shrikrishna Gurav about the
availabilityofaweapon.Subsequently,theweaponwasmanufactured
byA8SurendraPanchalwhointimatedaboutittoA12PratapGodse
telephonically upon which, A12 Pratap Godse, A13 Ajit Rane, A11
Dinesh Narkar and A10 Shrikrishna Gurav had gone to Rajapur for
orderingandfetchingtheweaponinquestioni.e.handgunArt.5.Itis
further argued that the evidence of P.W. 11 Ramchandra Gurav is
completely corroborated by the confession of A10 Shrikrishna Gurav
andA11DinyaNarkar.Apartfromthat,itisfurthercorroboratedand
substantiatedbyunimpeachableevidenceinthenatureofmobilephone
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 128
call details Exh. 426 (colly.) and Exh. 427 (colly.). As regards
confessionofsomeoftheaccusedandtheadmissibilityofthesame,will
bediscussedattheappropriatestage.
124. TheargumentofthedefenceisthattheevidenceofP.W.8
Panchalisformalasitdoesnotdiscloseanythingbeyondthefactthat
A8SurendraPanchalhasagunrepairerslicence.Thiscircumstanceis
notaconclusivecircumstancethatA8SurendraPanchalhasprocured
ormanufacturedanygunonthesayofA12PratapGodseandA13Ajit
Rane. Atthebest,itcanbeledtosomekindofcorroborationtothe
evidence of P.W. 11 Ramchandra Gurav. The evidence of P.W. 11
Ramchandra Gurav is totally unreliable who ought to have been
arraigned as an accused rather than a witness. It is argued by Mr.
PasbolathattheevidenceofP.W.11Ramchandraistobetakenwitha
pinch of salt, for, at the instance of A10 Shrikrishna Gurav, he had
contactedA8SurendraPanchalandthereafter,introducedA12Pratap
Godse and A13 Ajit Rane to him. As such, since this witness had
played an active role in procuring the gun which was used in the
murderofKamlakarJamsandekarand,therefore,oughttohavebeen
arraignedasanaccusedandnotasawitness.Itisfurtherarguedthat
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 129
the evidence of this witness is impeached by his own conduct as
according to him, ten days prior to his evidence, wife of A10
Shrikrishna Gurav approached him and gave him Rs.25,000/ by
threateningnottoidentifyA10ShrikrishnaGuravorA1ArunGawali.
ItisarguedthatP.W.11Ramchandrahadnevercameincontactwith
A1ArunGawaliandnobodyhadspokentohimofA1ArunGawaliat
any time and, therefore, there is no question of giving the alleged
threatsnottoidentifyA1ArunGawali.
125. Now,theevidenceofP.W.8NarendraPanchalandP.W.11
RamchandraGuravwillhavetobereadinthelightoftheargumentsof
therespectivecounsel.
126. P.W. 8 Narendra Panchal Exh. 180 testified that A8
SurendraPanchalishisbrother.Theirfatherdiedintheyear1985who
hadalicenceofrepairingfirearm. Afterthedemiseofhisfather,the
said licence came to be transferred in the name of A8 Surendra
Panchal. He further testified that after the arrest of A8 Surendra
Panchal,hewassummonedbythepoliceon12.5.2008andastatement
wasrecorded.Hehadproducedaxeroxcopyoflicenceandthereceipt
indicatingthatapplicationforrenewaloflicencewassubmittedtothe
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 130
Competent Authority. The application bearing signature of A8
SurendraPanchalisprovedatExh.181.
127. He was crossexamined only by the learned counsel Mr.
RasalforAccusednos.8,12,13and21.HeadmitsthatExh.181was
notsignedinhispresence,butthesignatureoveritmighthavebeen
made by his brother A9 Surendra Panchal. A perusal of Exh. 181
reveals that it is an application addressed to the District Magistrate,
Ratnagiriforrenewalofthearmrepairinglicencealongwithacopyof
'Chalan'bywhichA8SurendraPanchalhaddepositedRs.300/forthe
renewalofthelicenceon18.12.2007. Thisevidencerestrictsonlyto
theextentthattheaccusedA8Surendraispermittedtorepairfirearms
andnotmanufactureofunauhthorsedfirearms.
128. P.W. 11 Ramchandra J. Gurav alias Dkaktya Exh. 186 has
deposedthatheisanagriculturistbyprofession. Hehasawifeand
three children. After the marriage, he was doing the business of
firearmsatvillageKharepatanandRajapur. A10ShrikrishnaGuravis
his cousin who drives an auto rikshaw for his livelihood in Sakinaka
area. P.W. 11 Ramchandra Gurav intermittentlyvisitedMumbai and
usedtostaywithA10ShrikrishnaGurav.A10Shrikrishnaisanactive
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 131
memberof AkhilBhartiyaSena ofwhichA1ArunGawaliisthehead.
In the year 2003 and 2004, A10 Shrikrishna alias Babu Gurav was
serving at Powai where he had also secured a job for P.W. 11
Ramchandra.Duringthosedays,P.W.11Ramchandrawasstayingatthe
houseofhisanuntDraupadii.e.themotherofA10ShrikrishnaGuarav.
He left the job and went back to his village, however, he continued
visitingMumbaionandoftenandusedtostayathisaunt'shouse.He
furthertestifiedthatinthemonthofMay,2006,whenhehadbeento
Mumbai, A10 Shrikrishna Gurav alias Babu took him to his friend's
travelofficeviz.AmitTravelsatKandivliandintroducedtoA12Pratap
GodseandA13AjitRane.Therewasonelady,butP.W.11Ramchandra
does not remember her name. P.W. 11 Ramchandra identified A10
Shrikrishna alias Babu Gurav and A13 Ajit Rane from amongst the
otheraccusedsittinginthedock.Atthattime,A12PratapGodsewas
notbroughtfromthejail.HetestifiedthatA12PratapGodseenquired
withhimwhetheraguncouldbeavailableathisvillage,uponwhich,
P.W. 11 Ramchandra informed him that he will go to the village and
enquireaboutthesame.Thisconversationtookplaceinthepresenceof
A13AjitRaneandA10ShrikrishnaGurav.A12PratapGodsegavehis
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 132
phonenumberaswellasthephoneofA10Shrikrishnaonapieceof
paper and asked him to contact as soon as the gun will be made
available. P.W. 11 Ramchandra left for his village. After enquiry, he
cametoknowthatagunwouldbeavailableatvillageVilaye. P.W.11
Ramchandrawenttothesaidvillagewherehehadsomeacquaintance.
OneofthemhadaskedhimtoapproachA8SurendraPanchalwhoisin
professionofrepairingguns.P.W.11Ramchandrawenttohishomeand
enquiredastowhetherhecouldprovideagun. P.W.11Ramchandra
hasalsoidentifiedA8SurendraintheCourt. A8Surendraagreedto
provide a gun and, therefore, P.W. 11 Ramchandra contacted A10
Shrikrishna on phone from Kharepatan and informed him about the
same. A10 Shrikrishna replied that he would come to the village
within45days.
129. The evidence further reveals that after 45 days, A10
Shrikrishna Gurav, A11 Dinesh Narkar, A12 Pratap Godse and A13
AjitRanecametohisvillageinaprivatevehicle. Theyfirstcameto
hotel Madhuban at Kharepatan. A10 Shrikrishna alone came to the
houseofP.W.11RamchandraandtookhimtohotelMadhubanwhere
A12Pratap,A11DineshNarkar,A13AjitRanewerepresent. Allof
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 133
themthereafter,proceededtovillageVilayeinthesaidvehicle. They
metA8Surendra. P.W.11RamchandraintroducedallofthemtoA8
Surendra.TheevidencefurtherrevealsthatA8enquiredwiththemas
towhatkindofguntheywereaskingfor,uponwhich,A12Pratapgave
asketchofaguntoA8Surendra.A8Surendratoldthemthatthegun
wouldcostRs.6000/. Thereafter,A12PrataptoldA8Surendrathat
they would come on the next day. All of them came back to
Kharepatan. Onthenextday,atabout10a.m.,allofthemcameto
HotelMadhubanfromwheretheywenttothehouseofA8Surendraat
Vilaye. Since A8 Surendra was not at home, A12 Pratap contacted
himona phonenumberwhichwasgivenbyhisfamilymember. A8
SurendraaskedthemtogotohotelMadhubanat5p.m. Accordingly,
allofthemwenttohotelMadhubanwhereA12PratappaidRs.3000/
as an advance to A8 Surendra. The balance was agreed to be paid
after the receipt of the gun. A8 Surendra told A12 Pratap that it
wouldtakesometimetofetchthegunandaskedthemtocomeafter
twomonths. ItwasagreedthatP.W.11Ramchandrawouldremainin
touchwithA8Surendraonphonetoascertainwhetherthegunwas
ready. P.W.11Ramchandrathereafter,informedA10Shrikrishnaand
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 134
A12Pratapaboutthesame.After23months,thegunwasreadyand,
therefore,P.W.11RamchandrainformedaboutittoA10Shrikrishna.
A10ShrikrishnainformedP.W.11Ramchandrathattheywouldcome
after45days.
130. P.W. 11 Ramchandra has further deposed that accordingly,
A10ShrikrishnaGuravandA11DineshNarkarcametothevillageon
thedayof'Gokulashtami'.TheyreachedvillageVilayeofA8Surendra
inanautorikshaw. A10ShrikrishnapaidthebalanceofRs.3000/to
A8 Surendra. A8 Surendra delivered the gun to A10 Shrikrishna.
A10ShrikrishnaaskedA8Surendratotestthefire. Asthecartridgs
were not available with theA8 Surendra at his home, they came to
Kharepatan where A8 Surendra arranged for some cartridges which
were of red colour. A8 Surendra gave those cartridges to A10
ShrikrishnawhointurnpaidA8SurendraRs.300/.SinceA11Narkar
wantedtotestthecartridges,allofthemwenttonearbyjunglewhere
A8testfiredthecartridges.A11Narkarthereafter,approvedthegun.
A8SurendraleftforhisvillagewhileA11NarkarandA10Shrikrishna
leftthevillageafterwrappingthegunArt.5inaleavesofelephant'sear
(Aloo). P.W. 11Ramchandra has also described the gun which
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 135
accordingtohim,wasoneandhalffeetinlength.Hehasidentifiedthe
gunArt.5inthecourt. Hespecificallytestifiedthatonewoodenpart
belowthebarrelofthegunismissing.WhenthewoodenpieceArt.1
was shown to him, it was identified, which was the very piece and
whichwaspartofthegun.HehasalsoidentifiedA11NarkarandA12
GodseintheCourt.
131. P.W. 11 Ramchandra is also known as Dhaktya which
meansyoungest. HeadmitsthathewasenquiredwithbytheCrime
Branchpoliceofficerathisvillageandalsoaskedhimwhetherhehad
securedagunforsomeoneelsebefore.Hedeniedthesuggestionthat
procuringagunforsomeoneisacrimeandfurthermadeitclearthat
heneverprocuredagunforanybody.
132. P.W. 11 Ramchandra during the course of his cross
examinationbythelearnedcounselMr.Pasbola,volunteeredthatten
days before his evidence, wife of A10 Shrikrishna had been to his
residence with some unknownpersons who paidhimRs.25,000/ for
notsupportingtheprosecution.Thosethreepersonsincludingthewife
ofA10Shrikrishnathreatenedhimofdireconsequencesifheidentifies
A10ShrikrishnaandA1ArunGawaliinthecourt. Hetestifiedthat
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 136
thepoliceofficerwhohadbeentoservethesummonsofthisCourthad
accompaniedhimtoKankavaliwhereP.W.11Ramchandrahadlodgeda
complaintatthesaidpolicestation.Hehadalsodepositedtheamount
ofRs.25,000/paidtohimbythewifeofA10Shrikrishna.Becauseof
the said incident, he was frightened and, therefore, asked the police
officertoaccompanyhimtoMumbai.
133. Hiscrossexaminationindicatesthatsincehiscomplaintwas
notrecordedatthepolicestationofKharepatanwhereheresides,he
lodgeditatKankavaliwhichis35kilometersfromvillageKharepatan.
Hedeposedthattherewasagapofabout810daysbetweenthevisitof
wife of A10 Shrikrishna and the visit of the police for service of
summons. HefurthertestifiedthatA10Shrikrishna'swifealonehad
beentohishouse. ShetookhimtothehotelMadhubanwherethose
unknown persons were present who had thrusted the amount in his
pocket. However,inthenextbreath,P.W.11Ramchandraadmitsthat
he did not visit the police chowky of his village to lodge complaint
aboutthevisitofA10Shrikrishna'swife. Hecandidlyadmitsthathe
had never been to the police chowky to lodge complaint against
anybody.Hedoesnotrememberastowhenhehadbeentothepolice
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 137
chowky with other persons as according to him, he accompanied the
otherstolodgeacomplaintatthepolicechowkyofhisvillage.Hehad
notinformedaboutthesaidincidenttohisbrother,wifethoughallof
themresidejointly.
134. According to P.W. 11 Ramchandra, on 12.11.2010, police
hadbeentohisresidenceatabout11a.m.Theyreachedpolicestation
Kankavali at about 12 noon. P.W. 11 Ramchandra, at the time of
evidence,tenderedacopyofcomplaintlodgedbyhimExh.188. This
is a very important document brought in by the witness during his
crossexaminationitselfwhichdoesindicatethatanattemptwasmade
by A1 Arun Gawali and A10 Shrikrisha to influence him before
adducing evidence. This is a relevant fact in view of Sec. 8 of the
EvidenceAct.Thesaidcomplaintdated12.11.2010,inshort,indicates
that he is a witness in case of the murder of Shivsena Corporator
KamlakarJamsandekar,asweaponusedinthecommissionofoffence
was manufactured by A8 Surendra to whom this witness had first
approached through A10 Shrikrishna and his friend. The complaint
further reveals that 15 days before his evidence, wife of A10 Babu
GuravhadbeentohishouseatKankavaliandtookhimoutofthehouse
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 138
underthepretextofsomeimportanttalk.HissonYogeshaccompanied
him. They reachednear hotelMadhubanwherearedcolouredTata
Sumowasparked.Therewerethreepersons,agedabout55,45and46
yearsold,havingtypicalaccentofMumbai. WifeofA10Shrikrishna
asked P.W. 11 Ramchandra to depose false in the Court by not
identifying her husband A10 Shrikrishna. Thereafter, the three
unknownpersonsthreatenedhimofdireconsequencesifheidentifies
A1ArunGawaliandA10ShrikrishnainCourtandthrustedthebundle
of Rs.25,000/ in the denomination of Rs.500/ notes each, in his
pocket. Afterextendingthreats,allofthemleftforMumbai. Acrime
bearingNo.467/2010u/s.214,506ofIPCwasregisteredonthesame
day. ThepoliceofficerofpolicestationKankavalihadalsoseizedthe
amountofRs.25,000/producedbythiswitnesswhichgivesdetailsof
allthecurrencynotesofRs.500/denomination.Thisisarelevantfact
inthegivencircumstancesaseventhelearnedcounselfortheaccused
Mr. Pasbola substantiated the important aspect during further cross
examinationofP.W.11Ramchandra.Attentionofthiswitnessisdrawn
to the portion marked 'A' in his complaint Exh. 188 wherein he has
stated that 15 days prior to his evidence, wife of A10 Shrikrishna
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 139
approached him. This is not a material contradiction, for, the fact
remained that wife of A10 and some persons had approached this
witnesstoinfluencehim. Thecrossexaminationfurtherindicatesthat
thecontentsofExh.188hadbeenrecordedasperhissay.Theamount
ofRs.25,000/hadbeenkeptbyhiminabagwithoutdisclosingthe
same,insuchawaythatnoonegetanyideathereof. Lookingtothe
background of the accused and the role of this witness, it is quite
obviousinanormalcircumstancethathehadnotdisclosedthesameto
anyofthefamilymembersprobablyhedidnotwanttoscarethem.He
also testified that he did not note down the Tata Sumo's registration
number.Healsodeposedthathissonwhois18yearsoldwaswithhim
whenwifeofA10Shrikrishnahadbeentohishome.Healsotestified
that after 5.5.2008, neither A10 Shrikrishna nor his family members
had been to him. The crossexamination further reveals that when
thosethreepersonsaskedP.W.11RamchandranottoidentifyA1Arun
GawalibeforetheCourt,hetoldthemthathehadneverseenA1Arun
Gawali.On3.5.2008,whenthepolicehadbeentohishouse,hecame
toknowthatthemurderhadbeencommittedbythesaidweapon.He
also testifiedthat he had enquired with the other accused as to why
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 140
theyrequiredthegun. Hewouldnothavehelpedthemhadhebeen
awarethatthegunwasaskedforcommittinganoffence. Headmits
thatonecannotprocureacountrymadegunevenwithalicence. He
further deposed that in the office of Amit Travels, when there was a
discussiononthesubjectofgun,hewassurprised.However,whenhe
was asked, he immediately replied that he would see in his village
whethertheguncanbemadeavailable.
135. Certain minor omissions are brought on record which are
notat all material. It is elicited in crossexamination by the learned
counselMr.PasbolathatthiswitnesscontactedA10Shrikrishnaalias
BabuGuravonhiscellphoneon45occasions.Thechitbearingphone
number which was given to him at Amit Travel's Office, has been
destroyedbythiswitnessafterhegavethosenumberstothepoliceand
when he learnt that those people were involved in the offence of
murder.Hedeposedthatthepolicedidnotaskhimaboutthesaidchit,
however,forgivingthosephonenumberstothepolice,hereferredthe
chit. He did not mention anything to that effect. It is specifically
broughtoutthatthosetwonumberswereinthehandwritingofA12
Pratap Godse and A10 Shrkrishna Gurav. Thus, the fact has been
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 141
substantiated even during crossexamination that in order to procure
theweapon,A12PratapandA10Shrikrishnahadgiventhesenumbers
sothattheycouldbecontacted.Thereisnomentionofthechitinhis
statement u/s. 161 of Cr.P.C. , but statement does indicate that A12
PratapandA10Shrikrishnagavetheirmobilenos.9223202133which
is of A12 and 9819257750 which is of A10 Shrikrishna. He also
deposedthatheusedto contactA8 Surendraon histelephonefrom
othertelephonebooth. Hecouldnotgivetheregistrationnumberof
thevehicleinwhichaccusedA8 Surendra and A10Shrikrishna had
beentohisvillageforobtainingthegun.ItispertinenttonotethatP.W.
11 Ramchandra has categorically testified in paragraph 6 of his
evidencethatA10ShrikrishnaandA11Narkarhadbeentothevillage
onthedayof 'Gokulashtami'. Thisfacthasbeensubstantiatedbythe
prosecutionwhichdrewmyattentiontothecalenderforthemonthof
August2006whichshowson16
th
August2006(Wednesday)itwasthe
day of 'Gokulashtami' i.e. 'Janamashtami'. This fact further gets
corroboratedfromthemobilecallrecordbetweenA12PratapandA8
Surendra. On15
th
August2006atabout16:13:47,A12Pratapfrom
cell No. 9223202133 had called A8 Surendra on his cell no.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 142
9224770420. Thecallingnumber,cellI.D.addressisshownas19441
Junction of AndheriGhatkopar Road and Jamuneshwar Mahadeo
MandirRoad,Asalfavillage,whereasthecallernumber,cellI.D.address
i.e. the mobile of A8 Surendra is shown to be not in Mumbai circle
whichmeanshewasathisvillage.Thisaspecthasbeensubstantiated
by P.W. 35 Shekhar Palande Exh. 431 who is working with Tata
TelecommunicationServicesMaharashtraLtd.asaAssistantManagerat
Turbheandhadproducedtheformsofthreemobilenumbersi.e.the
first no. 9223202133 whichisregistered inthe name ofA12 Pratap
TukaramGodse,whichalsogivesESNnumberwhichmeansequipment
serialnumberofthehandsetas3D60BD9D.Thishandset,accordingto
P.W. 35 has an inbuilt sim card. This has been duly proved by him
through the document Exh. 432. He also testified that second
applicationisinthenameofRavindraPanchalwhoistherealbrother
ofA8Surendra,havingCellNo.9224770420.Theapplicationformis
annexedwithcopyofPANcardofRavindrawhoistherealbrotherof
A8 Surendra Vasudeo Panchal which is a relevant fact in the given
circumstancesandestablishesthatthiscellnumberwasbeingusedby
A8Surendrafromhisvillage.ThesaiddocumentisprovedatExh.433
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 143
(colly.).P.W.35ShekharPalandeisanindependentwitnessfromwhose
oralaswellasdocumentaryevidence,ithasbeenconclusivelyproved
that the persons holding those two mobile numbers were in contact
witheachotheraboutnineoccasionsandthatthecellsiteIDNo.28402
wasnotavailablebecausethecellIDwasfromoutofMumbai. The
followingchartwouldmakethepictureclearaboutthetime,dateand
durationoftheconversationbetweenA12PratapandA8Surendra:
Calls during the period of ordering and fetching the weapon (Article 5)
NOTE:'B'standsforEXHBITNo.427Colly.
Date Time Call
Dura
tion
Calling No Calling
No Cell
ID
address
Called No Called No
Cell ID
address
Page
No
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
27/07/2006 115114 28 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
( ESNNO -
3d60bd9d )
1922
(Saki
Vihar
Road,
Near L &
T, Powai,
Andheri
East,
Mumbai
400 072)
9224770420
(Surendra
Panchal)
28402
(Not in
Mumbai
Circle)
B-163
07/08/2006 125103 3 9224770420
(Surendra
Panchal)
28402
(Not in
Mumbai
Circle)
9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
( ESNNO -
4074989 )
Subscriber
changed
mobile
19441
(Junction of
Andheri
Ghatkopar
RD and
Jangaleshwa
r Mahadeo
Mandir RD,
B-143
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 144
equipment. Asalpha
village,
Mumbai-84)
07/08/2006 125606 26 9224770420
(Surendra
Panchal)
28402
(Not in
Mumbai
Circle)
9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
19441
(Junction of
Andheri
Ghatkopar
RD and
Jangaleshwa
r Mahadeo
Mandir RD,
Asalpha
village,
Mumbai-84)
B-143
07/08/2006 125717 67 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
1922
(Saki
Vihar
Road,
Near L &
T, Powai,
Andheri
East,
Mumbai
400 072)
9224770420
(Surendra
Panchal)
28402
(Not in
Mumbai
Circle)
B-165
14/08/2006 145632 48 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
4929
(Junction
of M V
Road and
Baji
Pisalkar
Marg,Saki
naka
Junction,S
akinaka,A
ndheri
-East,Mu
mbai-59)
9224770420
(Surendra
Panchal)
28402
(Not in
Mumbai
Circle)
B-167
14/08/2006 153203 51 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
1938
(A-Wing
situated at
Sir M. V.
Road,
Andheri
East,
9224770420
(Surendra
Panchal)
28402
(Not in
Mumbai
Circle)
B-167
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 145
Mumbai
400 069 )
14/08/2006 211353 59 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
16914 (77
A & B,
Nehru
Road, Vile
Parle East,
Mumbai
400 057)
9224770420
(Surendra
Panchal)
28402
(Not in
Mumbai
Circle)
B-167
15/08/2006 131316 165 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
3458
(Near
ICICI
Bldg,
Chandival
i, Andheri
east)
9224770420
(Surendra
Panchal)
28402
(Not in
Mumbai
Circle)
B-167
B-169
15/08/2006 161347 42 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
19441
(Junction
of Andheri
Ghatkopar
RD and
Jangalesh
war
Mahadeo
Mandir
RD,Asalp
ha
village,M
umbai-84)
9224770420
(Surendra
Panchal)
28402
(Not in
Mumbai
Circle)
B-169
136. The aforesaid chart shows the connections between A12
PratapandA8Surendraon27.7.2006,7.8.2006,7.8.2006,14.8.2006,
14.8.2006,15.8.2006and15.8.2006. Thosewerethecallswhenthe
handgunArt.5wasfetchedfromA8Surendra.Therespectivemobile
numberaswellascellIDlocationsofthecallingpersonandthecaller
personhasbeenestablishedcorroboratingtheconfessionalstatements.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 146
Thishasalreadybeendiscussedbymeintheprecedingparagraphs.
137 P.W.35PalandehasdulyprovedthecalldetailrecordExh.
426(colly.) P.W.35PalandehasfurthertestifiedthatinColumnNo.8
ofExh.426(Colly.),someoftheplacesareblankwhichoccursifthere
isnetworkofotherthanTata. Ifthecallerandreceiverbothmobile
handsetsareofTata,thentherecordreflectalltheentriesinthecall
detailrecord(CDR).Insuchcases,locationofbothcallerandreceiver
are reflected in CDR. His employer, Tata Company stored ID which
locatestheareaofcallerandreceiver. Thewitnesshasdulyproveda
certificate at Exh. 435 which is prepared by him, indicating that he
beingtheManagerandVigilanceOfficerofTataTeleservices,certified
thattheCDMAcellIDlistedalongwithcellsiteaddressesinrespectof
hiscompanyforMumbaiCircleisenclosedherewithonaCD.Allthese
recordsarelawfullymaintainedbythecompanyinthenormalcourseof
itsbusiness.ThedataofthecellsitecontainedintheCDwasexisting
intheyear2003.
138. TheCDRisdrawnbythiswitnessfromthemastercomputer.
I shall discuss the evidence of P.W. 35 in detail while dealing with
confessionalstatementsoftheaccused.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 147
139. Coming back to the evidence of P.W. 11 Ramchandra,
particularlyinparagraph21ofhiscrossexamination,ithascomethat
onhisfirstvisit,A8Surendradidnotenquirewithhimastowhythe
gun was required. It appears from the entire evidence that A8
SurendrawasnotatallawareastowhyA12Pratap,A13AjitorA10
ShrikrishnarequiredtheweaponArt.5. Hebeingarepairerofarms
oughttohaveenquiredastowhytheweaponwasrequiredbythem.
The licence was not given to him by the District Magistrate for the
purposeofmanufacturingunauthorisedandillegalarms.Nevertheless,
thefactremainsthathewasnotawareastowhythesaidweapongot
manufacturedfromhim. ThecrossfurtherrevealsthatA8Surendra
evendidnotenquirewithP.W.11Ramchandrawhetherhehadalicence
topossessagun. HedidnotinformA8Surendraastowhythegun
wasrequired. Evenonthesecondvisit,A8Surendrawasnotmade
awarebyP.W.11RamchandraorbytheA12Pratap,A11Narkaror
A10Shrikrishnaastowhytheweaponwasrequired.Thestatementof
P.W.11Ramchandrau/s.161ofCr.P.C.doesnotindicatethedescription
oftheweapon,butitdoesindicatethatthesaidhandgunwasprocured
bythemfromtheA8Surendra.Thisisalsonotamaterialomissionas
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 148
broughtoutbythedefenceinparagraph22ofthecrossexamination.
However,inthesameparagraph,ithasbeensubstantiatedthatthegun
wasshowntoP.W.11Ramchandrabythepoliceatthepolicestation
whenhenoticedthatscarbuttArt.1wasmissingfromthegun,which
wasawoodenpiecebelowthebarrel.Restofthecrossexaminationis
intheformofwhatthepolicedidordidnotdowhilerecordingthe
statementofthiswitness,whichaccordingtome,isnotatallmaterial.
140. He denied the suggestion that complaint Exh. 188 was
alreadypreparedbythepoliceoverwhichhissignaturewasobtainedat
Kankavalipolicestation. HealsodeniedthatthesumofRs.25,000/
had been provided by the investigating agency or being delivered by
him at the Kankavali police station. This suggestion merits to be
laughed at and wept over at one and the same time, for, no police
officerinvestigatingsuchasensitivematterwoulddaretodosuchan
actwhichmightjeopardizeonescareer.Itisnotspecificallysuggested
bythedefenceastowhichofficeroftheCrimeBranchwasinstrumental
inprovidingthesumofRs.25,000/toP.W.11Ramchandrafordelivery
itattheKankavalipolicestation.
141. LearnedcounselMr.RasalforAccusednos.8,12,13and21
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 149
askedP.W.11Ramchandraabouttheexactdimensionsoftheofficeof
Amit Travels which he could not give. It is not evenexpectedof a
witnesstogiveexactdimensionsasinthenormalcourse,noonewould
measuredimensionsbyusingatape. Thecrossfurtherrevealsthatas
to when he was taken to the office of Amit Travels by the police to
whichheanswered,inthemonthofMay,2006,hewastakenthereat
about6.30p.m. HedeposedthathevisitedtheofficeofAmitTravels
along with A10 Shrikrishna on 2
nd
June 2006. Since he was not
informedthatforwhatpurposethegunwasrequired,hedidnotflatly
refusedtoassisttheminprocuringthegun.
142. The evidence of P.W. 11 Ramchandra, P.W. 35 Palande
furtherfindssupportfromtheconfessionofA10ShrikrishnaExh.251
and A11 Narkar Exh. 264. A10 Shrikrishna has not retracted his
confessionimmediatelybeforetheChiefMetropolitanMagistratewhere
hewasproduced. A11Narkar,however,hasretractedhisconfession
beforetheCMM.Asalreadystatedintheprecedingparagraphs,Ishall
discuss about the confessional statements of the accused in the
subsequentparagrpahs.
143. Suffice it to say at this juncture that in his confessional
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 150
statementrecordedbyP.W.19DnyaneshwarPhadtare,DCPbyfollowing
dueprocedureinthesecondpart,A10Shrikrishnahadstatedthatin
the month of May 2006, whenA12 Pratap and A13 Rane informed
him that they need a gun for threatening the builders to collect
extortionmoney,A10ShrikrishnatookhiscousinP.W.11Ramchandra
who is a resident of Kharepatan, District Sindhudurg to the office of
A12PratapandA13Ranewherehepromisedtoarrangeforagun.
A10 Shrikrishna, A12 Pratap had given their respective mobile
numbers to P.W. 11 Ramchandra alias Dhaktya Gurav, which are
9819251750 and 9223202133. After 45 days, P.W.11 Ramchandra
informed on phone that they would get a gun. Accordingly, A10
Shrikrishna, A8 Surendra, A11 Narkar and A12 Pratap along with
driverRajahadbeentovillageVilayeatRajapurTalukainaTataSumo
jeep. All of them were introduced by P.W. 11 Ramchandra to A8
Surendra.A12PratapdrewasketchofthegunandshowedittoA8
SurendrawhoagreedtomanufactureagunasperthesaidsketchinRs.
6000/.Onthenextday,whentheyagainapproachedA8Surendra,he
wasnotathishomeand,therefore,A12PratapcontactedA8Surendra
onmobileNo.9224770420whichwasregisteredinhisbrother'sname,
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 151
as discussed hereinabove. At that time, A12 Pratap had paid an
advanceofRs.3000/toA8Surendra.Thegunwasreadyinthemonth
ofAugust2006.ThisinformationwasgivenbyP.W.11Ramchandrato
A10ShrikrishnawhointurninformedaboutittoA12PratapandA13
Rane.Onthesameday,A10Shrikrishna,A11NarkaralongwithP.W.
11 Ramchandra approached A8 Surendra at his village in an auto
rikshaw and paid him a balance of Rs.3000/. They came to village
KharepatanalongwithA8Surendra.A8Surendrapurchasedfivered
coloured cartridges for which A10 Shrikrishna paid Rs.300/ and
thereafter,inajungle,onecartridgewastestfiredbyA8Surendrain
ordertoshowthattheweaponwasinaworkingcondition.Onthevery
nextday,itbeing'Janamahtami', A10Shrikrishna,A11Narkaralong
withthesaidgunandfourcartridgescametoMumbaibyabus.
144. A11Narkar,inhisconfessionalstatementExh.264which
hasbeendulyrecordedbyP.W.20DCPbyfollowingadueprocedure,
hadstatedinsecondpartthatinthemonthofMay,2006,healongwith
A12Pratap,A10ShrikrishnaandA13RanehadbeentoKharepatan
in a Tata Sumo jeep and from there, along with relative of A10
Shrikrishna,theywenttovillageVilayeandmetA8Surendra. A12
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 152
PratappaidRs.3000/asanadvanceformanufacturingofagun.Inthe
monthofAugust,2006,atthebehestofA12Pratap,heagainvisited
villageVilayealongwithA10ShrikrishnaandmetA8Surendra.The
gun was taken into custody and they came to Kharepatan. A8
Surendraaccompaniedthem. Sinceitwasthedayof'Janamashtami',
onthenextday,theycamebacktoMumbaialongwiththegunwhich
was wrapped in the leaves of elephant's ear. The said gun and
cartridgesweregivenbyA10ShrikrishnaandA12Pratap.
145. TheunrebuttedtestimonyofP.W.11Ramchandrawhichhas
beencorroboratedinmaterialparticularsbytheconfessionalstatement
of A10 Shrikrishna Gurav which further finds full support from the
unimpeachedevidenceofP.W.35Palandewhobythecalldetailrecords
hasestablishedthecontinuousconnectionbetweenA12PratapandA8
Surendra,coupledwiththeconfessionofA11Narkar,thereishardly
anyroomfordoubtthattheweaponwasprocuredbytheA12Pratap
and A13 Rane from A8 Surendra with the activeassistanceof A10
Shrikrishna who contacted his cousin brother P.W. 11 Ramchandra at
villageKharepatan.Pointno.2is,therefore,answeredintheaffirmative.
146. POINTNOS.3TO8:Sinceallthesepointsareinterlinked,
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 153
itwouldbeconvenienttodiscussthesaidpointssimultaneously.
147. Mr.Sejpal,thelearnedcounselforAccusednos.4,5and10
admitted that the deceased Kamlakar Jamsandekar died a homicidal
death,butaccordingtohim,theaccusednos.2to5arenotresponsible
for the same. Hisarguments aremainlyintune with the arguments
advancedbylearnedcounselMr.Pasbola,onalltheaspects. Sofaras
P.W. 4 Abdul Rehaman alias Addu Exh. 151 is concerned, it is the
argument of respective learned counsel that he ought to have been
madeasanaccompliceasheknewtheconspiracy.Itissubmittedatthe
bar that statement of P.W. 4 Addu was recorded for the first time on
7.6.2008. Hisevidenceiscompletelyartificialashisconductisquite
suspiciousbecausethemomenthelearntaboutthemurderofKamlakar
Jamsandekar, while watching the news on television, he escaped to
Vashi. The learned counsel Mr. Pasbola has candidly admitted that
accusednos.2to5arecloselyrelatedtoeachotherwhichhasfurther
been confirmed by the accused themselves. It is submitted that
deceased Kamlakar was a Municipal Corporator of the area and,
therefore,therewasnoneedforP.W.4Addutopointouthishouseto
A4 Narendra Giri and A5 Anil Giri. It is also argued that for 14
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 154
months, P.W. 4 Addu remained silent about the incident and did not
narrateittopolicewhichaccordingtothedefence,createsdoubtonthe
credibilityoftheevidenceofthiswitness.Thiswitnessisonlypropped
toshowconnectionofA12PratapandA13RaneagainstAccusednos.
2to5soastobolstertheprosecutioncaseand,therefore,evidenceof
P.W.4Adduisrequiredtobediscarded.ItisfurtherarguedthatP.W.4
Adduwastryingtosavehisownskinashehadapprehendedhisarrest
bythepolice. Heisequallyguiltyasthatofotheraccusedthoughhe
pleadedignorance.Thedefencehasbrandedhimasacoconspirator.It
isarguedbythelearnedcounselMr.Pasbolathatthelawregardingthe
conspiracy is well settled. People join conspiracy and get out of a
conspiracy has different stages. Each conspirator does not know the
role of the other conspirator and yet a person would be liable for
conspiracyonceheagreestodoanillegalactoranlegalactbyillegal
means.Iftheprosecutioncasehastobebelieved,thenaccordingtothe
learnedcounselMr.Pasbola,P.W.4Adduoughttohavebeenarraigned
asanaccusedandnotasawitness.
148. Per contra, learned SPP Mr. Raja Thakare in his
memorandum of arguments stated that P.W. 4 Addu has not only
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 155
establishedthetogethernessofaccusednos.2to5,butalsodeposedas
tohowhehadshownthemthedeceasedKamlakarJamsandekarand
hishouse,attheinstanceofA12PratapandA13Ranewithwhomhe
wasworkingasaofficeboy. P.W.4Adduusedtowashthecarsofthe
TravelagencyofA12Pratapandhadalsoworkedasahelperinthe
electionofA13Rane.AccordingtoSPPMr.Thakare,P.W.4Adduisa
gullible,illiterate,youngboy,wasgivensomeworkbyhismasterwhich
hedidaswasdutyboundwithoutexpectinganybenefitfromthemand
withoutawareofthewellplannedconspiracyofA12PratapandA13
RaneofeliminationofdeceasedKamlakarJamsandekar.Thenatureof
workassignedtohiminnormalcoursewouldnotcreateanysuspicion
ormalafide.TherewasnoreasonforA4Addutosuspectastowhyhe
wasaskedtopointoutthehouseofthedeceasedtoaccusednos.2to4.
He also rightly argued that the subsequent conduct of A4 Addu not
residinginthehouseandgoingawaytoVashiisanaturalconductofan
innocent person when he came to know that some wrong has been
committed by him inadvertently though in fact, he is not at all
concernedwithorpartoftheconspiracy.Hisconductwasnatural.Itis
alsoquiteimprobablethatheonhisownshouldhaveapproachedthe
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 156
policetoapprisethemwiththefacts.
149. Now, the evidence of P.W. 4 Abdul Rehaman alias Addu
indicatesthatheis18yearsofageandstudiedupto5
th
standard.A12
PratpisthefriendofhisbrotherShafiqwhousedtovisithishouse.P.W.
4AdduhasidentifiedA12Pratap.Hisevidencefurtherindicatesthat
A12PratapisintravelbusinessinthenameandstyleasAmitTravels
at Chandivali Studio where he works as a cleaner of vehicles. A13
Raneisthepartnerinthesaidbusiness.P.W.4AdduhasidentifiedA13
Rane in the court. He used to fetch tea for A13 Rane. Kamlakar
Jamsandekar was the Corporator of that area who belonged to Shiv
Sena.A13RanehadcontestedtheelectionsofMunicipalCorporation
in the year 2007 against deceased Kamlakar. A13 Ajit Rane was a
candidateofAkhilBhartiyaSenawholosttheelection.P.W.4Addugot
acquaintedwithA10Shrikrishnaduringtheelectioncampaign. A10
ShrikrishnausedtoattendtheofficeofA13raneduringtheelections
ofMunicipalCorporation. P.W.4Adduhasfurthertestifiedthatafter
theelectionof2007,A12Pratapaskedhimtodosomeworkforhim.
Onbeingaskedaboutthenatureofwork,A12PrataptoldA4Addu
thatheshouldpointoutKamlakarJamsandekarandhisresidencetohis
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 157
men. ThisconversationtookplaceinthepresenceofA13Rane. It
appears that the question was objected to by the defences on the
ground,itbeingaleadingquestion. However,itwaspermittedtoask
sinceitwasnotaleadingquestionasthewitnesswasaskedwhether
anybodyelsewaspresentduringthesaidtalk.P.W.4Adduagreedand
accordingly on the next day, P.W. 4 Addu went to the office of A12
PratapandtherehenoticedfourHindispeakingpersons.Oneofthem
was known as 'Kandi' A4. A10 Shrikrishna Gurav gave a key of
motorcycletooneofthosefourpersons.Thereafter,A4NarendraGiri
aliasKandi,P.W.4AdduandonemorepersonwenttoAsalfavillageon
the said motorcycle. They stopped near a Pan stall on Link Road.
Thereafter, they walked towards the chawl where Kamlakar
Jamsandekarusedtoreside.ItwasnoticedthatKamlakarwasnotat
home. After some time, P.W. 4 Addu noticed Kamlakar Jamsandekar
alightingfromanautorikshaw.HepointedoutKamlakartoA4Kandi
andtheotheraccused.P.W.4AdduinformedthemthatKamlakarsports
LalTikka onhisforehead. Thereafter,theycamebacktotheofficeof
AmitTravelswhereheinformedA12PrataptohaveshownKamlakar
and his residence to A4 Narendra alias Kandi Giri and the other
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 158
accused.Hefurthertestifiedthat1015daysthereafter,whenhewasat
the house of his friend Bilal, there was a news on television that
Kamlakarhadbeenmurdered.
150. Before his crossexamination, P.W. 4 Addu identified A4
Kandi andA5Anilas the oneto whomthekeyofbikewas handed
over.HealsoidentifiedA10ShrikrishnaGurav.Hecouldnotidentify
theremainingtwoaccused.
151. InthecrossbythelearnedcounselMr.Pasbolahetestified
thathegotfrightenedandthoughtthatthepolicemightarresthim.He
leftforVapiinGujaratbyfalselyinforminghismotherthathegotajob
andfetchasalaryofRs.7000/permonth,overthere.HewenttoVapi
andstayedwithhisbrotherShafiqforaweek.Hiscrossfurtherreveals
thathecametoknowfromhismotheraboutthearrestofA12Pratap
andA13RanebySakinakapolicestation.Itdidnotcometohismind
that after the arrest of A12 Pratap and A13 Rane that he should
approachthepoliceandinformthemthatA12Prataphadaskedhimto
keep watch on deceased Kamlakar. He volunteered that he did not
approach the police as he was frightened. Despite searching cross
examination,thedefencecouldnotrebutthetestimonyofthiswitness.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 159
152. Certainquestionswereaskedasregardshisinterrogationby
the policeattached totheCrimeBranch, Unit III. Itrevealsfrom the
crossexamination that he was taken to some court by the police for
recordinghisstatement. Hetestifiedthatnopoliceofficerattachedto
theCrimeBranchenquiredwithhimwhetherhewaswillingtomake
anystatementbeforetheMagistrate.Hedeniedthesuggestionthathe
wasbeingtakentotheMagistrate'sCourtforrecordinghisconfessional
statement. However,headmitsthattheMagistratequestionedhimas
to why he wants to make a confession upon which, he replied he
wanted to state the truth only. The witness, perhaps, looking to his
education and background, was not aware what does a confession
means.Hewantedtostatethetruth. Hedeniedthathewaskeeping
watchonthemovementsofKamlakarJamsandekar.Inparagraph10of
hiscrossexamination,thedefencehaselicitedfromP.W.4Adduthata
daybeforehepointedoutthedeceasedtoA4Kandiandotherpersons,
hewasaskedtopointoutthedeceased,buthedidnotenquirewith
A12PratapastowhyheshouldpointoutthedeceasedtoA4Kandi
andothers.EvenaftershowingtheresidenceofdeceasedKamlakar,he
hadbeenvisitingtheofficeofA12Prataptillhewatchedthenewsof
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 160
murderontelevision.P.W.4Adduhadseenalltheaccusedviz.accused
nos.2to4togetherforthefirsttimeattheofficeofA12Pratapand
thereafter, identified all of them for the first time in the court. It is
brought out in cross that earlier P.W. 4 Addu was prosecuted for an
offenceofrape,buthetestifiedthatitwasafalsechargeandtherefore,
hewasinjailfor35days.Thatitselfwillnotfalsifyhisevidencewhich
remained unrebutted. There is no reason for this witness to depose
falsely against A2 Vijay Giri, A3 Ashok Jaiswar, A4 Narendra alias
KandiGiriandA5AnilGiri,atthebehestoftheCrimeBranch. His
evidence appears to be natural, believable and trustworthy. The
arguments of learned counsel Mr. Sejpal and Mr. Pasbola are
unacceptableforthereasonsgivenhereinabove. Isaysobecausethe
defence had also substantiated certain aspects during cross
examination.Thecrossfurtherindicatesthathewastheonlypersonto
whomthework of showingthehouse ofKamlakar Jamsandekar was
assignedbyA12Pratap.Inparagraph13ofthecrossexamination,the
fact that at about 12 noon or 1 p.m., he had accompanied with A4
Kandi and other accused to show Kamlakar Jamsandekar and his
residenceattherelevanttimehasbeenreiterated.Noneoftheaccused
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 161
wenttothehouseofKamlakaratthattime. Healsodidnotvisitthe
house of Kamlakar to find out as to whether he was at home. It is
testifiedbyhimthatwheneverKamlakarusedtobeathisresidence,the
door of his house used to remain open. This is because of his
acquaintanceoftheareafor45years.
153. Certainminoromissionshavebeenbroughtonrecordwhich
donotaffectthecredibilityofthiswitnessandthatthesaidomissions
arenotatallmaterialinthelightofthefactthatthedefencehasnot
disputedthathewasworkingasaofficeboyofA12Pratapandthefact
that he accompanied A4 Kandi and other accused to point out the
deceasedandhisresidence.IfthestatementofP.W.4Adduu/s.161of
Cr.P.C.visavishisevidenceonoathisconsidered,thesaidomissions
canverywellsaidtobeminoromissions.
154. DuringcrossexaminationbylearnedcounselMr.Rasalfor
Accused nos. 8, 12, 13 and 21, P.W. 4 Addu admits that during any
functionofShivSena,hoardingsbearingphotographsofCorporatorare
displayed.Thehoardingswerealsodisplayedduringelectionsof2007
with the photographs of deceased Kamlakar Jamsandekar. The said
suggestionhasbeengiveninordertopointoutthatitwasneedlessto
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 162
showthehouseofthedeceasedtotheassailants.However,itcannotbe
lostsightofthefactthattheassailantswerenotfromthesaidareaand,
therefore, there is no reason for them to know the deceased. Some
questionswereaskedaboutthenatureofbusinessofA12Pratapand
whether his vehicles wereengagedby Jet Airways which thewitness
repliedthathehadnoknowledge. P.W.4Adduadmitsthattherewas
nodocumentaryevidencetoshowthathewasworkingintheTravel's
officeofA12Pratap. Hefurtherdeposedthathedidnotremember
whether the neighbours or the pedestrians were present over there
whenhepointedouttheresidenceofKamlakartothosetwoaccused.
155. LearnedcounselMr.SejpalforAccusednos.4,5and8made
an attempt to shatter the evidence of this witness, but in vain.
Whateversuggestionshavebeengivenbythelearnedcounselhadall
beendeniedbyhim.ThereisnoeffectivecrossbylearnedcounselMr.
Sejpal.
156. Assuch,theprosecutionhassufficientlyestablishedthatA2
VijayGiri,A3AshokkumarJaiswar,A4NarendraaliasKandiGiriand
A5AnilGirihadbeentotheofficeofA12PratapfromwhereP.W.4
Adduwasassignedthejobofshowingthedeceasedandhisresidenceto
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 163
the assailants who are admittedly close relatives of each other. the
commonintentionwhichtheyhadsharedisimplicitfromthetotalityof
theevidence.Theirpriormeetingofmindsisalsoclear.Theexistence
of common intention can also be inferred from the attending
circumstancesofthecaseandtheconductoftheparties.Asamatterof
fact, no direct evidence of common intention is necessary. The
participationinthecommissionoftheoffenceevenneednotbeproved
forthepurposeofcommonintentioninallthecases.Hereinthecase,
fromthediscussionmadehereinabove,itcanverywellbesaidthatA2
VijayGiri,A3AshokkumarJaiswar,A4Narendra@KandiGiriandA5
Anil Giri definitely shared the common intention to eliminate the
deceased. Theprosecutionhasalsoprovedthatallofthemwerealso
the partofthe largerconspiracyhatchedin thiscase. The aspect of
conspiracyandmotivewillbediscussedinthesubsequentparagraphs
withtheaidofthecalldetailrecordofmobilephones.
157. Now,afewlinesonthepointofreinvestigationandfurther
investigation. The learned counsel Mr. Pasbola in his elaborated
argumentstriedtoimpressuponmethatthereisonemurder,buttwo
investigations with two motives attributed which are contradictory,
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 164
having different eye witnesses. He argued that Section 173 (8) of
Cr.P.C. permits further investigation and not reinvestigation. The
conceptofreinvestigationisforeigntothecriminaljurisprudence.The
DCB,CIDhadnorighttoconductreinvestigation. Hefurtherargued
that even if it is presumed that it is a further investigation, no prior
permissionorintimationwasobtained. Hedrewmyattentiontothe
crossexaminationofP.W.3PIShelke. Though,itispresumedtobea
further investigation carried out by DCB,CID, in fact it is a re
investigation by them. In support of his contention, Mr. Pasbola has
pressedintoservicefollowingauthorities:
(1)(1998)SCCCRIpage1307incaseofK.
Chandrashekhar vs. State of Kerala. The
relevant portion in paragraphs 23 and 24 of
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court has
beenquotedasunder:
Mereaplainreadingoftheabovesection,itis
evidentthatevenaftersubmissionofthepolice
reportundersubSection(2),oncompletionof
investigation,thepolicehasarightoffurther
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 165
investigationundersubSection(8)notfresh
investigationorreinvestigation.
(2) Rama Chaudhari vs. State of Bihar
reportedin(2009)2SCC(Cri)1059.
(3)MithabhaiPashabhaiPatel&Othersvs.
State of Gujarat reported in (2009) 2 SCC
(Cri)1047.
(4) Virendra Pratap Singh vs. Rajesh
Bharadwaj reported in (2010) 3 SCC (Cri)
1169.
158. Ontheotherhand,learnedSPPstrenuouslyarguedthatthis
is not a case of reinvestigation, but further investigation if the
chronologyoftheeventsaretakenintoconsiderationwhichoccurred
naturallyinsuchamannerthatitwasacontinuousinvestigation.The
accused were immediately arrested by the Sakinaka police station
whoseremandwassoughtfromthecompetentcourtandalsoafterthe
arrestofotheraccused,theintimationoftheirremandhasbeengiven
totheCourtaboutthefurtherinvestigationbytheDCB,CID,whichis
evident from the remand reports, which are exhibited at Exhs. 467,
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 166
468 and472. Lookingto the gravityandmagnitudeof the offence,
only because the fact of further investigation has not been duly
intimated to the court where Sakinaka police station had filed the
earlier chargesheet, would not vitiate the entire investigation, more
particularly,theinvestigationofthiscasewhichwasconductedunder
the provisions of MCOC Act where there is an inbuilt safeguard of
obtainingpriorapprovalu/s.23(1)oftheMCOCActandsanctionu/s.
23(2)ofthesaidActforfilingchargesheet.Itisalsopertinenttonote
thattheCrimeBranchhadnotabandonedtheinvestigationconducted
bypolicestationSakinakaandinfactbothcaseshavebeenmergedin
this present trial and it is only on the basis of the totality of the
evidenceandinviewofthedirectionoftheHon'bleHighCourt,these
matters are being conducted together. The learned SPP Mr. Thakare
has, therefore, placed useful reliance on an authority reported in
(2008)2SCC,paged383incaseofStateofAndhraPradeshvs.A.S.
Peter. TheratiolaiddownbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtissimilarto
thatoftheratiolaiddownbythesameCourtintherulingpressedinto
servicebythedefence.ItisheldandIquotefollowingparagraphs:
Para 9: Indisputably, the law does not
mandate taking of prior permission from the
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 167
Magistrate for further investigation. Carrying
outofafurtherinvestigationevenafterfilingof
the chargesheet is a statutory right of the
police.Adistinctionalsoexistsbetweenfurther
investigation and reinvestigation. Whereas
reinvestigation without prior permission is
necessarily forbidden, further investigation is
not.
Para 14: In Ram Lal Narang this Court was
concernedwithacasewheretwoconspiracies
were alleged; one being part of a larger
conspiracy.Twoinvestigationswerecarriedout.
This Court, while opining that further
investigationispermissibleinlaw,heldthatthe
Magistrate has a discretion in the matter to
direct further investigation, even if he had
takencognizanceoftheoffence,stating:(SCC
pp.33738,para20).
20....Thecriticismthatafurtherinvestigation
bythepolicewouldtrenchupontheproceeding
before the court is really not of very great
substance, since whatever the police may do,
thefinaldiscretioninregardtofurtheractionis
withtheMagistrate.Thatthefinalwordiswith
the Magistrate is sufficient safeguard against
anyexcessiveuseorabuseofthepowerofthe
policetomakefurtherinvestigation.Weshould
not, however, be understood to say that the
police should ignore the pendency of a
proceedingbeforeacourtandinvestigateevery
fresh fact that comes to light as if no
cognizancehadbeentakenbythecourtofany
offence. We think that in the interests of the
independence of the magistracy and the
judiciary, in the interests of the comity of the
variousagenciesandinstitutionsentrustedwith
differentstagesofsuchadministration,itwould
ordinarily be desirable that the police should
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 168
informthecourtandseekformalpermissionto
make further investigation when fresh facts
cometolight.
Para 16: Even in regard to an independent
investigation undertaken by the police
authorities,itwasobserved:(Narangcase,SCC
p.338,para21).
21.... In our view, notwithstanding that a
Magistratehadtakencognizanceoftheoffence
upon a police report submitted under Section
173ofthe1898Code,therightofthepoliceto
furtherinvestigatewasnotexhaustedandthe
police could exercise such right as often as
necessary when fresh information came to
light. Where the police desired to make a
further investigation, the police could express
their regard and respect for the court by
seeking its formal permission to make further
investigation.
Para18:RelianceplacedbytheHighCourtas
also by Mr. Rai on K. Chandrasekhar is
misplaced. Therein investigation had been
carried out by the Central Bureau of
Investigation with the consent of the State.
However, the State withdrew the same. The
questionwhicharoseforconsiderationtherein
was as to whether it was permissible for the
Statetodoso.Thesaidissuewasansweredin
the negative stating that the investigating
officer must be directed to complete the
investigation.
159. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it is said to be a re
investigationand,therefore,theargumentsofthelearnedcounselMr.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 169
PasbolaandMr.Sejpaldonotholdwater.
160. In order to understand the motive and conspiracy behind
the murder of Corporator Kamlakar Jamsandekar, prosecution has
adducednotonlytheoralevidenceofP.W.1KomalJamsandekarExh.
156,thewidowofthedeceasedandP.W.2NilkanthBaneExh.159,the
Personal Assistant of the deceased, but also heavily relied upon
confessional statements of seven accused, more particularly, the
confessional statement of A9 Sandip Gangan Exh. 324 and A10
Shrikrishna Gurav alias Babu Exh. 251, A15 Suresh Patil Exh. 239,
coupledwiththescientificevidenceoftheCDRofthemobilephones.
161. Theargumentofthedefenceisthattheprosecutionhasput
forthtwotheories,oneisofSakinakapolicestationandanotherisof
DCB,CID which are contradictory and inconsistent. As per Sakinaka
policestation,A12Pratap,A13RaneandA12GaneshSalvientered
into a criminal conspiracy after the defeat of A13 Rane in the
Municipal Elections of the year 2007, to commit the murder of
KamlakarJamsandekar.TheCrimeBranchhasnotgivenupthestoryof
aforesaid conspiracy put forth by the Sakinaka police station during
furtherinvestigationundertheprovisionsofMCOCAct.Itissubmitted
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 170
byMr.PasbolaaswellasMr. Sejpal,thelearnedcounselforaccused
thatitisallegedbytheprosecutionthatA6SahebraoBhintadewason
crosstermswithdeceasedKamlakarJamsandekarwhowasearlierhis
protegehasupstagedhiminpolitics.Infact,A6Bhintadehadlostthe
election of Municipal Corporation against the deceased in January
2007.ItisfurtherallegedthatA7Surve(whodiedon17.7.2012)was
earlierthebeneficiaryofthedeceasedandwassubsequentlyenragedas
Kamlakar has taken initiative of getting demolished unauthorised
construction allegedly belonging to him and his nephew. It is also
allegedthatA6BhintadeandA7SurvepaidRs.30/lakhstoA1Arun
GawaliatDagdiChawlsometimeinDecember2006,byA12Pratap
and A13 Rane to carry out the murder of Kamlakar Jamsandekar.
Thus,itisthecontentionofthedefencethattheprosecutionstorysofar
asinvestigationbyDCB,CIDunderMCOCActisatcrossroadwiththe
investigationcarriedoutbytheSakinakapolicestationand,therefore,
there cannot be any fixed motive shown by the prosecution for the
allegedcrime. ItisfurthersubmittedthatP.W.33APIShelkeandP.W.
37ACPDurafedidnotsayawordregardingallegedmotive. Thereis
no evidence led by the prosecution to show any unauthorised
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 171
constructions raised by A7 Surve. The silence of P.W. 1 Komal
Jamsandekar in not naming A6 Bhintade and A7 Surve also speaks
that they had no intention or motive behind the conspiracy. The
evidenceofP.W.2Bane,isalso,accordingtothedefence,requiredtobe
discarded as whatever he had testified about his conversation with
deceasedKamlakarasregardsthethreatsgivenbyA6Bhintadehasnot
beensubstantiatedbycogentevidence.
161. Learned counsel Mr. Kulkarni for A6 submitted that the
prosecution case is just a figment of imagination, for there is no
admissible evidence to show the involvement of A6 Bhintade in the
murderofdeceasedKamlakarJamsandekar.Therecouldnothavebeen
conspiracy to kill the deceased in 2008 when the deceased was
assassinated in the month of March 2007 itself. He submits that A6
Bhintadedidnotcontesttheelectionsof2007.TheevidenceofP.W.1
KomalJamsandekarandP.W.2NilkanthBaneisunbelievablefor, the
investigatingofficerhaddisbelievedP.W.2NilkanthBanewhichisclear
fromtheevidenceofP.W.37ACPDurafe.Thus,thelearnedcounselhas
prayedforgivingbenefitofdoubttoA6Bhintade.
162. Ontheotherhand,thelearnedSPPMr.Thakaresubmitted
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 172
thatmotiveisnotanecessaryingredientofanoffenceandespeciallyif
thereisotherstrongandconvincingevidenceregardingcommissionof
an offence by the accused persons, however, in a case based on
circumstantialevidence,itcanbeanaddedcircumstance. Therefore,
keepingasidethemotivepartforthesakeofarguments,theevidenceof
prosecutiondoesnotget annulledand,therefore,inspiresconfidence.
HesubmitsthatevidenceofP.W.1KomalandP.W.2Nilkanthindicates
their apprehensionregarding A6BhintadeandA7 Surve. Motiveis
something which is in the heart of the persons which cannot be
fathomed. He submits that on the basis of evidence on record, the
motive was not to kill the person Kamlakar Jamsandekar, but the
Corporator inhimandlookedfromthisangle,thestoryofSakinaka
police station or DCB,CID cannot be said to be conflicting or
contradictory. It is further submitted by Mr. Thakare that the
subsequentconductofA6BhintadeandA7Surveisalsotobenoted
when after the murder of sitting corporator of Shiv Sena Kamlakar
Jamsandekar,A6BhintadesuddenlyjoinedShivSena.However,asthe
sympathygoeswiththerelativesofthedeceased,ticketforelectionwas
issued by the Shiv Sena party to the widow of the deceased P.W. 1
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 173
Komal. It is also noted that before the byeelection held in October
2007,thechargesheetwassubmittedbySakinakapolicestationwhich
issufficienttosatisfyA6BhintadeandA7Surveastheyweregivena
clean chit by the Sakinaka police station in the murder of Kamlakar
Jamsandekar. In this background, the subsequent conduct of A6
BhintadeandA7Survewastoacceptthesituationasitistoachieve
theirgoalwhichwasnotacceptabletothedeceasedKamlakarduring
hislifetime.
163. In the light of the aforesaid arguments of the respective
sides,theevidenceofP.W.1KomalandP.W.2Nilkanthisrequiredtobe
scrutinised.
164. Before adverting to their evidence, it is to be noted that
deceasedKamlakarwaselectedthriceasaCorporatoroftheMunicipal
CorporationofMumbai.HewasaCorporatorfortheyears1997,2002
andthenlastlyin2007.HewasapopularCorporatorwhowasdoing
social service and was instrumental in removing illegal constructions
andencroachments.A6BhintadewasaCorporatorofShivSenainthe
year1992.
165. In the year 1997, Kamlakar Jamsandekar was an
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 174
independentcandidate whowassupported byAkhil BhartiyaSenain
whichoneAshokBedekarofShivSenawasdefeated.Intheyear2002,
deceased Kamlakar was elected as a candidate of Shiv Sena by
defeating A6 Bhintade who had contested the said election as a
NationalistCongressPartycandidate.Againin2007,thedeceasedwas
electedasacandidateofShivSenafromthesaidWard. Now,inthis
context,theevidenceofP.W.1KomalandP.W.2Nilkanthisrequiredto
bescrutinised.
166. P.W.1KomalJamsandekartestifiedthatshewasmarriedto
thedeceasedKamlakaron6.3.1992.WhenA6SahebraoBhintadewas
defeatedintheMunicipalCorporationelectionsintheyear2002and
again in the election of 2007 where her husband was elected, the
relationsbetweenherhusbandandA6Bhintadeturnedunfriendly.As
alreadystatedthatitwasA6Bhintadewhohadbroughtthedeceased
into politics and obviouslyif he suffered two defeats at thehandsof
deceased Kamlakar Jamsandekar, then obviously the relations were
bound to be bitter and unfriendly. P.W. 1 Komal's evidence further
revealsthatherhusbandusedtoextendallkindofassistanceandwas
looking after the development of the ward and was also against the
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 175
unauthorisedconstructionandencroachments.Hewasinstrumentalin
removingtheencroachmentsfromthewardwhichcameupduetothe
blessingsofA7Surve. Initially,therelationsbetweenA7Surveand
her husband were good, but later, relations turned sour because of
removalofunauthorisedhuts.Shemadeitclearthatherhusbandused
to narrate her about the conduct of A6 Bhintade and A7 Surve by
sayingthattheywereangrywithhim. Herevidencefurtherindicates
that in the year 2007, A13 Rane had also contested the Municipal
elections against her husband which he lost and, therefore, had a
grudgeagainstherhusband.
167. Duringhersearchingcrossexamination,thelearnedcounsel
Mr. Pasbola could not make any dent or rebut the testimony of this
witness. She admits that she used to attend her husband for social
functionsandalsousedtocampaignforalltheelections.Shewasvery
well aware as to who were the supporters and who were not the
supportersofherhusbandrightfromtheelectionsof1997.Sheadmits
thatA6Bhintadewasnotoneofthecandidatesofelectionsof2007.It
is brought in her crossexamination that there is a Jangaleshwar
MaharajMandirinthewardofwhichA7Survewasthetrustee. A7
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 176
Surve used to felicitate the deceased on the day of 'Shivratri' as the
deceased was a sitting Corporator from the Ward. She also used to
accompany her husband in the said temple on the occasion of
'Shivratri'. She admits that in the month of March 2008, she had
attendedthemarriageceremonyofdaughterofA7SurveatGhatkopar
andthatinthemonthofApril2008,shehadbeentoGanpatipulealong
withoneBhauKorgaonkarandstayedinahotelwhichbelongedtoA7
Surve. This admission of P.W. 1 Komal wouldnot ipsofacto indicate
that A6 Bhintade or A7 Surve had no motive as has been rightly
arguedbySPPMr.Thakarethatwhenthesetwoaccusedrealizedthat
they have not been arraigned as accused by Sakinaka police station,
theythoughtitwouldbebettertokeeptherelationsgoodinviewof
their further designs. It seems from the evidence that P.W. 1 Komal,
whilestatingherpatheticplighthadlosthercomposurewhenthecross
was required to be deferred on 12.10.2010. One has to take into
considerationthediscomposureofawidowwhohadlostherhusband
atayoungageandthatitwouldbeverydifficultforhertoexpressin
somanywordsastowhatthedeceasedusedtonarrateherwhenhe
had an apprehension in his mind about the illintentions of A6
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 177
BhintadeandA7Surve.Thecrossexaminationindicatesthatshehad
no personal knowledge about the nature of complaints made by her
husbandconcerningtheunauthorisedconstructionsmadebyA7Surve.
Afterthedeathofherhusband,thepoliceattachedtoSakinakapolice
station had been to her for enquiry. As she was not in a fit mental
frame,shecouldnotmakeanystatement.Thepoliceagainhadbeento
her,buttheydidnotrecordherstatement.Shefurthertestifiedthatshe
had discussion with the friends and followers of her late husband as
regardstheincidentwithaviewtoascertainastowhatcouldhavebeen
thereasonfortheincident,however,shedidnotexpressherdoubtsto
anybody about the involvement of anybody in the murder of her
husband. HerstatementwasrecordedattheOfficeofCrimeBranch,
CrawfordMarketbyACPDurafe.Inparagraph15ofhercross,shehas
categorically deposed that her late husband did not inform her the
namesofanyotherpersonsexceptA6Bhintade,A7SurveandA13
Rane as the persons who turned unfriendly with him. However, she
doesnotknowwhetherherhusbandhadtakenstepstoremoveallthe
unauthorisedconstructionsinhisward. Shealsostatesthatitdidnot
come to her mind that she should go to the police and express her
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 178
doubtsaboutA6BhintadeandA7Surve. Accordingtoher,shedid
entertainthesaidthought,butdidnotwanttogotothepoliceasA6
BhintadeandA7Survewerelikefatherinlawtoher. Onecanread
between the lines and can realize the intense feelings of the gullible
widowwhodidhavethefullideaabouttheroleofthesetwoaccused,
but looking to the earlier relations, she restrained herself from
approaching the police. The psychological aspect is vital as there
cannot be a straight jacket formula for any individual to react in a
particular way. It is pertinent to note that A6 Bhintade had even
participated in byeelections of 2007 which was contested by P.W. 1
Komal. Shetestifiedthatitwasadecisionmadebytheleadersofthe
partyatthehighleveland,therefore,shedidnothaveanyobjectionto
allowA6Bhintadetocanvassforher.Itisveryimportanttonotethat
accordingtoher,shehadkepteverythingclosetoherheart.
168. Mr. Rasal, the learned counsel for Accused nos. 8, 12, 13
and 21 crossexamined the witness mainly on the topography of the
room where the deceased was assassinated and about interest of
deceasedinhunting,whichsheadmits. Further,shedeposedthatshe
wasnotawareastohowmanyvotesweresecuredbyA13Raneinthe
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 179
electionsof2007.Shewasnotcrossexaminedonbehalfofrestofthe
accused.
169. P.W.2NilkanthChandrakantBanewhohasidentifiedboth
A6BhintadeandA13RanehassupportedtheevidenceofP.W.1Komal
insofarastheelectionsinthesaidwardandthedefeatofA6Bhintade
intheelectionsof2002andalsoaboutthedefeatofA13Raneinthe
electionsof2007. Onthepointofmotive,hetestifiedthattill1997,
relationsbetweenKamlakarandA6Bhintadeweregoodandthereafter,
they became unfriendly because A6 used to collect money from the
people under the guise of funds and would encourage unauthorised
structures in the ward. P.W. 2 being a trusted person of deceased
Kamlakar and as the relations were like brother, Kamlakar would
disclose everything to him. Deceased Kamlakar disliked the
unauthorised structures and encroachments in the ward. P.W. 2
Nilkanth Bane used to accompany the deceased to the Office of
Corporation and also used to enter into correspondence with the
Corporation. HefurthertestifiedthattherelationsbetweenKamlakar
JamsandekarandA7Survewereinitiallyverygood,butsubsequently,
duetotheunauthorisedstructuresinthereservedlandandplotaround
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 180
JangaleshwarMandirbyA7Surve,therewereseveralcomplaintsmade
to the deceased. He testified that surrounding the Jangaleshwar
Mandir, there was a reserved piece of land of Bombay Municipal
Corporation where due to the efforts of the deceased Kamlakar, a
gardenwasdeveloped. AttherequestofA7Surve,itwasnamedas
Anandibai Surve Garden. However, the subsequent activities of
unauthorised construction, people started complaining against A7
SurvetotheCorporationforremovalofthesaidunauthorisedstructure
whichmostlybelongedtonephewofA7Surve. Forthisreason,the
relationsbetweenthemturnedinimical.
170. P.W.2NilkanthBanehasfurtherdeposedthatoneday,he
was accompanying the deceased Kamlakar to the BMC Office when
suddenly, the blood pressure of the deceased shot up. When P.W. 2
Nilkanthenquiredwithhimaboutthereason,heexpressedthathehad
perceivedthreatstohislifeatthehandsofA6BhintadeandA7Surve.
HealsoperceivedthreatstohislifeatthehandsofmembersofAkhil
BhartiyaSenaofA1ArunGawaliandonePrakashMore.A12Pratap
and A13 Rane and one madam Surve were the members of Akhil
BhartiyaSenafromtheirward. ThewitnesshasidentifiedA13Rane
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 181
andA12PratapintheCourt.Hetestifiedthatthereafter,on2
nd
March
2007,Kamlakarwasshotdeadathisresidence.
171. The learned counsel for A6 Mr. Kulkarni made all efforts
duringcrossexaminationtoshatterthetestimonyofthiswitness,butin
vain. Thecrossexaminationrevealsthatthiswitnessiswellawareof
the political career of A6 Bhintade. He had been working as an
assistance of the deceased Kamlakar from 1997 till his death.
Accordingtohim,A6BhintadehaddevelopeddifferencewiththeShiv
Sena office bearers and, therefore, had separated from that party.
Deceased Kamlakar was not desirous of making a political career.
However,hewastheonlypersontogivetoughfighttothecandidateof
ShivSenaand,therefore,A6Bhintadepursuedhimtocontestthesaid
electionbyfinancinghim.ItappearsthatA6Bhintadetriedtoutilise
deceased Kamlakar as a scapegoat in making a political career.
However,thepoliticaldifferencesincreasedaftertheelectionof2002.
When A6 Bhintade realized that deceased Kamlakar upstaged him,
obviously, he nurtured a grudge and so also A13 Rane who was
defeatedintheelectionof2007,bythedeceased.Itdoesnotstandto
reasonthat only because A13 Rane secured lowest votesin thesaid
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 182
election and, therefore, there can be no reason for him to have any
enmity or grudge against the deceased Kamlakar. Interestingly, the
crossexaminationfurtherrevealsthatA6Bhintadewasraisingfunds
formakingambulanceservicesavailable.However,heneverpurchased
anyambulance. Thiswitnesswasnotawareastowhathappenedas
regardsthefundscollectedbyA6Bhintadein2007.Headmitsthatit
didnotcometohismindthatheshouldgotothepoliceandcomplain
aboutthefundsraisedbyA6Bhintade,asaccordingtohim,therewas
aterrorofA6Bhintade.
172. Thecrossalsorevealsthat25daysbeforethedeathofthe
deceasedKamlakar,hisbloodpressureshotupwhenbothwereonthe
way to BMC Office when deceased informed him that he perceived
threatstohislifefromA6BhintadeandA7Surve.Hefurtherdeposed
thatthereafterononeday,whendeceasedKamlakarandthiswitness
were on the way to Bhavna hospital, suddenly A6 Bhintade came
acrosswhenthedeceasedbowedbeforehim.A6Bhintadeaskedhim
not to bow down. The witness testified that the said gesture of A6
Bhintadewas animpliedthreat to thelife of thedeceasedKamlakar.
The witness felt both the incidents to be very much important and
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 183
relevanttothecauseofthedeathofthedeceasedKamlakar.Aspecific
question was asked to the witness whether he thought of informing
boththeseincidentstothepolice,heanswered,thathedidpreparea
writtencomplaintaboutboththeincidents,addressedtotheSakinaka
policestation,butthedeceasedKamlakardidnotallowhimtofilethe
said complaints with the Sakinaka police station. He further deposed
that after the murder of the deceased Kamalakar, when he tried to
narratetheincidenttothepolice,theylaughedathim,especiallythe
Crime Branch official P.W. 37 asked him to narrate the said episode
before the court and, therefore, did not record these incidents in his
statement. This witness had also been to Chandivali police station to
stateaboutthosetwoincidents,butthepoliceofficialsofthesaidpolice
station also laughed at him. He, however, did not complain to the
higherofficer.ItappearsthathehadbeentotheCrimeBranchOffice
on several occasions as and when they used to summon him. Only
becausehehadnotnarratedaboutthosetwoincidentstoP.W.1Komal
wouldnotmeanthatthesaidconductisdoubtfulorthathisevidenceis
unbelievable, more particularly, when these aspects have been
unearthed during cross by the defence itself with minute details,
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 184
substantiating what has been testified by him in his examinationin
chief.
173. DuringhiscrossexaminationbylearnedcounselMr.Rasal
forAccusednos.8,12,13and21,itiselicitedthatwhileatChandivali
policestationduringenquiry,hehadnamedA6Bhintade,A7Surve
and A13 Rane. In the crossexamination, the learned counsel has
repeated two episodes as regards increasing blood pressure of the
deceased and about his expression of threats to this witness and the
conduct of A6 Bhintade and A7 Surve. This witness is verywell
acquaintedwithA13RaneandA12Pratap.
174. Mr. Pasbola,thelearnedcounselforAccusedinparagraph
18 of crossexamination of P.W.2, again put the questions about the
increase of blood pressure of the deceased Kamlakar when P.W. 2
Nilkanth had accompanied him to the BMC office and about the
incidentofA6Bhintade. Inthatcontext,thewitnesstestifiedthathe
cannotstateafterhowmanydaysofthetwoincidents,heprepareda
writtencomplaintforbeingsubmittedtothepolice.Thesaidcomplaint
wasgiventooneoftheactivistforhandingovertothepolicestation,
however, itwasnothandedoverbecausedeceasedKamlakardidnot
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 185
wanttolodgeacomplaint. Onemonthafterthedeathofdeceased
Kamlakar,P.W.2realizedthatthesaidcomplaintwouldbematerialfor
investigationofthemurderand,therefore,heaskedthesaidactivistto
handitovertohim,buthedidnot. Thewitnesscouldnotansweras
regardsthedetailsofcomplaintofunauthorisedstructuresreceivedby
thedeceasedKamlakarashedidnotinspectanysuchfiles.Hedenied
thesuggestionthattheunauthorisedstructurescameupattheblessings
ofCorporatorsofrespectivewardswhichimpliedlysuggestthatthere
wereunauthorisedstructureswhichwereconstructedontheblessings
of the A7 Surve, which has been admitted by this witness. He
categoricallymadeitclearthatintheyear198485,whenunauthorised
structures of nephew of A7 Surve had come up, which were then
removedandhence,relationsbetweendeceasedKamlakarandA7Bala
Surveturnedunfriendly.Hefurthermadeitclearthatthesimilarthing
hadhappenedafter2002onwards.
175. A very important aspect has been brought in cross in
paragraph20thatdespitesouredrelations,deceasedKamlakarusedto
visitA7Survewhichcanbesaidtobethegoodnessofthedeceasedas
aCorporatorandasocialworker.Italsorevealsthatthereusedtobea
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 186
talkoverthefactthatA6BhintadeandA7Survewereatlargewhen
thepolicehadchargesheetedsomeothers.
176. If the evidence of these two witnesses visavis the other
circumstancesandtheconfessionalstatementsofsomeoftheaccused
aretakenintoconsideration,itwouldpreciselyattractSections8and
Section 10 of the Law of Evidence. Adequacy of motive is of little
important as atrocious crimes are committed for very slight motive.
Motive is not an ingredient of an offence. But when it is proved, it
helpsthecourttocometoacorrectconclusionwhenthereisnotdirect
evidence.Motiveisprovableasarelevantfactinthecase,butthesame
canbeprovedbypositiveevidenceandnotbythehearsayevidence.In
proving the motive u/s. 8 of the Evidence Act, the prosecution has
relieduponthetestimonyofthesetwowitnesseswhich,ifjuxtaposed
with the confessional statements and other circumstances would
definitely indicate that there was a motive behind the murder of
deceasedKamlakar,insofarasA6Bhintade,A7SurveandA13Rane
are concerned. The prosecution has fully established by the
incriminating circumstances on record the motive behind the
commissionoftheoffence.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 187
177. Assuch,A2VijayGiri,A4NarendraGiriareprovedtobe
directly connected with the murder of Kamlakar Jamsandekar and in
thelightofevidenceofP.W.4Addu,thecomplicityofA12Pratap,A13
Rane and A10 Shrikrishna Gurav is established which shows the
mensreaincommissionoftheoffenceandwhichalsoshowsthatthese
arethepersonsalongwithA6BhintadeandA7Survewhohatcheda
wellplanned conspiracy with a definite motive to eliminate the
deceasedKamlakarJamsandekar.Theprosecutionhasestablishedthese
basicfactsindependentlywithouttheaidofconfession.
178. Now,themostimportantaspectoftheprosecutioncaseis
theconfessionalstatementsofsevenaccusedu/s.s18(2)oftheMCOC
Act,1999. Abarelookatthecharthereinbelowwouldgiveanidea
about the details as to the recording of confessional statements, by
whom the statements were recorded, whether they were retracted or
otherwiseandnamesoftheaccusedpersonsreflectedintherespective
confessionalstatementoftheconfessors.
CHARTSHOWINGTHEDETAILSOFCONFESSIONALSTATEMENTS
OFACCUSEDRECORDEDU/S.18(2)OFMCOCACT,1999.
Nameofthe Date of Name & If retracted Name of the
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 188
Accused confession
PartII
Designation
of Police
officer who
recorded
confession
when and
beforewhom
Accused
persons
reflected in
the
confession
statement
Ashok
JaiswarA3
28/05/2008
Exh.227
Mr. Vinay
Chaube, DCP
ZoneIX
Retracted
beforeCMM
Pratap
Godse, Ajit
Rane,
Shrikrishna
@ Babu
Gurav, Vijay
Giri,
Narendra
Giri & Anil
Giri
Narendra
GiriA4
04/06/2008
Exh.214
Mr. Rajendra
Dabhade,
DCP LA 2
Tardeo
Retracted
beforeCMM
Pratap
Godse, Ajit
Rane,
Shrikrishna
@ Babu
Gurav, Vijay
Giri, Ashok
Jaiswar, and
AnilGiri
AnilGiriA5 04/06/2008
Exh.289
Mr.
Vijaysingh
Jadhav, DCP
HQ1
Retracted
beforeCMM
Pratap
Godse, Ajit
Rane,
Shrikrishna
@ Babu
Gurav, Vijay
Giri,
Narendra
Giri & Ashok
Jaikswar.
Sandip 27/05/2008 Mr. Brijesh Notretracted Arun Gawali,
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 189
GanganA9 Exh.324 Singh, DCP
ZoneI
Pratap
Godse, Ajit
Rane, Bala
Surve,
Sahbebrao
Bhintade &
SureshPatil
Babu Gurav
A10
28/05/2008
Exh.251
Mr. D.
Phyadtare,
DCPZoneV
Notretracted Arun Gawali,
Pratap
Godse, Ajit
Rane, Vijay
Giri,
Narendra
Giri, Ashok
Jaiswar, Anil
Giri, Dinesh
Narkar, Bala
Surve,
Sahbebrao
Bhintade &
Surendra
Panchal.
Dinesh
NarkarA11
04/06/2008
Exh. 264 &
Exh.268
Mr. Y.P.
Dhoom, DCP
PortZone
Retracted
beforeCMM
Ajit Rane,
Pratap
Godse,
Shrikrishna
@ Babu
Gurav and
Surendra
Panchal.
Suresh Patil
A15
13/07/2008
Exh.241
Mr. Dilip
Sawant, DCP
ZoneVI
Retracted
beforeCMM
Arun Gawali,
Ajit Rane,
Pratap
Godse,Bala
Surve,
Sahebrao
Bhintade,
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 190
Sandip
Gangan and
SunilGhate,
179. Attheoutset,itisarguedbythelearnedcounselMr.Pasbola
that the whole case is based on confessional statements. If they are
accepted, prosecution succeeds, if not, prosecution fails. He submits
that the confessional statements of A9 Sandip alias Sandy Gangan,
A10ShrikrishnaaliasBabuGurav,A11DineshaliasDinyaNarkarand
A15 Suresh Patil are exculpatory and, therefore, required to be
discarded. No confession is voluntary. He further submits that A12
PratapGodseandA13AjitRanecouldhavethemselvesexecutedthe
planandtherewasnoneedtogotoA1ArunGawaliforsuchasmall
sum and that too by the use of country made gun when A1 Arun
GawaliwastriedforpossessingarmslikeAK47etc.Thisargumentof
thedefencespeaksvolumeinthelightofthefactthattheprosecution
allegesaboutanorganizedcrimesyndicaterunbyA1ArunGawaliwho
alsoisapoliticalheadofhispartyviz.AkhilBhartiyaSenaofwhichhe
wasasittingMLAattherelevanttime.ItisfurthersubmittedthatA3
Ashokkumar Jaiswar, A4 Narendra alias Kandi Lalmani Giri, A11
Dinesh Narkar and A15 Suresh Patil have retracted their confessions
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 191
beforetheChiefMetropolitanMagistratewhereas,A9SandipGangan
andA10ShrikrishnahaveretractedtheirconfessionsbeforethisCourt.
Iftheconfessionisreal,itwouldnotevaporatewithinhours,aperson
unburdenshimselfbyaconfession.Hesubmitsthattheaccusedwere
throughoutinthecustodyoftheDCPsandeventhentheconfessions
were retracted before the Court, which means that those were not
voluntary. It is also submitted that the confessions were retracted
immediately after the influence of the police was over. Retraction
should also be voluntary, if not, it diminishes its value. He further
submitsthatconfessionsareexactcopiesofoneanotherincludingthe
mistakesindicatingthattheyarestereotypeandmechanical. Thereis
noncomplianceofSection18subsection2oftheActreadwithRule6
oftheAct.AccordingtoMr.Pasbola,theconfessionalstatementsofA9
Sandip,A15SureshPatilandA10ShrikrishnaGuravcontradictedeach
other.TheDCPs.beforewhomtheallegedconfessionsweremadehad
not put important and material questions. The letter and other
documents were concocted. The process of recording confessional
statementsshowthattheyaremadelaterontobolstertheprosecution
case.Thisiswhatisthegistoftheentireargumentofthedefence.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 192
180. Ontheotherhand,learnedSPPMr.Thakarearguedatthe
barthatthedefencedoesnotdisputetheconfessionalstatementsofA3
AshokJaiswar,A4NarendraGiriandA5AnilGiriastheconfessionsin
realsense.Hesubmitsthattheseconfessionsincludingtheconfessions
oftheotheraccusedaretobelookedintoinviewofSection3(1)(2)
and in view of Section 2(1)(a) of the MCOC Act, 1999 (for short
MCOCAct).AccordingtoMr.Thakare,theauthoritiesrelieduponby
thedefenceareoutdatedandoldwhichdonotcoverorconsiderthe
provisionsofMCOCActastheActwasnotinexistenceattherelevant
time. Theprosecutionhasmainlyrelieduponconfessionalstatements
of A9 Sandip Gangan Exh. 324, A10 Shrikrishna alias Babu Gurav
Exh. 251 and A15 Suresh Patil Exh. 241. It is submitted by Mr.
ThakarethatitcanbeseenfromthechartthatbothA9Sandipand
A10ShrikrishnadidnotevenretracttheirconfessionsbeforetheChief
Metropolitan Magistrate, on the contrary admitted the voluntariness
thereof and, therefore, these confessions can be relied upon and
acceptedastruthfulandvoluntarywithoutgoingtotheevidenceofthe
concerned DCPs., who recorded their confessional statements though
the prosecution has examined all the DCPs. in this case along with
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 193
contemporaneousrecordinthenatureofthediaryentriesmadeatthe
variouspolicestationswhichistheprecautiontakenbytherespective
DCPs. while following the procedure for recording confessions. He
furthersubmitsthatconfessionofA15SureshPatilalthoughretracted
before the CMM, it is significant to note that he has not made any
allegationofilltreatmentortortureatthehandsofthepolice.Infact,
the accused had earlier made an application before this court
contendinginteralia,thathedidnotwanttomakeanyconfessionand
thisfacthasbeenstatedbyhimbeforetheDCPmentioninginteralia,
thatbecauseofterrorofA1ArunGawaliandonthelegaladvice,he
had made such application to the court. In this background, his
retractionbeforetheCMMagaincanbeattributedtothesamecause.
However,sincethevoluntarinessitselfisnotchallenged,inspiteofsuch
retraction the confession will have to be given due probative weight
afterconsideringtheevidenceofPW18DilipSawant,whohasinhis
evidence meticulously described the precautions taken by him while
recordingtheconfessionsinfreeandfairatmosphere.
181. ItisfurtherarguedbyMr.Thakarethatitissignificantto
note that A15 Suresh Patil is also a coaccused along with the main
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 194
accused i.e. A1 Arun Gawali in case of extortion Exh. 465 (colly.)
beingoneofthepreviouscasesrelieduponbytheinvestigatingagency
onthebasisofwhichprovisionsofMCOCActhavebeeninvokedand
also the fact that he is a member of Akhil Bhartiya Sena which is a
politicalwingofOrganizedCrimesyndicate,headedbyA1ArunGawali
andevenatthetimeofhisarrest,theidentitycardandrelevantpapers
showing his relations with Akhil Bhartiya Sena have been recovered
underpanchanamaExh.443,whichhasbeenadmittedu/s.294ofthe
Cr.P.C.
CONFESSIONALSTATEMENTOFA10SHRIKRISHNA@BABU
TUKARAMGURAV.
182. P.W. 19 Dnyaneshwar Mansingrao Phadtare Exh.246, was
workingasDCP,ZoneV,Mumbaiwhichisapostequivalenttothepost
of Superintendent of Police and is empowered to record confessional
statementundertheprovisionsofMCOCAct.Hetestifiedthatpursuant
to the letter of Joint Commissioner of Police Crime Exh. 247, Mr.
RakeshMaria,hewasdirectedtorecordtheconfessionalstatementof
A10 Shrikrishna in DCB,CID C.R. No. 69 of 2008. Pursuant to this
letter,P.W.19PhadtarewrotealettertotheI.O.ofthiscasetoproduce
theaccusedbeforehimon27.5.2008at15.00hours.Thesaidletteris
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 195
provedatExh.248.Accordingly,A10Shrikrishnawasproducedbefore
himon27.5.2008at17.10hours. Theletterwhichwassignedbythe
mainI.O.Mr.DurafeP.W.37isprovedatExh.249alongwiththesaid
letter,therewasonemoreletterindicatingmedicalexaminationreport
oftheaccusedwhichisprovedatX58.P.W.19Mr.PhadtaretookA10
ShrikrishnainhiscustodywhowasproducedbyPSINaikbeforehim.
ThelettertothateffectisprovedatExh.250. Thereafter,P.W.19Mr.
PhadtareaskedPSINaikandhisstafftoleavehischamber.Heaskedhis
peonMr.Chabukswartoclosethedoorandnottoallowanyonetoenter
hischamberwithoutpriorpermission.Thereafter,P.W.19Mr.Phadtare
talkedwithA10ShrikrishnainMarathilanguageandrealizedthathe
was comfortable. He made him aware about his post and power to
recordtheconfessionalstatementandalsoinformedhimthatheisinno
way connected with the investigation of the crime. A10 Shrikrishna
understoodthesame. Thereafter,P.W.19Mr.Phadtareinformedhim
thatheisnolongerinthecustodyoftheinvestigatingauthorities.He
alsoascertainedfromA10Shrikrishnaastowhethertheofficersofthe
investigating agency misbehaved with him or promised to make a
confessionwhichisrepliedinnegativebyA10Shrikrishna.Thereafter,
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 196
P.W.19Mr.Phadtareaskedhimhisname,age,educationalqualification,
addressandfamilybackgroundetc.A10Shrikrishnatoldhimthathe
had studied upto 10
th
standard in Marathi medium and he would be
comfortableinconversinginMarathilanguage. A10Shrikrishnawas
aware as to why he was produced before P.W. 19 Mr. Phadtare. He
voluntarilyexpressedhisdesiretomakeaconfession. Onbeingasked
byP.W.19Mr.Phadtare,hestatedthathewantstoconfesswithrespect
to the murder of Shiv Sena Corporator Kamlakar Jamsandekar. On
being asked by P.W. 19 DCP Phadtare, he stated that none of the
investigatingofficerthreatenedhimformakingtheconfession.Hehad
alsostatedthathewasnotluredtomakeaconfessionnortherewas
anypressure.P.W.19DCPMr.PhadtareaskedA10Shrikrishnawhether
hehad been promisedto make him an approver which hereplied in
negative.P.W.19DCPPhadtaremadeA10Shrikrishnaawarethatheis
not bound to make the confessional statement and if he makes such
confessionalstatement,thatcanbeusedasevidenceagainsthimandhe
maybeconvicted.A10Shrikrishnarepliedthathewasawareofthat.
He wasalso made awareby P.W.19DCPPhadtare that ifhedidnot
makeaconfession,hewouldnotbesentbacktothecustodyoftheI.O.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 197
Itwasalsomadeclearthathewasnotboundtomakeconfessionbefore
this witness. P.W. 19 DCP Mr. Phadtare ascertained that A10
Shrikrishna understood each and everything and even then he found
thatA10Shrikrishnastilldesiredtomakeaconfession. P.W.19DCP
Mr.PhadtarealsoenquiredwithA10Shrikrishnawhetherherequired
presenceofanyofhisrelativesorlawyerduringconfessiontowhichhe
repliedinnegative.AsP.W.19DCPMr.PhadtarewassatisfiedthatA10
Shrikrishnareallywantstogiveaconfessionalstatementvoluntarily,he
gavehim24hours'timeforreflectioninordertothinkoverhisdecision
to make a confession. P.W. 19 DCP Mr. Phadtare informed A10
ShrikrishnathathewouldbekeptinthelockupofMahimpolicestation
under his jurisdiction. He recorded the questions put to A10
Shrikrishna and he wrote answers thereto in his own handwriting
simultaneously. Thereafter, P.W. 19 DCP Mr. Phadtare obtained the
signaturesofA10Shrkrishna.Beforeobtaininghissignatures,heread
all the contents to A10 Shrikrishna and thereafter, made an
endorsement in that regard. P.W. 19 DCP Mr. Phadtare also put his
signature and seal of the office thereon, which is Part I of the
confessionalstatement.Itwasputinacoverandsealed.ThesaidPart
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 198
IisprovedatExh.251.
183. TheevidenceofP.W.19DCPMr.Phadtarefurtherindicates
thatheinformedSr.PIofMahimpolicestationtodeputesomeoneof
staffmemberstotakecustodyofA10Shrikrishnaforbeingkeptinthe
lockup. PSIPawaraccompaniedbysomestaffofMahimpolicestation
hadcometogetthecustodyofA10ShrikrishnaaliasBabu.Theletter
tothateffectwhichbearsthesignatureofPSIPawarisprovedatExh.
252. Bythesameletter,P.W.19DCPMr.Phadtarehadinstructedthe
officertotakeprecautionthatnonewouldmeetA10Shrikrishnainthe
lockup, interalia, directing the officer to produce A10 Shrikrishna
beforehimon28.5.2008at7.30p.m.
184. Accordingly,A10ShrikrishnawasproducedbeforeP.W.19
DCPPhadtareon28.5.2008at7.30p.m.alongwithacertifiedcopyofa
station diary entry made in that regard about keeping the A10
Shrikrishnainaseparatelockup.ThesaidentryisprovedatExh.253.
Thereafter, P.W. 19 DCP Phadtare asked the police party to leave his
chamber. Assuch,nowtherewereonlytwopersonsi.e.P.W.19DCP
PhadtarehimselfandA10Shrikrishnainhischamber.Heensuredthat
theinteractionbetweenbothofthemcouldnotbeheardoroverheard
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 199
byanyone. P.W.19DCPPhadtarefurthertestifiedthathegothimself
satisfiedthattheaccusedwasnotunderpressureofanyonetomakea
confession. He enquired whether 24 hours' time for reflection was
sufficient for him to which A10 Shrikrishna answered in the
affirmative.A10Shrikrishnadidnotwantmoretimeforreflection.He
againensuredfromA10ShrikrishnaandfoundthatA10Shrikrishna
still wanted to make a confession. He also ascertained whether any
officer connected with the investigation met in the lockup which he
replied in the negative. He was again made aware that it was not
legallyobligatoryonhisparttomakeaconfessiontowhichhereplied
thathewasawarethereof.P.W.19DCPMr.Phadtareenquiredwhether
hewassubjectedtoanytortureorthreatsorpromisedbyanypolice
officer to make a confession which was also replied by A10 in the
negative. After getting himself satisfied, P.W. 19 DCP Mr. Phadtare
asked him whether any officer connected with the investigation had
askedhimtomakeanapproverorinformedthathewouldbeacquitted
ifhemakesaconfession.A10Shrikrishnarepliedinthenegative. He
alsomadehimawarethattheconfessionalstatementwhichwouldbe
recordedmightbeusedasevidenceagainsthimandonitsstrength,he
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 200
might be convicted. A10 Shrikrishna informed that he was aware
aboutit. Heagaininformedhimwhetherhewantedtohavepresence
ofanyofhisrelativesoradvocateduringconfessiontowhichhereplied
innegative.WhenP.W.19DCPMr.PhadtareaskedA10Shrikrishnaas
to why he wants to make a confession, he replied that out of
repentance,hewantedtomakeaconfession.Fromallthesequestions,
P.W.19DCPMr.PhadtarewasfullysatisfiedthatA10wantedtomakea
confession voluntarily. He informed the accused that whatever he
wouldnarratewouldberecordedbyhim. Thenhestartedrecording
theanswerstothequestionsputbyhimtoA10.Hegavetherecordof
PartIIoftheconfessionalstatementtoA10Shrikrishnawhoperused
thesameandaffirmedit.A10Shrikrishnasignedbelowthestatement
andeachpageofPartII.P.W.19DCPMr.PhadtarehasdulyprovedPart
IIatExh.251A.
185. Thereafter,P.W.19DCPMr.Phadtarewroteacertificatewith
hissignatureandseal.Certificateisalsoinhisownhandwritingandis
proved at Exh. 251B. He thereafter sealed Part II of the statement
alongwiththecertificate.HecalledPSIPawarandhispartytogetthe
accusedbackforbeingkeptinthelockupofMahimpolicestation.P.W.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 201
19DCPMr.Phadtaregaveinstructionstotheconcernedpolicetokeep
A10Shrikrishnainaseparatelockup.Thelettertothateffectisproved
at Exh. 254. P.W. 19 DCP Mr. Phadtare had also prepared a letter
addressed to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate which is placed in a
cover and was duly sealed. It was delivered to PSI Pawar for being
deliveredtotheCMMandproduceA10ShrikrishnabeforetheCMM.
Theofficecopyofthesaidletterisprovedat Exh.255. Onthenext
dayi.e.on29.5.2008,PSIPawargaveP.W.19DCPMr.Phadtare,acopy
ofhislettertoCMMbearingacknowledgmentreceiptandsignedbythe
staffmemberofthecourtofCMMwhichisprovedatExh.256. After
thepurposeofproductionofA10ShrikrishnabeforeCMMwasover,he
wasagainbroughtbeforeP.W.19DCPMr.Phadtarewhothenwrotea
lettertotheI.O.togetbackthecustodyofA10Shrikrishna.Theoffice
copyofsaidletterbearingsignatureofPSINaikacknowledgingtohave
received custodyof A10 Shrikrishna is proved at Exh. 257. P.W. 19
DCP Mr. Phadtare deposed that he obtained the certified copy of the
stationdiaryentriesmadeatMahimpolicestationwhichsareprovedat
Exh. 258 (colly.). The report of the CMM and the statement of the
accused recorded by him are proved at Exh. 259. P.W. 19 DCP Mr.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 202
Phadtare has identified A10 Shrikrishna from amongst the other
accusedinthedock.
186. A confidential letter of the CMM Mr. M.H. Belose dated
29.5.2008revealsthatA10ShrikrishnaaliasBabuGuravwasproduced
beforehimbyPSIPawarofMahimpolicestationat4.00p.m.Hecalled
the stenographer in the chamber and ascertained from the accused
aboutthecontentsofhisstatementinPartIandPartII,recordedby
DeputyCommissionerofPoliceMr.PhadtareP.W.19andconfirmedthat
itwasmadevoluntarilybeforehim. TheentirePartIandPartIIwas
againreadovertoA10ShrikrishnabyCMM. Theaccusedsubmitted
thatthesaidstatementwasrecordedasperhissaybytheDCPwhich
was explained to him in Marathi and were voluntarily given by him
before the DCP. There is also an endorsement in the handwriting of
A10 Shrikrishna himself which indicates that : =| = = =+ +
' - +| ' = = = r - = == = r| + r + = =| +| =-+
= r + = +| += = = r =| = = r| +| ' = =| = r
= : == == = -+ = r| = + = r| =| ' + - r -r = = =
= + = = = = = = = = r == = = = = r + + = : + +
' = r+ + == = = + :| + = = = = r -r =
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 203
+ = == = == r - = r , - r = r =- = ++ = r
187. During expatiatecrossexaminationbylearnedcounsel Mr.
PondaforA1,nothingcouldbeelicitedfromhismouthwhichwould
render confessional statement of A10 Shrikrishna either doubtful or
involuntary.Onthecontrary,itrevealsfromthecrossthatP.W.19DCP
Mr.Phadtarehadtakenallprecautionsandstepswhicharerequiredto
betakencareofwhilerecordingconfessionalstatementu/s.18(3)of
the MCOCAct, 1999. P.W. 19DCP Mr. PhadtarehadexplainedA10
Shrikrishnathathewasnotboundtomakeconfessionandthatifhe
doesso,itcanbeusedasevidenceagainsthimandthenaftergetting
himselfsatisfieduponthequestionsputbyhimthattheconfessionwas
being made voluntarily he recorded the same. It was duly certified
below the confession about the personal satisfaction of P.W. 19 DCP
Phadtare and about the correctness of such voluntary statement by
puttingthedateandtime. Notonlythat,itwasforthwithsenttothe
CMM along with A10 Shrikrishna who also satisfied about the
voluntarinessofthesame. Thereisabsolutelynothingonrecordfrom
which one can say that there is some illegality or flaw in the
confessional statement recorded by P.W. 19 DCP Mr. Phadtare. The
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 204
learnedcounselfortheaccusedtriedtobringonrecordcertainminor
technicalities which do not go to the crux of the matter. On the
contrary,ithasbeensubstantiatedthatallthestepsandtheprocedure
havebeenmeticulouslyfollowedbyP.W.19DCPMr.Phadtare.P.W.19
admitsincrossthathedidnotenquirewithPSINaikastowhenthe
accused was arrested and when he expressed his desire to make a
confession. P.W.19DCPMr.Phadtarefurthertestifiedthathedidnot
feelitnecessarytoenquirewiththeaccusedwhenhewasarrestedand
whenheexpressedhisdesiretomakeaconfessionand,therefore,did
notquestionhiminthatregard.Inthisregard,itistobeseenthatitis
solelythewishoftheaccusedastowhenandhowhewouldexpresshis
desiretomakeaconfessionalstatement.Theonlythingisthataccused
shouldbeproducedimmediatelyafterheexpresseshisdesiretomakea
confession. The witness also admits that his mother tongue is also
MarathiandsoalsoofA10Shrikrishna. Inparagraph30ofcrossat
page30,P.W.19DCPMr.Phadtareadmitsthatwhateverquestionshe
puttotheaccusedon28.5.2008,haveallbeenrecordedinPartIIand
so also answers of the accused given to the questions have been
recorded therein in verbatim. Similar is the case of Part I of his
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 205
confessionalstatement.Hefurtheradmitsthataccusedtooklittleover
twohourstogivethenarrationofhisstatement.Inparagraph36ofthe
crossexamination,P.W.19DCPPhadtareadmitsthathewasawarethat
accused wanted to make a confessional statement in relation to the
murder of Shiv Sena Corporator Kamlakar Jamsandekar. He further
admits that participation of the accused in conspiracy to commit the
offenceisalsoamaterialfact.
188. Now,letmescrutinisePartIIandtherelevantportionofthe
confessionalstatementofA10ShrikrishnaaliasBabuGuravExh.251.
Inhisconfessionalstatement,A10Shrikrishnahadstatedthathedrives
an autorikshaw. He came in contact with A13 Rane who is Vice
President of Akhil Bhartiya Sena, Kurla taluka, having his office at
Sakinaka Pipeline, Periera Wadi and he is residing at Shiv Om
Apartment, 5
th
floor, B Wing, Room No. 501,Chandivali Farm Road,
Chandivali,Mumbai.A13Raneisahandicappedpersonashisleftleg
hasbeenamputatedduetoanaccident. Sometimesheusesartificial
legorsometimesusescrutches. A10Shrikrishnafrequentlyusedto
attend the office of A13 Rane where he was closely associated with
A12 Pratap, A5 Anil Giri, A11 Dinesh Narkar, Pradip Shinde and
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 206
Mohammed Sharif alias Guddu. During July 2005 to October 2005,
they had threatened some builders and developers viz. Sagar Tech
Builders, Sadguru Developers, Ghatkopar (West), Silver Group and
Runwal Group Builders by forcibly entering into their offices and
threateningthemthattheyhadcomefromDagdiChawlwhichisthe
famousnameofresidentialareaofA1ArunGawaliandusedtoextort
money which they used to send it to A1 Arun Gawali through A12
Pratap Godse, A13 Ajit Rane, A15 Suresh Patil and A9 Sandip
Gangan. HisconfessionalstatementfurtherindicatesthataroundMay
2006, since A12 Pratap and A13 Rane were in need of a gun for
threateningthebuilderstoextortmoney,A10Shrikrishnacontactedhis
cousin P.W. 11 Ramchandra alias Dhaktya Gurav. He took P.W. 11
RamchandratotheofficeofA12PratapandA13RanewhereP.W.11
Ramchandraassuredthemthathewouldprocureagunforthemand
accordingly, A10 Shrikrishna and A12 Pratap gave their mobile
numbers9819251750and9223202133toP.W.11Ramchandra. After
45 days, P.W. 11 Ramchandra gave a phone call by saying that they
would get a gun and, therefore, A10 Shrikrishna along with A11
Dinesh Narkar, A12 Pratap along with a driver Raja went to Vilaye
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 207
villageinaTataSumofromwheretheyhadprocuredacountrymade
handgunArt.5fromA8SurendraPanchalwhogavehismobilenumber
as9224770420. Ihadalreadydiscussedthisaspectinthepreceding
paragraphs while referring to the procurement of weapon. The
confessional statement further indicates that on the eve of 'Navratri',
A12 Pratap and A13 Rane used to threaten the builders and extort
moneyfromthemwhichtheyusedtosendtoA1ArunGawalithrough
A9SandipGanganandA15SureshPatil,afterretainingsomeamount
withthem.Thisishow,itappearsthattheorganizedcrimesyndicateof
A1 Arun Gawali was involved in continuing unlawful activities and
werecommittingorganizedcrimeforgainingundueeconomicbenefits
by extorting builders, cable operators etc. The confession further
revealsthatafterfewdays,A12PratapandA13Raneintheiroffice
informedhimthatafterfiringtworoundsfromthesaidgun,onlytwo
rounds were remaining. At the relevant time, the work of Akhil
Bhartiya Sena was being conducted from the said office situated at
MilanComplex,BuildingNo.B/5,groundfloor,Mulund.Atthattime,
A13 Rane had two mobile bearing numbers 9869148966 and
9833473756.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 208
189. HealsoconfessedthatinthemonthofOctoberNovember
2006, they laid a trap in the Sessions Court at Sewri, Mumbai to
eliminateoneSolankiwhohadattackedA12Pratap,buttheycouldnot
asthesaidSolankididnotattendthecourton23dates.Atthattime,
A11 Narkar, Pradip Shinde, Mohammed Sharif and A10 Shrikrishna
werealsopresent.
190. The confession further reveals that A13 Rane was quite
nervousbecausehelosttheelectionofCorporationheldinthemonth
on 1st February 2007 as he could only secure 379 votes. Kamlakar
JamsandekarwaselectedinthesaidelectionasamemberofShivSena
from Ward No. 152. A13 Rane had contested the said election as a
memberofAkhilBhrtiyaSenaofA1ArunGawali. AlongwithA10
Shrikrishna, A11 Narkar, A12 Pratap and others had canvassed for
A13Rane.
191. In the second week of February 2007, when A10
ShrikrishnahadbeentotheTravel'sofficeofA13Rane,A12Pratap,in
the presence of A13 Rane asked A10 Shrikrishna as to whether he
wouldgettwoboysasapersonistobeeliminated.A12Pratapsaid
that he would pay Rs.2.5 lakhs for the saidwork. Upon which, A10
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 209
Shrikrishnaagreedandontheveryday,contactedA2VijayGiriwith
whomhewasacquainted,ontelephone.Onthefollowingday,inthe
morning,A2VijayGiriwascalledatSakinakajunctionnearH.P.Petrol
Pump. Accordingly,A2VijayGirionthenextdayat10.00a.m.,met
A10ShrikrishnaalongwithA4NarendraGiri. Aftersometime,A3
Ashokkumar Jaiswar also came over there. A10 Shrikrishna called
A12Prataponmobile. Aftersometime,A12PratapandA13Rane
reachedthereonamotorcycle. A10ShrikrishnaintroducedA2Vijay
GiritoA12Pratap.ItwasdecidedbetweenA12PratapandA2Vijay
thatA12PratapwouldprovidehimagunandknifealongwithRs.2.5
lakhs and A2 Vijay along with his companion would commit the
murderofapersonwhowouldbeshownbyA12Pratap.A12Pratap
asked A10 Shrikrishna to show A2 Vijay, A3 Ashokkumar, A4
NarendratheofficeofAmitTravels.A12PratapandA3Ranearethe
partnersinthetravelsbusinessinthenameandstyleasAmitTravels.
Accordingly,A10ShrikrishnashowedtheofficeofAmitTravelstoA2
Vijay,A3AshokkumarandA4Narendraandaskedthemtocomeon
thenextmorning.Onthenextmorning,allofthemcametotheoffice
ofAmitTravelsalongwithonemorepersoni.e.A5AnilGiril. Asper
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 210
theinstructionsofA12Pratap,A10Shrikrishnatookoutabagfrom
thedrawerofthetableintheofficefromwhichhetookoutthegunand
two cartridges which were brought from Rajapur, along with three
knivesandgaveittoA2VijayandA4Narendra. Atthattime,A12
Pratap informed A2 Vijay and A4 Narendra that three rounds had
alreadybeenfiredfromthesaidgunArt.5. Thesaidarticle/weapons
werealsoseenbyA3AshokandA5Anil.Thereafter,A12Pratapgave
Rs.10,000/ to A10 Shrikrishna for giving it to A2 Vijay and
accordingly,A10ShrikrishnagaveRs.10,000/toA2Vijay.Theywere
askedtoreceivethebagcontainingtheweaponsonthenextday.Itis
furtherstatedbyA10Shrikrishnainhisconfessionalstatementthatat
that time, A2 Vijay had given his mobile No. 9224676768 and
9323709336.
192. Attherelevanttime,A10Shrikrishnacametoknowforthe
first time from A12 Pratap that the murder of Shiv Sena Corporator
KamlakarJamsandekarwastobecommittedandforthata Supari
fromDagdiChawlwhichhasbeengivenbyA6BhintadeandA7Surve
hadbeenreceivedbyhim.
193. Onthenextday,atabout9.30a.m.,A2VijaycalledA10
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 211
Shrikrishnaonphone. HewenttotheofficeofAmitTravels. Sinceit
wasclosed,hebroughtakeyoftheofficefromtheofficeofA13Rane
andopenedtheoffice. AspertheinstructionsofA12Pratap,thebag
containingtheweaponsandRs.10,000/weregiventoA2Vijay. A2
Vijay asked to take the motorcycle in the evening. However, on the
same evening, A4 Narendra took away 'Discover' motorcycle of A10
Shrikrishna. AspertheinstructionsofA12Pratap,A10Shrikrishna
hadagaincalledA2Vijayandhiscompanionintheofficeonthenext
day,whoaccordinglycametotheoffice.Aftersometime,A12Pratap
andA13Ranealsocametotheoffice.P.W.4Adduwasalsocalledby
A12Pratap. Atthattime,A12PratapinformedA2Vijay,A3Ashok,
A4NarendraandA5AnilthatP.W.4Adduwouldshowthehouseand
thepersonwhowastobeeliminated. Accordingly,A4Narendra,A5
AnilandP.W.4Addulefttheofficeonthesaidmotorcycle.A12Pratap
askedA2Vijaythatheshouldcarrythebagcontainingtheweapons
everydayinthemorningandbringitbackanddeposititintheofficetill
theworkiscompleted.Accordingly,A10Shrikrishnausedtoopenthe
office of A13 Rane everyday. A2 Vijay used to receive the bag
containing the weapons and used to deposit it in the evening. This
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 212
continued for about 15 days. However, they could not get an
opportunity to assassinate Kamlakar Jamsandekar. A2 Vijay, A4
NarendraandA3Ashokhadbeencontinuouslygoingtotheareawhere
thedeceasedwasresiding.A12Pratapgotfuriousandstartedabusing
A10Shrikrishnaastheworkcouldnotbematerializedevenafter so
many days and was ready to hire another group for assassinating
KamlakarJamsandekar.
194. Confessionalstatementfurtherrevealsthaton2.3.2007,at
about5.00p.m.,A2VijayinformedA10Shrikrishnaonmobilethathe
hadassassinatedKamlakarJamsandekarand themotorcyclewaskept
at Ghatkopar Narayan Nagar near a mosque. A10 Shrikrishna
immediatelycontactedA12Pratapandinformedhimaboutthemurder
of Kamlakar Jamsandekar, upon which, A12 Pratap asked A10
Shrikrishnanottotakethemotorcycleforsomedays.
195. On 3
rd
March, 2007, one Anita to whom A13 Rane was
treatinglikesisterandwhoalsousedtositintheofficeofAmitTravels,
calledA10ShrikrishnaatherhouseandinformedhimthatA2Vijay
and A4 Narendra were continuously demanding the amount and,
therefore,shegavesomeamounttoA10Shrikrishnainaplasticbag
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 213
whichhedidnotcount.WhenA10ShrikrishnacontactedA2Vijay,he
askedhimtocometothegateofBorivaliNationalPark.Accordingly,
A10 Shrikrishna delivered the amount to A2 Vijay at the gate of
BorivaliNationalPark.ThisfactiscorroboratedfromC.D.R.Hefurther
confessed that thereafter, A2 Vijay and A4 Narendra intermittently
usedtodemandthebalanceamountof'supari'fromhim,buthecould
notbecauseA12PratapandA13Ranewerebehindthebars. Inthe
month of October, 2007 and thereafter, in the month of November
2007,A13RaneandA12Pratapwerereleasedonbailinthecaseof
murder of Kamlakar Jamsandekar. At that time, they used to sit in
RoomNo.4,CrystalCourt,RamBaug,PowaiwhichistheofficeofAmit
Travels. Atthattime,A12PrataptoldA10Shrikrishnathathehad
givenRs.10,000/toA2VijayGiri.ThecertificatewhichIhavealready
discussed,hasbeendulypreparedbyP.W.19DCPMr.Phadtarebelow
theconfessionalstatementofA10Shrikrishna. Itiscrystalclearthat
thereisaninvolvementoftheorganizedcrimesyndicateheadedbyA1
ArunGawaliwhichcommitsorganizedcrimefromDagdiChawl. The
confession also reflects the involvement of A2 Vijay Giri, A3
AshokkumarJaiswar,A4NarendraGiriandA5AnilGiriA6Sahebrao
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 214
Bhintade, A7 Sadashiv @ Bala Surve, A12 Pratap Godse, A13 Ajit
Rane,aswellasA11DineshNarkarandA8SurendraPanchal.Arole
playedbyeachofthesepersonsisreflectedfromconfessionalstatement
ofA10Shrikrishna,whichisasubstantiveevidence.
CONFESSIONALSTATEMENTOFA9SANDIP@SANDYGANGAN
196. TheconfessionalstatementofA9SandipExh.324hasbeen
recordedbyP.W.29BrijeshSinghExh.320,whowasworkingasaDCP,
Zone I at the relevant time. A9 Sandip had also not retracted his
confession before the CMM like A10 Shrikrishna. P.W. 29 DCP Mr.
Singh has testified that he was authorised to record the confessional
statementunderthesaidAct.On26.5.2008,hereceivedaletterfrom
Joint C.P. (Crime) Mr. Rakesh Maria, nominating him to record
confessionofA9Sandip. ThelettertothateffectsignedbyJointCP
Mr.MariaprovedatExh.321.He,therefore,wrotealettertotheI.O.
P.W.37ACPDurafe,askinghimtoproduceA9Sandipbeforehimon
27.5.2008.ThesaidletterisatExh.322. Accordingly,A9Sandipwas
producedbeforeP.W.29DCPMr.SinghbyPSIDhamankar.Theletterof
P.W.37ACPMr.DurafeisprovedatExh.323. P.W.29DCPMr.Singh
askedthestaffmemberstoleavehischamber. Heassuredthatthere
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 215
wasnopoliceofficerpresentinthechamberoraroundexcepthissteno
whotakesthedictation.HeputsomegeneralquestionstoA9Sandip
and ascertained that he was comfortable. P.W. 29 DCP Mr. Singh
introducedhimselfandinformedA9Sandipaboutthepurposeofhis
presence in the office. A9 Sandip stated that he wanted to make a
confessionalstatementvoluntarily.P.W.29DCPMr.SinghinformedA9
Sandipthathewasnotboundtomakeaconfessionalstatementandif
hemakesaconfessionalstatement,thesamewouldbeusedasevidence
againsthim.P.W.29DCPMr.SinghfurtheraskedA9Sandipwhether
anybody had offered him any inducement, promise or was there any
pressureformakingaconfessionwhichhasbeenansweredinnegative
byA9Sandip. P.W.29DCPMr.SinghalsoaskedwhetherA9Sandip
was subjected to any kind of illtreatment by investigating officer to
whichherepliedinthenegative.P.W.29DCPMr.Singhhadalsomade
himawarethathewasnotinthecustodyofI.O.andifhedidnotwant
to make a confession, he would not be sent back to the custody of
investigatingagency.Thereafter,thewitnessputsomequestionstoA9
Sandiptoascertainhiseducationalbackground,age,languagesknown
etc.andwassimultaneouslyrecordingthesame.WhenP.W.29DCPMr.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 216
SinghgotassuredthatA9wantstomakeaconfessionvoluntarily,he
askedhim whether he requires some time for reflection and he gave
timefor24hoursandtoldthathewouldbeinhiscustodyandnone
from the investigating agency would meet him. He also offered A9
Sandip to have presence of his friends, relatives or advocate during
recordingofhisconfession.A9Sandiprefused.P.W.29DCPMr.Singh
hadalsotoldA9Sandipthathecanchangehismindduringtheperiod
of reflection and it would not be obligatory on his part to make
confession. ThesaidaspectshavebeenrecordedasPartIwhichwas
readovertotheaccusedwhoaffirmedthesame.Hethensignedeach
pageofPartI. P.W.29DCPMr. Singhalsosignedeachpagethereof.
PartIisdulyprovedatExh.324.
197. P.W. 29 DCPMr. Singhwrote aletterto thepolicestation
Colaba, askingthemtomake separate arrangement of the lockup for
A9 Sandip. He asked Sr. P.I., Colaba police station to have medical
checkup of the A9 Sandip. The station diary entries in that regard
weremade.TheColabapolicestationofficerwasaskedtoproduceA9
Sandipagainon28.5.2008at2.30p.m. SinceP.W.29DCPMr.Singh
wasbusywithotherofficialwork,A9Sandipwasproducedbeforehim
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 217
at5.00p.m.on28.5.2008,pursuanttohisoralinstructions.
198. P.W. 29 DCP Mr. Singh asked the police party to leave his
chamber.HerepeatedallthequestionswhichhavebeenputtotheA9
Sandip in Part I to ensure whether he wanted to make a confession
voluntarily. HeaskedA9 Sandip whether hestillwanted tomakea
confessionandwhetherthetimegivenforreflectionwassufficient.A9
Sandipansweredthatitwassufficienttime.Healsoaskedhimwhether
he was subjected to any kind of illtreatment during the period of
reflectionoranybodyconnectedwiththeinvestigationmethimwhich
hereplied inthe negative. P.W. 29DCPMr. Singh askedA9 Sandip
whetherhewassubjectedtoanyinducementorthreatorpromiseto
makeaconfessionwhichherepliedinnegative.HeagaininformedA9
Sandipthatitwasnotbindinguponhimtomakeaconfessionandifhe
makesit,itcanbeusedasevidenceagainsthim. Healsomadehim
awarethatifhedidnotwishtomakeaconfession,hewouldnotbe
sentbacktothecustodyoftheinvestigatingagency. P.W.29DCPMr.
Singhtestifiedthathegenerallyascertainedthestateofwellbeginfrom
theappearanceandbodylanguageofA9Sandip.Fromtheanswersof
A9 Sandip to all his questions, the witness was satisfied that the
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 218
accusedwantedtomakeaconfessionvoluntarily. Thereafter,P.W.29
DCPMr.SinghaskedA9Sandipastowhichoffencehewantedtomake
confessionofuponwhichA9Sandipansweredthathewantedtomake
aconfessioninconnectionwiththemurderofKamlakarJamsandekar
andtheactivitiesofA1ArunGawali'sgang.Accordingly,P.W.29DCP
Mr.Singhputquestionstotheaccusedandtheanswersgiventhereto
cametoberecordedsimultaneouslyinresponsetoeachquestion.
199. P.W.29DCPMr.Singhfurthertestifiedthatherecordedthe
statementofA9Sandipinverbatiminhisownlanguageandthereafter,
it was read over to him and found to have been correctly recorded.
Thenhesignedeachpageofhisstatement. ItwassignedbyP.W.29
DCPMr.SinghalsowhichisrecordedasPartIIofthestatement. Itis
proved at Exh. 324A. After having been satisfied himself as to the
accusedto havemadeconfessionvoluntarily,P.W. 29 testified thathe
appended his certificate in that regard. It bears his signature. It is
provedatExh.324B.Therecordingofstatementwasconcludedlatein
the evening. P.W. 29 DCP Mr. Singh sealed both the parts of the
confessionalstatementalongwithhiscertificateandpreparedaletterto
theChiefMetropolitanMagistrate.Sinceitwaslateintheevening,he
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 219
sentbacktheaccusedtothelockupofColabapolicestation. Healso
directed the Colaba police station to follow his instructions given to
thembeforeA9Sandipwasgiventhemforbeingkeptinthelockupfor
reflection.P.W.29DCPMr.SinghhadalsodirectedtheofficerofColaba
policestationtoproduceA9beforetheCMMat11a.m.onthenext
day. Onthe next day, the Colaba police station official came to his
office with A9 Sandip. They collected the cover containing
confessional statement and left for producing the accused before the
CMM. TheCMMhandedoverA9Sandipbacktothecustodyofthe
I.O. It is further in the evidence of P.W. 29 DCP Mr. Singh that the
reportoftheCMMalongwiththestatementoftheaccusedismarkedat
Exh.325.ThewitnessreferstohislettertotheI.O.askinghimtoget
backA9tohiscustodyafterthepurposeofproductionoftheaccused.
ThesaidletterisatExh.326.
200.AperusalofExh.325,whichisaconfidentialletter,addressed
by Mr. M.H. Belose, CMM, Mumbai to this Court dated 29.5.2008,
indicatesthatduetoinadvertenceortheclericalmistake,thenameof
A10ShrikrishnaisreflectedinsteadofA9SandipGangan. However,
the subject of the letter does indicate that A9 Sandip was produced
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 220
beforethelearnedCMM.ThelearnedCMMperhaps,duetotheheavy
workload, could not ascertain the contents of the letter which he
signed,thiscannotbesaidtobeanillegality,butjustaclericalmistake,
forthestatementofA9Sandipannexedwiththeletterdoesindicate
that:= = =+ + == - = = ' -= - + = : = + = = r =|
- -| + ' == = r = =| = =| = + = r - | = =+ +
' +' ++ == = -+ = r| = + - = r| The confessional statement
wasrecordedasperhissayandhedoesnotwanttosayanythingelse.
Thus,theconfessionofbothA9andA10ShrikrishnaBabuGuravwere
acceptedbeforetheCMMandwerenotretracted.
201. Now, turning to the crossexamination of P.W. 29 DCP Mr.
Singh by the learned counsel Mr. Pasbola, the crossexamination is
mainlyonatrivialtechnicalaspectswhichdoesnotshakethetestimony
of this witness, which is quite natural, believable and inspires
confidence. Forthatmatter,normallythepoliceofficerofsuchahigh
rankwouldnotindulgeinactswhicharedetrimentaltoanindividual
orwhichareagainsttheestablishedprinciplesoflaw.P.W.29DCPMr.
Singh in his crossexamination admits that earlier, he had recorded
confessionalstatements. HehadstudiedtheprovisionsofMCOCAct
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 221
visavisCr.P.C.,atthattime.HeadmitsthathequestionedA9Sandip
inverbatimonbothdaysandalsoputsomesundryquestionsthough
thosehavenotbeenrecordedinPartIandII.Hecategoricallyadmits
thatheadheredtotherulesofconfession.Healsostatesthatasitwas
notmandatorytoascertainthedateofarrestoftheaccusedhedidnot
putanyquestionstoA9Sandiptothateffect.Healsotestifiedthatit
wasnotnecessarytoascertainastowhentheaccusedfirstexpressed
hisdesiretomakeconfessionandbeforewhomhesoexpressed. He
deniedthesuggestionthathedoesnotputanysuchquestionsinthat
regard.Itisagainbroughtinthecrossexaminationthatonbothdays,
hetoldtheaccusedthatifhedidnotmakeanyconfession,hewould
notbesentbacktotheinvestigatingagency. ThoughPartIandIIare
silentinthisregard,theadmissionbroughtincrossexaminationbythe
defenceitselfestablishesthathedidinformtheaccusedthatifhedid
notmakeaconfession,hewouldnotbesenttothecustodyofI.O.As
regards the satisfaction of P.W. 29 DCP Mr. Singh, after noticing the
appearance and body language of the accused, he found that the
accused wanted to make a confessional statement voluntarily and he
mentionedthesaidfactinthecertificate. Heclarifiedthatyear2007
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 222
hasbeenwronglymentionedinthetopofbothPartIandII. Healso
admitsthatithaswronglybeenshownadateas27.5.2007inPartII,
whichaccordingtothewitnessisatypographicalerrorwhichhedidnot
realizeatthattime.Thereafter,certainquestionswereaskedaboutthe
procedurewhen the letteris received in the office and aboutputting
inwardnumberoroutgoingcorrespondenceetc.Headmitsthatasper
Section 18(3) of the MCOC Act, the certificate of Part II does not
indicate time and date of recording of confessional statement.
However,hetestifiedthatthereisrecordinthenatureofstationdiary
entry of Colaba police station. He admits that he did not write the
certificateofPartIIoftheconfession onthelast pagesinceit wasa
pagelong,apagebreakwasinserted.Hedidnotfeelthattherewas
enoughspaceinPartIIforcertificate.Thewitnessalsoadmitsthatthe
certificate is not in his own handwriting. He did not call upon the
accusedtowritedownhisconfessionalstatementashewasnotsure
whether the accused would properly write down the confessional
statement.HealsoadmitsthatthelastpageofPartIIindicatethatthe
accusedhimselfreadtheconfessionalstatement,butitissilenttostate
thattheconfessionalstatementwasreadovertotheaccused.Thefact
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 223
remainsthattheaccusedhimselfreadhisconfessionalstatementand,
therefore,evenifthereisnomentioninthecertificate,itwouldnotbe
hazardous in any manner. He also admits that when he wrote the
certificate,theaccusedwaswellbeforehim,buthedidnotobtainhis
signature below the certificate. He denied the suggestion that he
obtained the signature of the accused on his confessional statement
beforethecertificatewasprepared. A9SandiphadstatedbeforeP.W.
29 DCP Mr. Singh about the date on which he was arrested by the
CrimeBranch,whichismentionedinthelastparagraphofPartIIofhis
confessionalstatement.P.W.29DCPMr.Singhalsoadmitsthatthereis
nomentioninPartIIthatheaskedtheColabapolicestationofficerto
producetheA9SandipbeforetheCMMat11.00a.m.on29.5.2008
andtocomebacktohisofficethereafteri.e.on29.5.2008,itselfalong
withtheaccused.Thoughthereisnorecordtoindicatethatitwaslate
in the evening on 28.5.2008, there is nothing to disbelieve the
testimonyofthiswitnessonoath.Thewitnessfurtheradmitsthatthere
isnospecificquestionputtotheaccusedwhetherhewassubjectedto
illtreatment by the investigating agency, but the witness referred to
Question nos. 9 and 15 of Part I, which indicates that he was asked
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 224
whether he had any complaint against the investigating agency or
against the person who arrested him, which he answered in the
negativeandwhileansweringQuestion no.15thatwhethertherewas
anypressureorthreatorundueinfluenceoranyallurementisgivento
himwhichalsohasbeendeniedbyhim. P.W.29DCPMr.Singhhas
deniedthattheaccuseddidnotmakeanyconfessiononbothoccasions
i.e. either Part I or Part II and that the certificate was allegedly
furnished to him by the investigating officer which he simply signed.
Hedeniedthesuggestionthataccusedwasphysicallyassaultedduring
thepolicecustodyand,therefore,hedidnotexaminehiminperson.
202. Duringcrossexamination,bythelearnedcounselMr.Ponda,
a question was asked whether the witness has studied the relevant
provisionsoftheEvidenceAct.Thewitnessadmitsandsaysthatheis
aware of the difference between admission and confession. He was
aware that under MCOC Act, he was empowered to record only
confessional statement and not any other statement. He recorded
confessionalstatementinthecrimecoveringoffencesrelatingtomurder
of Kamlakar Jamsandekar. Attention of P.W. 29 DCP Mr. Singh was
drawnandwasaskedtopointoutthematterfromthenarrativeofExh.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 225
324, indicating the role which he had played in commission of the
murderofKamlakarJamsandekar. P.W.29DCPMr.Singhpointedout
someportionwhichismarked'A'forconvenience.Hedeniedthatthis
markedportion'A'doesnotamounttoconfession.
203. A perusal of the portion marked 'A' in the confessional
statementofA9SandipExh.324Aindicatesthatinthebeginningof
January2007,atabout4p.m.,A15Patilcalledhimonthesecondfloor
of Gitai Building of A1 Arun Gawali and gave him Rs.60,000/. He
askedhimtogivethatamounttoA12Pratapwhowaswaitingneara
TeaKiosk.A9Sandip,therefore,gaveRs.60,000/toA12Pratap.At
that time, A12 Pratap said that he wasgoing to receive Rs.10 lakhs
fromA6Bhintadeforthework ofKamlakarJamsandekar(Murder).
ItispertinenttonotethatA9SandipresidesinDagdichawl,rightfrom
his birth. Even in his statement u/s. 313 ofCr.P.C., while answering
Questionno.6,inhisadditionalstatement,headmitsthatheknowsthat
A1ArunGawali'sofficeissituatedonthegroundfloorofGitaibuilding
andfurtherstatesthatpriortohisproductionbeforetheMagistrate,he
wasthreatenedbythepolicenottodiscloseanythingbeforethecourt.
HealsostatesthattheMagistratedidnotaskhimanythingaboutthe
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 226
confession.Beforeproducinghiminthecourt,thepolicewerelooking
athimangrily. ItcanbesaidthatthesaidA9Sandipisnotspeaking
thetruth,forChiefMetropolitanMagistrate,cannotbedisbelievedwho
hadaffirmedthattheaccusedhadvoluntarilygivenhisconfession.He
also states in his statement u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. that he was brutally
beatenbythepolice. Anelectricshockwasgivenandwasthreatened
nottodiscloseaboutittothedoctor. Nevertheless,itcannotbelost
sight of the fact that he had voluntarily given the confessional
statementbeforeP.W.29DCPMr. Singh, wherein hehadcategorically
statedhisroleaswellastheroleofA1ArunGawali,A6Bhintade,A7
Surve,A12Pratap,A13RaneandA15Patil.Itisalsoclearfromthe
confessionalstatementthatintheyear1997,oneJitendraDabholkar
andA1ArunGawaliformedapoliticalpartyknownas'AkhilBhartiya
Sena'.Hewasappointedasapeonintheofficeandthereafterhewas
workingasacomputeroperatorandwasreceivingsalaryofRs.2500/
permonth.Notonlythat,hehadstatedphonenumbersoftheofficeas
23015868and23091771.
204. It has been rightly argued by SPP Mr. Thakare that the
contentionofthedefencethatthestatementrecordedbytheDCPsare
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 227
notconfessionsastheydonotadmittheguiltasregardscommissionof
murderofKamlakarJamsandekarisabsurd.Indeed,theoffencesinthe
case in which the accused have given confessions pertains to an
organizedcrimesyndicatewhichisindulgedinorganisedcrimeandin
viewofthedefinitionofthewordabetgiveninSection2(1)(a)ofthe
MCOC Act, 1999 with its grammatical variations and cognate
expressionsincludesthecommunicationorassociationwithanyperson
withtheactualknowledgeorhavingreasontobelievethatsuchperson
isengagedinassisting'inanymanner' anorganizedcrimesyndicate
which if read with Sec. 3(2) leaves no scope to allege that the
statements given by the concerned accused are not confessions. As
such,thejudgmentsrelieduponbythedefenceinthecaseofPakhala
NarayanSwamyvs.Emperorandotherscanbedistinguished.
205. Going back to the confessional statement of A9, he had
stated before P.W.29 DCP Mr. Singh that the office bearers of Akhil
Bhartiya Sena and its workers used to supply information about the
constructionofnewstructuresandothermatterstoA1ArunGawali
whichincludesthenamesofthebuilders.Thereafter,thebuilderswere
summonedinthegroundfloorofGitaibuildingwherethereisaspecial
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 228
roomknownas BhajnachiKholi, whichmeansroomforchanting
Bhajanandthere,A1ArunGawalialongwithhishenchmenusedto
extort moneys from them. He further stated that one 'Matka King'
Pappu Savla used to pay Rs.5 lakhs per month to A1 Arun Gawali.
Theyalsousedtocollectmoneyfromthebuildersandmerchantsunder
thepretextof 'NavratriUtsav' andotherfestivalsthroughA15Suresh
PatilandotherstosendittoA1ArunGawali. Ifanyonefailstogive
money to A1 Arun Gawali, then he would be called in the room of
Bhajanwheresuchpersonsusedtobeassaultedbysticksandbelt.
206. A9Sandiphadfurtherconfessedthatinthefirstweekof
December,2006,theofficebearersofAkhilBhartiyaSena,A12Pratap
andA13RanehadbeentotheofficeofAkhilBhartiyaSenawithtwo
agedpersons,atabout2.45p.m. A12Prataphadabrowncoloured
bag,admeasuring1x1.1/2feetwithhim.A12PratapandA13Rane,
inthepresenceofA9SandipcalledA15Patildownstairsbygivinga
call on mobile. After some time, A15 Patil came down. A13 Rane
remainedintheofficeprobablybecauseheishandicapped.A9Sandip,
A15PatilalongwithA12Pratapalongwiththosetwoagedpersons
went to the second floor of Gitai building in the office of A1 Arun
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 229
Gawali.A15Patilhadclosedthedoorsfrominside.Atthattime,A12
Pratap gave the said bag to A1 Arun Gawali by informing that it
contained30lakhsrupees. AsperthedirectionofA1ArunGawali,
A15Patiltookthebag. A1ArunGawali,attherelevanttime,inthe
presence of A9 Sandip addressed those two aged persons by saying
JamsandekarYancheKaamHounJail,TumhiKaljiKaruNaka, means
theworkofJamsandekarwillbedoneandtheyneednotworry.After
gettingsuchassurance,A9Sandipalongwiththosetwopersonsand
A12Pratapcametothegroundfloorintheoffice.Thosetwopersons
werewaitingatthegatewhenA12PratapinformedA9Sandipthat
thosetwopersonswereA6BhintadeandA7Surve. Thereafter,A6
BhintadeandA7SurveandA12PratapandA13Raneleftthesaid
placetogether.
207. Again,atthecostofrepetition,A9Sandiphadstatedthat
inthemonthofJanuary2007,atabout4.00p.m.,attheinstanceof
A15Patil,whocalledhimatthesecondfloorofGitaibuilding,paidRs.
60,000/toA12Pratap whowas standingoutside a gatenearatea
kiosk.Atthattime,A12PratapinformedA9Sandipthathewouldget
Rs.10 lakhs from A6 Bhintade for the work of Kamlakar
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 230
Jamsandekar.
208. Ifthe confessions of A9 Sandip andA10 Shrikrishna are
juxtaposedvisavistheotherevidenceofthewitnessdiscussedherein
before, it hasbeensufficiently established by the prosecutionthatan
amountofRs.30lakhswasgivenforthecontractkillingofKamlakar
Jamsandekarmeaningtherebya'supari'byA6BhintadeandA7Surve
toA1ArunGawalithroughA12PratapandA13Rane,whointurn
hiredtheshootersbytakingaidandassistanceofA10Shrikrishna.No
doubt, all the accused depicted in the chart hereinabove, have
retracted their confessions before this court, but now the law is very
muchsettledincaseofMohd.FarooqAbdulGafurandanr.vs.State
of Maharashtra reported in 2010 (3) AIR BOM R (S.C.) 551. In
paragraph59,ithasbeenobservedandIquotethus:
Para 59: So far as conviction under MCOC is
concerned,itisquiteclearthatconvictioncouldbe
basedsolelyonthebasisofconfessionalstatement
itselfandsuchconvictionisalsopermissibleonthe
basis of the confessional statement of the co
accusedwhichcouldbeusedandrelieduponfor
thepurposeofconviction.
Notonlythat,theHon'bleSupremeCourtinthesaidruling
inparagraph85,hadobservedandIquotethus:
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 231
ThereasoningoftheHon'bleHighCourtthatthe
confessional statement of the coaccused are not
admissibleinevidencebecauseSection313Cr.P.C.
hadnotbeencompliedwithisnottenableasthere
is nonobstante clause in Section 18(3) which
precludestheapplicationofCr.P.C.and,therefore,
theevidenceofa coaccusedisadmissible asthe
piecesubstantiveevidence.
ItisnotthecasethatthereisnocomplianceofSection313ofCr.P.C.
209. Keeping in mind the ratio laiddown by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the ruling cited supra while interpreting Section
18(3), it can verywell be said that not only by the confessional
statementsofA9SandipandA10Shrikrishna,eventheconfessional
statementofA15PatilalongwiththeconfessionalstatementsofA3
Ashokkumar Jaiswar, A4 Narendra Giri and A5 Anil Giri, which
corroborates each other in material particulars and which are quite
cogent and convincing, one can safely say that the organized crime
syndicate headed by A1 Arun Gawali hatched a wellplanned
conspiracy with full intention and knowledge to murder Kamlakar
Jamsandekar. ItiscrystalclearthatA9SandipandA10Shrikrishna
didnotretracttheirconfessionsbeforetheCMMand,therefore,there
isnoroomfordoubtthatthoseconfessionswerevoluntary. Eventhe
confessionofA15PatilwhichIshalldiscusshereinafter,corroborates
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 232
theconfessionofA9SandipandA10Shrikrishna.
CONFESSIONALSTATEMENTOFA15SURESHPATIL:
210. P.W. 18 Dilip Sawant was DCP Zone II. He recorded the
confessional statement of A15 Patil. His evidence indicates that
pursuanttotheletterofJointCommissioner(Crime)dated11.7.2008,
nominatinghimtorecordthestatementofA15PatilinDCB,CIDC.R.
No.69/2008.Herecordedtheconfessionalstatement.Thesaidletter
ofJointC.P.isprovedatExh.233. P.W.18,DCPMr.Sawantwrotea
lettertotheI.O.ofthecaseon12.7.2008,directinghimtoproducethe
accusedon13.7.2008.ThesaidletterisprovedatExh.234. Healso
wrotealettertoSr.P.I.policestationChembur,askinghimtoprovide
guards, which is proved at Exh. 235. Accordingly, A15 Patil was
producedbeforehimbyPSIDhamankaralongwithaletterExh.236.
Beforehisproduction,hewasgotmedicallyexamined. Thecertificate
ofwhichismarkedasX52 dated13.7.2008.P.W.18DCPMr.Sawant
ascertainedfromPSIDhamankaraboutthearrestoftheaccusedwhich
wasmadeon26.6.2008andhewasinpolicecustodytill17.7.2008.
211. P.W.18DCPMr.Sawantthereafteraskedallthepolicestaff
to leave his office and called his orderly Mr. Hemale to ensure that
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 233
nobodywouldenterhischamberwithouthispermission. Duringthe
talkwiththeaccused,herealizedthathecanconversewiththeaccused
inMarathiandHindulanguages. Onbeingasked,theaccuseddenied
that there was any influence to give a confessional statement. He
ascertainedthatitwasbeinggivenvoluntarily,afterputtinghimcertain
questions. P.W.18DCPMr.Sawantintroducedhimselfandthereafter,
askedaboutthedetailsoftheaccusedsuchashisname,ageetc. The
accusedgavehisnameasSureshRaghunathPatilalias'MothiBank'(Big
bank),residentofDagdichawl,BycullaEast.Heis10
th
standardfailed.
Hevolunteeredthathewantedtogiveaconfessionwithrespecttothe
murder of deceased Kamlakar Jamsandekar and the activities of A1
ArunGawaligang.P.W.18DCPMr.Sawantwarnedhimthatheisnot
boundtogivetheconfessionasthesamewouldbeusedasevidence
against him. After ascertaining the voluntariness by putting some
questions, he realised that the A15 Patil really wants to give a
voluntaryconfession. A15Patilhasalsodeclinedtotakelegaladvice
orpresenceofhisfriendsorrelativesetc. Thereafter,A15Patilwas
given24hours'timeforreflection.ThePartIwasaccordinglyprepared
whichwassignedbybothA15PatilandP.W.18DCPMr.Sawant.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 234
212. P.W.18DCPMr.Sawantthereafter,placedtheaccusedinthe
custodyofSr.P.I.ofChemburpolicestationviz.Mr.Pathadewithastrict
instructionsnottoallowanyonetomeettheaccusedinthelockupof
policestationChembur.ThesaidletterisatExh.238.Hedirectedthe
PIPathadetogettheaccusedmedicallyexamined.Themedicalreport
accordinglywastenderedandmarkedasX53.Thecopyofthewritten
instructionsisatExh.239.P.W.18DCPMr.Sawantalsoinstructedthe
Sr. PI to remove all other accused from the lockup of the Chembur
police station and to detain them at Ghatkopar police station. The
instructionswerefollowed.Thetruecopyofthelockupregisterdated
13.7.2008ismarkedasX54.AnothermedicalreportisatX55andthe
stationdiaryentryregardingmedicalexaminationreportismarkedat
X56.
213. A15PatilwasproducedbeforeP.W.18DCPMr.Sawanton
15.7.2008at12.30p.m.byPIofChemburpolicestationwithaletter
whichismarkedasExh.240. P.W.18DCPMr.Sawantagainensured
thatexcepthimandhisorderly,nobodywaspresentnearhischamber
ornobodywouldenterthechamber.Onbeingasked,A15Patilagain
reiteratedthathewantedtogivetheconfessionvoluntarily,evenafter
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 235
givingsufficienttimeforreflection.A15Patilaffirmedthatneitherhe
waspressurizednorinducedtogiveaconfessionalstatement.Hewas
again informed that if he confesses, that would be used as evidence
against him. A15 Patil affirmed that he knew the consequences of
making confession. He made it clear that he wanted to give a
confessional statement as he was repenting . He refused to take
assistanceofhisrelativesorlegaladviceduringhisconfession. After
getting satisfied, P.W. 18 DCP Mr. Sawant recorded the confession of
A15 Patil, who according to this witness, confessed his role of
collecting money on behalf of the gang and also confessed to the
murderofKamlakarJamsandekar.Theconfessionalstatementwasread
overtohim. A15Patilhimselfreadhisconfessionalstatementwhich
hefoundtobecorrect. Thereafter,heputhissignatureoneachpage
andsoalsobyP.W.18DCPMr.Sawant.Thesaidconfessionalstatement
isprovedatExh.241.
214. P.W. 18 DCP Mr. Sawant prepared a certificate about his
satisfaction which is in his own handwriting with signature and is
markedasExh.241A,whichisappendedtotheconfessionalstatement.
Hetestifiedthatheplacedconfessionalstatementinacoverandsealed
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 236
it.HeaddressedalettertotheCMM,whichisatExh.242.Thereafter,
hehandedoverthecustodyofA15Patilalongwiththesealedcoverfor
production before the CMM. He instructed PI Pathade to take the
accused in veil while producing before the CMM. The letter to that
effect is at Exh. 243. P.W. 18 DCP Mr. Sawant informed the I.O. in
writingabout thecompletingthe procedure ofrecording confessional
statementandhandingovertheaccusedtoPIDhamankar. Theoffice
copyofthesaidletterismarkedatExh.244.Thestationdiaryentryof
ChemburpolicestationismarkedX57. ThereportofCMMismarked
atExh.245.
215. TheconfidentialletterofCMMdated15.7.2008Exh.245
revealsthattheaccusedhasretractedhisconfessionbystatingthathis
signatures were obtained on written papers and that though he has
beenresidinginDagdichawlwithhisparentsrightfromhischildhood,
heisabsolutelynotconcernedwiththeA1ArunGawali'sgangorhis
AkhilBhartiyaSenaanditsmembersnorheknewanythingaboutthe
murderofKamlakarJamsandekar.
216. P.W.18DCPMr.Sawantwasextensivelycrossexaminedby
Mr. Ponda, learned counsel for A1. P.W. 18 DCP Mr. Sawant has
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 237
admittedthathedidnotaskpoliceinspectorastowhenA15Patilfirst
expressed his desire to make confession. He admits that he had
knowledge about the arrest of the accused on 26.6.2008. He also
admits that I.O. did not tell him that the accused had made an
application on 26.6.2008, informing that he did not want to make
confession.Thereafter,certainquestionswereaskedaboutthemanner
in which the letters are received in the office, how they are
acknowledged,whoputthesignatureanddateetc.,whicharenotvery
material.However,thewitnessadmitsthatafterreceiptofaletter,his
officeputsarubberimpressiononlyonthedocumentreceivedandnot
onthecopythereofonwhichhisstaffsignsacknowledgingthereceipt
ofthesaidletter.HealsoadmitsthattheendorsementonExh.237and
otherendorsementsonExh.237A arequitedifferentwitheachother.
However,hedeniedthatthelettersat Exh.234and234A havebeen
fabricated. Thereafter, the learned counsel put certain questions as
regardsthe provisionsof MCOCAct, TADAand Cr.P.C. aswell as the
LawofEvidence.Healsoadmitsthatthematteronpagenos.1and2
beforerecordingofPartIcommenced,hasbeennoteddownbyhimon
his own after making the accused comfortable by putting him some
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 238
formal questions such as his name and as to whether he has been
pressurizedetc.Merelybecausethereisnorecordkeptbythewitness
about the preliminary questioning, does not ipsofacto render the
retractionofconfessionalstatementofA15Patil,inadmissible,foreven
retraction should be voluntary. He also denied the suggestion that
before recording the confessional statement, A15 Patil had been
suppliedwithadraftofquestionsinadvancewhichwerethecopiesof
thequestionsputtoA10Shrikrishna and A11Narkar which he has
denied. He denied both these parts have been copied down on the
readymade parts supplied to him by the I.O. His evidence further
reveals that when he came to know that accused had retracted his
confessionalstatementbeforetheCMM,hegotsurprised. Hedenied
thathehadobtainedthesignaturesofA15onreadymadePartIand
PartIIand,therefore,A15PatilhadsostatedbeforetheCMM.
217. Whilecrossexamininghimonbehalfofaccusednos.1,2,6,
7, 11, 15 and 20, learned counsel Mr. Pasbola has also put certain
technical questions e.g. the question does not reflect the exact time
giventotheaccusedforreflection,whichthewitnessadmits. Healso
admitsthatinfact,hewantedtogivemorethan24hoursforreflection
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 239
toA15Patil.P.W.18DCPSawantfurtheradmitsthatpageno.1ofPart
Idoesnotbearsignatureoftheaccusedoneithersideandsoalsoon
pagenos.2to4ofPartI,frontsideandonpagenos.1to5onfront
sideof PartII. Hefurtheradmitsthat atthe endofnarrative ofhis
confessionalstatement,A15Patiltoldhimthathehadinitiallyrefused
tomakeaconfessionalstatement,butthewitnessdidnotquestionhim
in that regard. At this stage, again it would be apposite to place
reliance of the judgment in the case of Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur
andanr.vs.StateofMaharashtrareportedin2010(3)AIRBOMR
(S.C.)551. Inparagraph56,itisheldbytheHon'bleSupremeCourt
whichreadsthus:
Para 56: The High Court disbelieved the
aforesaid confessional statements of accused
nos. 5 & 6 on the ground that the said
confessional statements were inadmissible in
evidencetherebyitreversedthefindingsofthe
trial court. The High Court came to the
aforesaidconclusiononthebasisthatthereisno
evidencetoshowthatanypreliminarywarning
wasgivenpriortotherecordingofwarningwas
givenpriortotherecordingoftheconfessional
statement, the same was inadmissible in
evidence.
Para59: SofarasconvictionunderMCOCAis
concerned,itisquiteclearthatconvictioncould
bebasedsolelyonthebasisoftheconfessional
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 240
statement itself and such conviction is also
permissible on the basis of the confessional
statement of the coaccused which could be
used and relied upon for the purpose of
conviction.InthecaseofStatev.Nalini,(1999)
5 SCC 253, it was held by this court in the
context of Section 15 of the Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
(now repealed), which is pari materia with
Section18oftheMCOCAthattheevidenceofa
coaccused is admissible as a piece of
substantive evidence and in view of the non
obstanteclause,theCr.P.C.willnotapply.
218. Thus,thelawisquiteclearasinthecaseinhandsincethere
is nothing on record to say that the confessional statement of A9
Sandip and A10 Shrikrishna are not voluntary, they can be made
admissibleandconvictioncanbebasedontheconfessionalstatementof
theaccusedandalsoagainstthecoaccusedinviewoftheratiolaid
downbythesaidruling. Evenminortechnicalitiesabouttheformof
certificate, absence of signatures on the some part of the statement
wouldnotaffectotherwisecogentconfessionalstatement.
219. A perusal of Part I of the confessional statement of A15
revealsthatP.W.18DCPMr.Sawanthasdulyfollowedtheprocedure
enunciatedinSection18oftheMCOCAct.
220. Now, coming to the second part which reveals that A15
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 241
Patilwasalsoknownas'MothiBank'isconnectedwithA1ArunGawali
since 1997 as he was working as a gateman/watchman atthe Dagdi
chawl and used to permit the visitors to enter the Dagdi chawl. He
statesthatoneSadaPavleandVishwanathHingeappointedhimasa
Mathadi labourwhereheusedtogetsalarywithoutwork. Inlieuof
that,heusedtodoprivateworkofSadaPavle.Subsequently,hestarted
workingforthegangofA1ArunGawalisince2001andwaslooking
afterthefinancialaffairsofthegang.A1ArunGawaliusedtopayhim
Rs.15,000/andsomeextrapocketmoneyand,therefore,hewasalso
knownas'MothiBank'(Bigbank).HespecificallystatesthatA1Arun
Gawali and the members of his gang used to extort money from
buildersandcableoperators.Thosewhousedtorefuse,werecalledin
the ground floor room known as Bhajnachi Kholi and were
threatened. Motorcycles and some other vehicles as well as
automobileswerepurchasedindifferentnamesfortheuseofmembers
ofthegang. ThemembersofthegangofA1ArunGawaliaswellas
the office bearers of Akhil Bhartiya Sena used to collect information
which they used to supply to the leader and thereafter, gangster
MotiramMahadik,residentofMandarNiketanChawl,Bycullausedto
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 242
collectextortionmoneyanddeposititwithA15Patil.A20SunilGhate
andoneBabuDigheusedtocollectmoneyfromthecableoperatorsof
MazgaonareaandusedtodepositwithA15Patil. Hefurtherstates
that the Matka operator Pappu Savla and his partner Pankaj Shah,
VinodBhagatandoneJayaBhagatwhooperateKalyanMatka,usedto
paymoney. PappuSavlausedtopayRs.5lakhspermonthandJaya
Bhagat used to pay Rs.1.50 lakh to A1 Arun Gawali gang. One
Prabhakar Raut of Arun Gawali gang and one Suhas Roge used to
collectmoneyfromPappuSavlaandJayaBhagat. A15Patilusedto
keeptherecordindiariesaboutthereceiptofextortedamountalong
withoneVishwanathHinge,P.W.25.P.W.25Hingethoughhasturned
hostile,whoisadmittedlyaresidentofDagdichawl,admittedthathe
signedthepanchanamaExh.183inanormalstate.Ishalldiscusshis
evidencelateron. A15Patilfurtherstatesthattheamountcollected
byextortionusedtobeutilisedforthefamilymembersofthegangafter
the death of a member. The salary of the security guard and other
office bearers of Akhil Bhartiya Sena was also paid out of the said
amount.Alltheentriesweremadeintheregisterwhichwerechecked
byA1ArunGawaliintermittently. HestatesthatwheneverA1Arun
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 243
GawaliusedtobeinJail,A20SunilGhateusedtotakehisposition.
221. HefurtherstatesthatinthebeginningofDecember2006,
A1ArunGawaliinformedhimthatA12PratapandA13Ranewere
goingtovisitDagdichawlalongwithA6BhintadeandA7Surve,for
A6 Bhintade and A7 Surve had given a 'supari' to kill Kamlakar
Jamsandekar,aCorporatorofShivSena.Accordingly,inthesecondor
third week of December 2006, around noon, A12 Pratap and A13
RanealongwithA6BhintadeandA7SurvecametotheofficeofAkhil
BhartiyaSenaatGitaibuilding. Atthattime,A9Sandipwaspresent
whoisacomputeroperator.ExceptA13Rane,allofthemwenttothe
fifthfloor.A12Prataphadabrowncolouredbag.A15Patilclosedthe
dooroftheoffice.A12PratapgavethesaidbagtoA1ArunGawaliby
statingthatitcontainedRs.30lakhs.A1ArunGawaliaskedA15Patil
toacceptthebagandatthesametime,A1ArunGawaliassuredA6
BhintadeandA7Survethatthe'work'ofJamsandekarwouldbedone
and further said that they should not worry. (Jaamsandekar Yanche
Kaam Honun Jayeel, Tumhi Kalji Karun Naka). Thereafter, A6
Bhintade,A7Surve,A9SandipandA12PrataplefttheDagdichawl
andA15Patilkeptthesaidbaginacupboard.Atthattime,A1Arun
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 244
GawaliinstructedA15PatilthatifA12PrataporA13Ranedemand
some amount, he should pay them. Accordingly, in the month of
January, 2007, in the first week, as per the instructions of A1 Arun
Gawali, A15 Patil had paid Rs.60,000/ to A12 Pratap through A9
Sandip. He further states that in the month of March, 2007, A12
PratapandA13RanewerearrestedincaseofthemurderofKamlakar
Jamsandekar.Atthattime,aspertheinstructionsofA1ArunGawali,
A15PatilhadpaidRs.20,000/tothemotherofA12Pratap.Afterthe
arrest of A1 Arun Gawali in April 2008, A15 Patil states that all of
themstartedleavingDagdichawl.AspertheinstructionsofA20Sunil
Ghate, all the diaries containing the details of accounts and other
papers,musterrollaswellastwomobilesofA1ArunGawaliwerekept
inabaganditwasgiventoP.W.10AnkushGharkar,residentofGitai
building,1
st
floor,DagdiChawlwhichheconcealed. Thereafter,A15
Patil left Mumbai and went to Pune and thereafter to Aurangabad.
LateronhewasarrestedatSangli. Hefurtherstatesthatduetothe
terrorofA1ArunGawaliandaspertheinstructionsofadvocate,he
had initially stated in the court that he was not ready to give a
confessionalstatement,butheisnowrepentingforhisearlierstatement
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 245
madebeforethecourtand,therefore,voluntarilygivingthestatement.
HesignedthesamealongwithP.W.18DCPMr.Sawant.
CONFESSIONALSTATEMENTOFA11DINESH@DINYALAXMAN
NARKAR
222. P.W. 20 DCP, Yadav Pandu Dhoom, Exh. 260, recorded
confessional statement ofA11 Narkar. P.W. 20 Mr. Dhoomwas DCP,
Fort Zone. He testified on oath that he received a letter of Joint
Commissioner of Police Mr. Rakesh Maria Exh. 261 to record the
confessionalstatementofA11Narkar.HewrotealettertoP.W.37ACP
DurafeExh.262. Onthenextday,A11Narkarwasproducedbefore
himbytheI.O.alongwithletterExh.263whichbearsthesignatureof
ACPMr.Durafe. HecontactedSr.P.I.ofYellowGatepolicestationon
phone and asked them to send escort party to his office. PSI
Dhamankar produced the A11 Narkar in his chamber. After
ascertaining that there is nobody except his computer operator, he
talked about the background of A11 Narkar and put him certain
questions. P.W.20DCPMr.Dhoomalsointroducedhimselfandasked
him that whether he wants to make a confessional statement
voluntarily. He also told A11 Narkar about his rank and found the
accused was comfortable conversing in Marathi language. He also
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 246
madehimawarethathewasnotconcernedwithinvestigation.Healso
ascertained that the accused was not under pressure, inducement or
promisebyanyone. HealsoinformedtheA11Narkarthatheisnot
bound to make confession and if he makes so, it can be used as the
evidenceagainsthimandhemightbeconvicted.A11Narkarsiadthat
hewasawareaboutthesame,butduetorepentance,hewantstomake
aconfessionalstatement. P.W.20DCPMr.Dhoomput14questionsto
A11 Narkarwhichwereansweredby the A11 Narkar. A11 Narkar
stated before P.W. 20 DCP Mr. Dhoom that he wants to make a
confession in respect of the murder of a Corporator Kamlakar
Jamsandekar. the accused declined the offer of presence of his
relatives, friends or advocate during the course of recording the
confession.Theaccusedwasalsomadeawarethathewouldbegiven
24hours' timeforreflectionandtothinkoverhisdecisiontomakea
confession. Theprintoutofthesaidrecordingwastakenout. Itwas
readbytheaccusedandthereafter,eachpageofthesamewassigned.
P.W.20DCBMr.Dhoomhadalsoputhissignatureaccordingly.ThePart
IismarkedasExh.264.
223. P.W.20DCPMr.Dhoomgaveawrittenordertotheofficerof
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 247
YellowGatepolicestationtokeeptheaccusedinseparatelockupandto
ensure that noone would meet him without his permission. The
endorsementtothateffectisatExh. 264A. Thereafter,thecustodyof
theA11NarkarwashandedovertoAPIKambleofYellowGatepolice
station and a letter was addressed to Sr. PI of the police station to
ensurethatnopersonwouldmeetA11Narkarinthelockupwithout
hispermission. TheacknowledgmentofthesaidletterisatExh.265.
P.W.20DCPMr.Dhoomhadobtainedthecertifiedcopyofthestation
diaryentryof5.6.2008,indicatingcomplianceofhisdirectionsbythe
YellowGatepolicestation.ItismarkedatExh.267.
224. A11Narkarwasproducedbeforehimon5.6.2008at2.00
p.m.byPSIThoratandthestaffattachedtoYellowGatepolicestation.
all of them asked to leave his chamber. Thereafter, P.W. 20 DCP Mr.
DhoomalongwithA11Narkarwerepresentinhischamberandthe
computeroperator.P.W.20DCPMr.Dhoomaskedwhetherthetimeof
24hoursgiventohimwassufficientforreflectionwhichheansweredin
the affirmative. P.W. 20DCP Dhoom enquired with A11 Narkar
whetherthepoliceofficershadpressurizedhimtomakeaconfession,
A11 Narkar stated that still he wanted to make a confessional
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 248
statementanddeniedtohavepressurizedorpromisedbyanybodyto
makeaconfessionalstatement. Heagainmadehimawarethatitwas
notobligatoryonhisparttomakeaconfession. Itwasinformedthat
theconfessionalstatementcanbeusedasevidenceagainsthimandhe
might be convicted. The accused refused to take assistance of his
relativesoradvocateduringhisconfession. Theaccusedagainstated
thatsinceheisrepenting,hewantstoconfess.Accordingly,allthishas
been recorded simultaneously in the form of question answer and
thereafter,theconfessionalstatementofA11Narkarwasrecorded.Its
print out was taken out which was read by the A11 Narkar and
thereafter,puthissignatureoneachpageandsoalsobyP.W.20DCP
Mr.Dhoom.ThesaidPartIIismarkedasExh.268.
225. ThelearnedcounselMr.PondaforA1objectedexhibiting
thesaidstatementonthegroundthatitisnotaconfessionandatthe
most,informationrelatingtothemurderofKamlakarJamsandekar.To
some extent, it is true that the tenor of language of confessional
statement of A11 Narkar is more or so is an information about the
murderofKamlakarJamsandekar. Theprosecutionhasnotsucceeded
in bringing on record sufficiently through the evidence of any of the
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 249
witnessesthatA11Narkarwasinanywayconnectedwiththemurder
ofKamlakarJamsandekar.
226. P.W.20DCPMr.Dhoomthereafter,testifiedthathesealed
bothPartIandPartIIanddraftedalettertotheCMMExh.269. The
custodyoftheA11NarkarisgiventoPSIThoratwithinstructionsto
produceA11NarkarbeforetheCMM.Theofficecopyoftheletterisat
Exh.270.ReportoftheCMMisatExh.271.
227. TheconfidentialletterExh.271bytheCMM,addressedto
this Court indicates that A11 Narkar has retracted his confession by
stating that his signatures were obtained on handwritten papers in
Hindi.
228. Duringcross,thewitnessadmitsthathegotsurprisedwhen
he learnt that A11 Narkar had retracted his confessional statement
before the CMM by stating that he did not make any confessional
statementbeforeP.W.20DCPMr.Dhoom. Hestatesthatheenquired
withtheA11whetherhecouldmakehisconfessionalstatementinhis
ownhandwritinguponwhich,A11Narkarstatedthathishandwriting
wasnotgood. HeadmitsthathedidnotrecordthisfactinPartIor
Part II or anywhere else. He also admits that he did not make any
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 250
efforts to secure mechanical device to record the confessional
statement. Thereafter, certain questions were put about the office
procedureinreceivingtheletter,puttingtherubberimpression,making
initials etc. Thereafter, the witness was confronted with document
markedasExhs.263,263A,265,266,267and270bysuggestingthat
thosedocumentsarefabricatedlateronwhichhedenied. Headmits
thathedidnotmakeanyrecordofquestionswhichhewantedtoputon
theproductionofA11Narkarbeforehimon4.6.2008. Heputthose
questionsasoccurredtohiminverbatim.Thewitnessinparagraph20
admitsthathewasempoweredtorecordstatementonlyifitamountsto
aconfessionandnototherwise.Asalreadystated,thisaccusedhasnot
participatedintheconspiracyofmurderofKamlakarJamsandekarin
anymannerand,therefore,hisconfessiontothateffectcannotbesaid
tobe a confession inviewof Section18ofthe MCOCAct, 1999. I,
therefore, sincerely feel that confession of A11 Narkar cannot be
acceptedashisconfession.However,fromtheotherevidencediscussed
hereinbefore, his confessional statement can be considered to the
extentforprocurementofthehandgunArt.5fromvillageVilayewhich
wasgivenbyA8Surendra.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 251
229. The prosecution has also examined P.W. 5 Pradip Shinde
Exh.168, whoworkedwithasecurityagencyviz.CaptainSecurity.
HeisafriendofA11Narkar. A11introducedhimwithA12Pratap,
A13RaneandA10Shrikrishna.Hehasidentifiedallofthemsittingin
the dock. The relations of this witness with these three accused are
friendly. Occasionally, A11 Narkar used to take him to Sakinaka to
meetA12Pratap,A13RaneandA10Shrikrishna.On34occasions,
A10Shrikrishna,A12PratapandA13RanehadbeentoSewriCourt.
According to this witness, one Solanki was A12's foe who used to
attendtheSewriCourt.A12PrataphadplannedtoeliminateSolanki
and,therefore,thesefouraccusedusedtogotoSewriCourt.However,
their plan could not be materialized as on all those dates, the said
SolankididnotattendSewriCourt.
230. P.W.5ShindetestifiedthatduringtheCorporationelections
of2007,hehadsupplied78boysforA13Rane'scampaigning.Atthat
time,A12PratappaidhimRs.2500/,uponwhich,hetoldA12Pratap
thattheamountwasinadequate.P.W.12Pratapthereupongavehiman
offer of Rs.2 lakhs and a revolver for eliminating Kamlakar
JamsandekarwhowaselectedasaCorporatorfromthesamewardin
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 252
2007. P.W. 5 Shinde told A12 Pratap that he would let him know
about the offer later on. On the same day, P.W. 5 Shinde met A11
Narkar.HeapprisedA11NarkarabouttheoffergivenbyA12Pratap
upon which, A11 Narkar asked him to turn down the offer as the
amountofferedwasnotadequate. A11Narkaralsotoldthiswitness,
hetoohadturneddowntheoffer.
231. The learned counsel Mr. Rasal for Accused nos. 8, 12, 13
and21substantiatedtheevidenceofthiswitnessbyelicitingfromhis
mouth that when this witness learnt from the newspaper about the
murderofKamlakarJamsandekar,theyrealizedthatthiswasthevery
personforwhomA12Prataphasgivenanoffer.Thewitnessdeposed
thatitdidnotcometohismindthatheshouldapproachthepoliceand
reportabouttheoffergivenbyP.W.12Pratap.Thisisridiculousforno
person who had refused the offer for committing murder would
approachthepoliceandtolandhimselfintrouble.Similarly,questions
askedaskedtosomeoftheprosecutionwitnessesbythedefenceasto
whytheydidnotapproachthepolice.Itisofcommonknowledgethat
inourcountry,evenabonafidecomplainantaggrievedwithsomething
doesnoteasilyapproachthepoliceforexperienceofcommonmanis
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 253
not very satisfactory. The crossexamination further reveals that the
offer to kill Jamsandekar for a consideration of Rs.2 lakhs is an
omission though the defence has tried to bring it in the form of
omissiononrecord.ItfurtherrevealsthatwhileA12Pratapgavehim
anoffertokillJamsandekar,hedidnotenquirewithhimforthereason
behindit.Thecrossexaminationfurtherrevealsthatthiswitnessdoes
notremembertheexactdateonwhichfourofthemhadbeentoSewri
CourttokillSolanki. However,itcanbeverywellinferredthatthey
had been to Sewri Court to kill one Solanki. So long as is friendly
relationswithA13Raneareconcerned,itprovedtobeanomission.
However, interestingly, it has been again admitted by this witness in
cross that the offer to kill Kamlakar Jamsandekar came from A12
Pratap,wasoneoroneandhalfmonthpriortohismurder.Itfortifies
thefactthatA12PrataphadfirstgaveanoffertoA11Narkarandthen
to this witness which is also corroborated from the confessional
statementofA11NarkarExh.268 whereinhehadstatedbeforeDCP
thatinthemonthofJanuary2007,A12PratapandA13Raneasked
himwhetherhewasacceptedtheofferofkillingKamlakarJamsandekar
upon which he refused and thereafter, P.W. 5 Shinde informed him
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 254
about the said offer was given by A12 Pratap which this witness
refused.
232. During his cross by Mr. Pasbola, he admits that he was
arrestedandprosecutedinanoffenceforstabbinginwhichhehasbeen
acquitted.HewasaprisonerinYeravdaJailfor89months.Hedenied
that he belongs toBalaSurve's gang. The defence has succeeded in
bringing on record that antecedents of this witness from which, it is
apparentthatheisacriminalindulgedinvariousactivitiesinthepast.
ThewitnessdeniedthesuggestionthatwhenA12PratapgavehimRs.
2500/atthattimeitself, he offered Rs.2lakhstothewitness and a
revolver to kill Kamlakar Jamsandekar. Certain minor omissions are
brought onrecordwith respecttothepaymentof Rs.2500/ byA12
Pratap for supplying the boys during the election campaign of A13
Rane.AttheendofPartIIofhiscross,thefactthatA12Pratapgave
himanofferofRs.2lakhsforeliminatingKamlakarJamsandekarand
alsohehadpaidhimRs.2500/,hasbeenfortified.ThefactthatA11
Narkarhadturneddowntheofferonthegroundofinadequacyofthe
considerationandthiswitnesshadalsoturneddownthesaidofferfor
the same reason, is proved to be an omission only with respect to
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 255
inadequacyofconsiderationandnototherwise. Thefactremainsthat
A12PratapdidofferRs.2lakhsforeliminatingKamlakarJamsandekar.
233. DuringreexaminationbythelearnedSPPMr.Thakare,itis
elicited from this witnesss that A12 Pratap had paid him Rs.2500/
after the Corporation election was over and further he has been
acquitted in all the criminal matters. During further cross by Mr.
Pasbola, the learned counsel, the witness denied the suggestion that
whatever he has stated in the examinationinchief in relation to the
questionsputtohiminreexamination,wasuntrue.
CONFESSIONALSTATEMENTOFA3ASHOKKUMARJAISWAR:
234. P.W. 17 Vinaykumar Chaube Exh. 220, was working as a
RegionalPassportOfficer,Mumbaiatthetimeofhisevidence,whichis
intherankofDIG.In2008,hewasDCP,ZoneIV,whichisequivalentto
theSP.HetooreceivedaletterofJointC.P.ofCrimeforrecordingthe
confessionalstatementofA3AshokkumarJaiswarwhichisatExh.221.
By letter Exh. 222, he directed the I.O. to produce A3 Ashokkumar
beforehimon28.5.2008. HealsowrotealettertoPIBandratokeep
theescortreadyon28.5.2008.ThecopyoftheletterisatExh.223.
235. A3 Ashokkumar was produced before him on 28.5.2008
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 256
alongwithaletterExh.224.Hetestifiedthathetooktheaccusedin
custody and then asked the officer Rodrigues who had brought the
accusedtogobacktohisoffice.AletterwaswrittentotheIOinthat
regardwhichismarkedatExh.225. Ashasbeendonebytheearlier
DCPs., same procedure was followed by P.W. 17 by asking the A3
Ashokkumarastowhichlanguagehewouldbecomfortable,whetherhe
wantedtomakeconfessionvoluntarilyandwhetherhewaspressurized
orofferedanypromisetomakeaconfessionandthatnobodywasthere
exceptthiswitness.Heassuredhimthatnowheisnotinthecustodyof
theIO.A3AshokkumarwascomfortablewithHindilanguage.Healso
asked preliminary questions and realized that A3 wanted to make a
voluntaryconfession.Hewasalsowarnedthatheisnotboundtomake
itandifhedoesso,itcanbeusedasevidenceagainsthim.Theprint
outwastakenwhichisthePartIofthestatement.Itwasreadoverto
theA3,whichwasaffirmedbyhimandthereafter,signedoneachpage
of Part I. Similarly, P.W 17 Vinaykumar had signed all the pages.
Thereafter,hewasgiven24hourstimeforreflection,interalia,taking
hismedicalexaminationandtokeephiminaseparatelockupatpolice
stationBandra.ThesedirectionsweregiventoofficerMr.Patil.Hewas
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 257
also directed to ensure that no police officers of DCB,CID meets A3
Ashokkumarinthelockup.
236. Assuch,hewasagainproducedon29.5.2008at2.30p.m.
OfficecopyofthesaidletterwithsignatureofofficerMr.NitinPatilis
marked at Exh. 226. Again, after ensuring that except stenographer
andthiswitness,therewasnobodyelse,P.W.17Mr.Vinaykumaragain
putthequestionstoascertainwhethertheconfessionalstatementwas
madevoluntarily to whichaccusedanswered inthe affirmative. The
accuseddeniedtohavebeenthreatenedorpromisedbyanybody. The
24hours'timewassufficient.theaccusedknewthattheconfessioncan
beusedasevidenceagainsthim.TheA3Ashokkumarrefusedtohave
assistanceofhisfriendsorlegaladviceduringhisstatement.Onbeing
asked, A3 said that due to repentance, he wanted to make a
confessional statement. Thereafter, A3 Ashokkumar narrated the
incident.P.W.17Mr.Vinaykumartestifiedthatduringrecordingofhis
confessionalstatement,wheneverrequired,hewouldtakeclarification
fromhim. A3Ashokkumargaveallthedetailssincebeginningasto
how he was contacted for the purpose of committing the murder of
Corporator.Afterthestatementwasrecorded,itwasreadovertohim
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 258
andwascalledupontostatewhetheritwasasperhisnarration. A3
Ashokkumaransweredintheaffirmative.Aprintoutwastakenandthe
signatureofA3wasobtainedoneachpage.ItwasalsosignedbyP.W.
17Mr.Vinaykumar. P.W.17Mr.VinaykumarfurtherdeposedthatA3
Ashokkumarhadreadhisconfessionalstatement.ItismarkedasExh.
227(colly.).
237. Thereafter, P.W. 17 Mr. Vinaykumar prepared a
memorandumasperMCOCRulesandacertificatewhichismarkedas
Exh.227A.ThewitnesswasaskedaquestionbySPPastowhydidhe
notputhiscertificateonthelastpagemarginofExh.227andwhyhe
didtypethecertificateinsteadofmakingitinhisownhandwritingin
which,P.W.17Mr.Vinaykumarrepliedthattheconfessionalstatement
wastakenoutforbeingreadovertothewitness(itshouldhavebeen
'accused'insteadof'witness').Hefurthersaidthatmoreover,thespace
on last page was less to accommodate and, therefore, he made a
certificateonaseparatesheet. Sincetheentirerecordofconfessional
statement was type written on computer, he preferred to have the
certificatetypewritten.
238. P.W.17Mr.Vinaykumarthenpreparedaletteraddressedto
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 259
theCMMwhichwassealedinacoverandwasgiventoNitinPatil,who
was directed to produce the A3 Ashokkumar along with the sealed
envelopebeforetheCMMforconfirmationofthestatement.Thecopy
ofthesaidletterisatExh.228andthecopyoftheletteraddressedto
NitinPatilisat Exh.229. A3Ashokkumarwasproducedbeforethe
CMMonthenextday,becauserecordingofthestatementwasoverby
7.30p.m.andsomemoretimewasrequiredforothercompliance.He
instructed the IO to get back the custody of A3 Ashokkumar to him
afterthepurposeoftheproductionoftheaccusedwasover.Theoffice
copyofsaidletterisatExh.230.
239. Hisevidenceindicatethatthequestionswereformulatedby
himonhisown. MothertongueofP.W.17VinaykumarisHindi. He
testifiedthatheputthequestionstoA3Ashokkumarwhichhefoundto
be important. The questions not forming Part I were less important
and,therefore,theyarenotfoundtherein.Insecondpart,thewitness
hadaskedabout11questionstoA3.Hedeniedthesuggestionthaton
thenextday,hewassuppliedwiththequestionsandanswersthereto
and then he had recorded the same. He also denied that he was
suppliedwiththedraftofthesocalledconfessionalstatementofA3
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 260
Ashokkumarandthenhepreparedthestatementbasedonthat. The
witness admits that as a police officer, he knew that at times, the
accusedretracttheirconfessions.Heisalsoawarethattheobjectofthe
provisionsofproducingtheaccusedbeforetheCMMistoascertainas
to whether accused voluntarily made a confessional statement and
whetherinfacthemadesuchastatement. Whenherealizedthatthe
accused had stated before the CMM that he had not made any such
confessional statement, he was surprised. He also denied the
suggestionthatheandotherofficercompelledA3Ashokkumartoput
thesignatureonreadymadepapers.
240. ThelearnedcounselMr.PasbolacrossexaminedP.W.17Mr.
VinaykumarwhereinheadmitsthatPartIandIIdidnotindicatethathe
questioned the accused about the date of his arrest. Further, cross
examination mainly relates to the correspondence between Joint C.P.
andP.W.17Mr.Vinaykumarandaboutvariousinstructionshehadgiven
topoliceofficerMr.PatilwhilehandingoverthecustodyofA3andalso
aboutthedirectionstobetakenwhileheisincustodyatBandrapolice
station and about the other instructions given to the Sr. PI of police
stationBandra.Headmitsthathedidnotpersonallyfeelthatheshould
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 261
examinethebodyoftheaccusedwhenhewasproducedbeforehimon
both the days. According to P.W. 17 Mr. Vinaykumar since A3 was
alreadymedicallyexaminedand,therefore,hedidnotfeelitnecessary
to examine him again. He admits that he had not paid visit to the
lockupduringthestayofA3overthere. Hefurtheradmitsincross
examinationthathetook1520minutestorecordthequestionsputto
A3Ashokkumaronseconddayi.e.on29.5.2008andhadtook5and
hours to record the entire Part II. Around ten times, he sought
clarification from A3 Ashokkumar during recording of the main
confessionalstatement.Thesequestionssuggestthattherewasnodraft
questionnairegiventothewitnessassuggestedbythelearnedcounsel
Mr.PondaforA1,foritwouldnothavetakenfivehoursormoreto
recordtheanswersofthereadymadequestionnaire.
241. Thewitnesswasaskedaboutdistinctionofthemeaningof
theword'voluntarilyandwillingly'.Thewitnesstestifiedthatheknew
that he should record confessional statement if the same is made
voluntarily. Heknewthathe hadto record hissatisfactionastothe
voluntariness of the confessional statement of A3 Ashokkumar.
Further,thewitnesstestifiedthatA3wasbeforehimwhilehemadethe
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 262
certificate. A3 Ashokkumar had already signed his confessional
statementbeforethewitnesstookoutprintoutofthiscertificate.There
washardlyanytimegapbetweenA3signinghisconfessionalstatement
and taking of the printout by the witness. It also suggests that the
questionsweretypedonacomputer. Itsprintoutwastakenout. As
such,thedefencecouldnotrebutthecogenttestimonyofP.W.17Mr.
Vinaykumar.
242. ItisneedlesstoreiteratePartIoftheconfessionalstatement
ofA3AshokkumarExh.227asithasbeenrecordedinduecompliance
oftheprocedure. Iwillswitchovertothesecondpartwhichisquite
importantandhasbeendulyrecordedaspertheprocedurelaiddown.
243. Inhisconfessionalstatement,A3AshokkumarJaiswarhad
statedthathisageis21yearsandisresidingatMunshiMahal,Shankar
ShethChawl,RoomNo.2,PratapnagarRoad,Bhandup(W),Mumbai,
alongwithhisparentsandthreebrothers.HegotacquaintedwithA4
Narendra while studying in Municipal School, Powai, Mumbai. The
cousin of Narendra i.e. A5 Anil Giri also became a friend of A3
Ashokkumar.BothofthemusedtovisitthehouseofA3.Hewasalso
introducedwiththematernaluncleofA5Anili.e.A2VijayGiri. A5
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 263
wasworkinginfilmindustrywhileA4NarendraandA2Vijaywere
autorikshawdrivers.Earlier,A2VijayandA4Narendrausedtoreside
atSakinakawheretheyusedtodriveautorikshaw.
244. In the month of February 2007, A2 Vijay called A3
AshokkumaronhismobileNo.9224676768fromaPCOofDahisarand
calledhimatMangatramPetrolPump,Bhandup.Accordingly,atabout
6.30 p.m., on the same day, A3Ashokkumar met A2 Vijay. At that
time,A2 Vijay saidthat EkKoMarne Ka Hai. ApneKo AdhaiLakh
RupayaMilega,AiseBatakar,YahaKaamBabune(A10),DiyaHaiAise
Bataya,whichmeans,A2VijaytoldA3Ashokkumarthattheywould
getRs.2.50 lakhs to kill a person and that the work is assigned by
A10 Shrikrishna alias Babu Gurav. A3 Ashokkumar was called to
Sakinaka junction on the next day at 10.00 a.m. Accordingly, he
reachedthere.HemetA2VijayandA4Narendra.A2VijayandA4
Narendra introduced him to A10 Shrikrishna @ Babu. A10 Babu
calledsomebodyonphoneandsaidthathehadreachedthere. After
sometime,twopersonscameonamotorcyclewhowereintroducedby
A12PratapandA13Rane.A10ShrikrishnatookA2Vijayasideand
theyhadsomeconversation.A2PratapandA13Ranelefttheplace.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 264
A10ShrikrishnatookA3Ashokkumar,A4NarendraandA2Vijayto
Chandivaliwherehehadshownofficeof'AmitTravels'andthencalled
them at 10.00 a.m. on the next morning. On the next day, A3
Ashokkumar reached near Ram Baug police station as per the
instructions ofA2 Vijay. A2 Vijay, A4 Narendra and A5 Anil were
alreadypresentoverthere. A2VijaycalledA10Babuonhismobile
phone.Thereafter,allofthemwenttotheofficeof'AmitTravels'.The
officewasclosed. Aftersometime,A10Babucameoverthereona
motorcycleandthencalledA12Prataponmobile. Aftersometime,
A10 Babu brought the key of the office andopened it. All of them
enteredintotheoffice.Aftersometime,A5AnilandA3Ashokkumar
alsoenteredintotheoffice.Fewminutesthereafter,A2Pratapcameto
theoffice.
245. Aftersometime,A2VijayandA4Narendrawentoutofthe
office.Intheoffice,abagwaskeptonthetable.Therewasahandgun,
tworoundsandthreekniveswhichweretakenoutbyA2Vijayandhad
shown to them and told them that he has already seen the weapon.
Aftersometime,A10BabucameoutandgaveRs.10,000/toA2Vijay.
A2 Vijay instructed A3 Ashokkumar and A4 Narendra to take
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 265
possession of the said bag, containing the weapons, onthe following
day. Atthattime,A3AshokkumarsavedthemobilenumberofA10
Shrikrishna@Babu. A2 Vijay gavethenumberof A3Ashokkumar
andA5AniltoA10Babu.Thereafter,allofthemlefttheofficeofAmit
Travels.
246. Onthefollowingday,at9.30a.m.,A3AshokkumarandA4
Narendra reached Amit Travel's office which was closed. A3
AshokkumarcalledA10Babu. Heopenedtheofficeandtookoutthe
bagfromthedrawerofthetableandgaveittoA4Narendraandalso
gaveRs.10,000/toA4Narendra.A3Ashokkumarfurtherstatesthat
thereafter,heleftforhishome.Intheevening,A2VijayinformedA3
AshokkumarthatA10Babuhadgivenhimamotorcycleforthework.
247. Onthenextday,aspertheinstructionsofA10Babu,A3
AshokkumarreachedtotheOfficeofAmitTravelswhereA2Vijay,A4
Narendra and A5 Anil were already present. After some time, A12
Pratapalsoreachedtheofficeof'AmitTravel'swhowasfollowedbya
boy,whowasintroducedbyA12PratapasAddu(P.W.4)andsaidthat
he would show the person who was to be killed, and his house.
ThereafterA4NarendraandA5AnilalongwithAddulefttheofficeof
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 266
AmitTravelsona'Discover'motorcycle.Theycamebackafteronehour
whenA4NarendraandA5AnilsaidthatAdduhadshownthemthe
'person'andhishouse,whowastobekilled.
248. Onthefollowingdayandthereafterbetween10a.m.to1
p.m.for1015days,A2Vijay,A3Ashokkumar,A4NarendraandA5
Anil used to go to Asalfa village, AndheriGhatkopar Link Road,
GhatkoparinsearchofthepersonshownbyAddu,however,theycould
not see him. It was informed by Addu that the person he showed
always sports a red coloured 'Tikka' (Vermilion) on his forehead.
During the 'search operation' of 15 days, they used to park the
motorcycle beside a country liquor bar, near the bus stop of Asalfa
village. Everydaytheyusedtotakethebagcontainingweaponsand
usedtodeposititintheafternoon.A3Ashokkumarfurtherstatesthat
duringthosedays,theyusedtohavelunchinhotelKamal. A2Vijay
usedtoappriseA12Pratapabouttheirefforts,everyday.Healsoused
totalktoA10Babu.
249. On2
nd
March2007,asusual,allthefouri.e.A2Vijay,A3
Ashokkumar, A4 Narendra and A5 Anil reached the office of Amit
Travels. Atthattime,A5AnildemandedmoneyfromA2Vijayupon
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 267
which, A2 Vijay refused. A5 Anil got angry and went away.
Thereafter,A2Vijay,A3AshokkumarandA4Narendratookthebag
andreachedAsalfavillage.Asusual,theystartedsearchingforthesaid
person atdifferent places, butcouldnot findhim. Intheafternoon,
A12PratapcalledonthemobileofA3Ashokkumarandtalkedwith
A2. He informed A2 Vijay that the target would be going to the
graveyard.Atthattime,therewasafuneralfromthesaidarea.These
threeaccusedparticipatedinitandreachedtheBhatWadiGraveyard,
but couldnotseethe target. A2Vijay immediately informed A12
Pratap on mobile who asked them to immediately come back to the
houseofthetarget.Atabout3.30p.m.,whentheyreachednearthe
house of target, they noticed, he was sitting with 34 persons. The
accused came out and waited for those persons to leave. A3
Ashokkumar further states that after one hour, he reached near the
houseandfoundthesaidpersonsitingaloneinachair.Heimmediately
cameoutandinformedaboutittoA2VijayandA4Narendra. A2
VijayandA4Narendrawentinthelaneandenteredintoatoiletonthe
left side. A2 Vijay took the bag containing the weapons from A3
Ashokkumar, took out the gun and loaded one round in it. He kept
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 268
anotherroundinhispocket. A3AshokkumarandA4Narendrakept
oneknifeeachwiththem. A3Ashokkumarconcealedhisknifeinhis
socks. Theywalkedthroughthelaneandreachednearthehouseof
target.A3AshokkumarstoppednearthewindowwhileA2Vijayand
A4Narendrastoppednearthedoor.A4Narendrastoppedoutsidethe
door when A2 Vijay took out his gun and fired a shot at the said
target. Immediately after firing a shot, all the three came out and
escapedonthemotorcycle,whichwasdrivenbyA4Narendra. They
reachedGhatkoparNarayanNagarinalane. Theyleftthemotorcycle
overthereandimmediatelythereafterA2byusingthemobileofA3
Ashokkumar informed A12 Pratap that they had accomplished the
'work' andthemotorcyclewasleftnearamosquenearNarayanNagar.
Theywenttoatoilet.A2Vijaykeptoneroundinthesaidbagandso
also A3 Ashokkumar and A4 Narendra kept their knives in it. A2
VijayhandedoverthesaidbagtoA3Ashokkumarandaskedhimtogo
backtohishouse.Accordingly,A3Ashokkumarreturnedtohishouse
withthebag.A3statesthatonthenextday,theycametoknowafter
readingthenewspaperthatthepersonwhowaskilledbythemwasa
CorporatorofShivSenaviz.KamlakarJamsandekar.Hefurtherstates
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 269
thattwodaysthereafter,A2VijaycalledA3Ashokkumarontelephone
and asked him to reach Borivali National Park. Accordingly, A3
reachedBorivalialongwiththebagcontainingtheweaponandgaveit
toA2Vijay.A2VijaygavehimRs.4000/bysayingthathewouldpay
the balance afterwards. A3 Ashokkumar further states that in the
monthofDecember2007,whenA12PratapandA13Ranecameout,
A2VijayandA4Narendraapproachedthemdemandingthebalance
amountasthey(A12Pratap&A13Rane)weredemandingthebag
containingtheweapons.However,A2Vijaystatedthattheywouldnot
return the bag unless the balance amount is paid. Further, A3
Ashokkumarstatesthaton26
th
April2008,thepolicearrestedA2Vijay,
A4NarendraandhimselfatGirgaon,Mjumbai.
CONFESSIONALSTATEMENTOFA4NARENDRAGIRI
250. P.W.15RajendraGanpatfDabhadeExh.209, wasworking
asaDCP,ZoneXIIattherelevanttime. Hedeposedthatherecorded
the confessional statement of A4 Narendra Giri for which he had
receivedacommunicationfromJointC.P.Mr.RakeshMariaon3
rd
June
2008Exh.210.Pursuanttowhich,hemadeacorrespondencewiththe
I.O. of the case as well as the Sr. PI of Gamdevi police station. He
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 270
directedtheIOP.W.37ACPDurafetoproduceA4Narendrabeforehim
on4
th
June2008. Atabout11a.m.,PSINinadSawantalongwitha
letter Exh.212 producedA4beforeP.W.15DCPDabhade. Afterthe
instructionsofP.W.15DCPMr.Dabhade,allthepolicepersonnellefthis
chamber except his typist Mr. Surve. P.W. 15 DCP Mr. Dabhade had
directed his orderly Mr.Ovhal to ensure that no third person should
enterhisofficewithouthispermission.Thereafter,heputquestionsto
theA4asregardsthewillingnessoftheaccusedtomakeaconfessional
statement.A4Narendravolunteeredtomakeaconfessionalstatement.
P.W.15DCPMr.Dhabadeinformedhimthathewasnolongerinthe
custody of IO and that he was not in any way connected with the
investigation. Healsoenquiredwiththeaccusedno.4whetherhehas
beencompelled,induced,promisedorthreatenedtomakeaconfession
which he answered in the negative. He also informed A4 Narendra
thathewouldbegiven24hourstimeforreflection. Accordingly,he
recordedPartI. HealsoinformedtheA4Narendrathatifhemakes
confessionalstatement,itwillbeusedasevidenceagainsthim.Healso
asked him whether he would like to have presence of his advocate
duringthecourseofconfessionalstatementwhichtheaccuseddenied.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 271
PartIwastypedbyMr.Survesimultaneouslyanditsprintoutwastaken
out and was signed by P.W. 15 DCP Mr. Dabhade and A4 Narendra.
Thereafter,P.W.15DCPDabhadesummonedPSISubhalkar,attachedto
Gamdevipolicestation.A4Narendrawasplacedinhiscustodywitha
direction to keep him in a seaprate lockup to ensure that no officer
relatedtotheinvestigationoranyotherpoliceofficerwouldmeetA4
inthelockup.ThelettertothateffectisatExh.213.
251. On the following day, PSI Waghmare produced A4
NarendrabeforeP.W.15DCPMr.Dabhadeat3p.m. P.W.15DCPMr.
Dabhade asked PSI Waghmare and staff to leave the office and
thereafter,heensuredthatA4Narendra,typistMr.Surveandhimself
presentintheoffice. HeagainenquiredwiththeA4Narendraabout
hiswillingnessandvoluntarinesstogiveaconfessionalstatement.the
A4 expressed his willingness to give a confession. He also ensured
fromA4Narendrawhetheranybodyfrominvestigationagencymethim
in the lockup to influence, which he replied in the negative. A4
Narendra declined to have presence of his advocate during his
statement. When P.W. 15 DCP Mr. Dabhade was satisfied about the
voluntariness of the confessional statement to be made by A4
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 272
Narendra, he recorded his statement in Hindi. He obtained the
printout.HeobtainedthesignatureofA4Narendra.Itwasreadover
andexplainedtoA4Narendra. Theaccusedaffirmedthesame. The
statement was also signed by P.W. 15 DCP Mr. Dabhade. The said
statement is Part II and is marked at Exh. 214. P.W. 15 DCP Mr.
Dabhade appended a certificate stating the fact that he was satisfied
aboutthevoluntarinessoftheconfessionalstatementmadebytheA4
Narendra. Thecertificateisthepartof Exh.214. Therecordingwas
concludedby3.45p.m.ThelearnedSPPaskedastowhyP.W.15DCP
Mr. Dabhade did not append the statement at the bottom of the
statementuponwhichheansweredthathewasundertheimpression
that such a certificate ought to have been on a separate page.
Thereafter, P.W. 15 DCP Mr. Dabhade sealed the entire confessional
statementandplacedinthecustodyofPSIWaghmareanddirectedhim
toproduceA4NarendrabeforetheCMMalongwiththeconfessional
statement.HealsoinstructedhimtoplacetheA3inthecustodyofthe
IOafterthepurposebeforetheCMMwasover.
252. IncrossexaminationbyMr.PondaforA1,P.W.15DCPMr.
Dabhadehasstatedthathehadnooccasiontorecordtheconfessional
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 273
statementbeforetheoneinquestion. Hewasnotawarethatmostof
theaccusedlateronretracttheirconfessionalstatement.Hewasasked
togothroughSec.18oftheMCOCAct,wherein,thereisnoreference
ofpromise,threatandallurement. Hefurtherstatesthatinorderto
ascertainthevoluntariness,hehadputthequestionsregardingpromise,
threatorallurement.Headmitsthatheisawareabouttheconfessional
statementwhichmayberecordedbymechanicaldeviceslikecassettes,
tapes, sound tracks etc. However, he is not aware about the object
behindmakingsuchprovision.Thewitnesswasnotawaresincewhen
A4 Narendra was in police custody. He further admits that on
5.6.2008,soonafterrecordingofconfessionalstatement,hedrafteda
lettertoCMMimmediately.HefurtherstatesthathehadinstructedPSI
WaghmaretopersonallyproduceA4NarendrabeforetheCMM.
253. In the crossexamination by learned counsel Mr. Pasbola,
P.W.15DCPDabhadeadmitsthathewasnotawareaboutthesubjective
satisfaction to be recorded before commencement of recording
confessionalstatement.Healsoadmitsthatthereisanamplespacein
Exh.214(PartII)onwhichhecouldhaverecordedthecertificate.The
reasonwhichthewitnessgivesisthat,onthebottomofthelastpageof
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 274
Exh.214,thecertificatewasnotrecordedasprintoutofthestatement
wasalreadytakenoutforobtainingsignatureoftheA4Narendra.The
reasonappearstobejustified.Hefurthertestifiedthatthenhethought
thatthesamepagecould notbeplacedinmachineforrecordinghis
certificate thereon, but further admits that the certificate could have
beenrecordedbeforethetakingouttheprintoutonthesamepage.His
attentionwasdrawnbythelearnedcounseltoRule3(6)ofMCOCAct,
whichprovidesthatthecertificatehastobeintheformgiventherein.
There was no crossexamination by advocates Mr. Moomen and Mr.
Sejpal.
254. Now, switching over to the Part II of the confessional
statementwhichisidenticaltothatofA3Ashokkumarand,therefore,
neednotbereiterated.
255. Now, the last confessional statement is of A5 Anil Giri,
whichwasrecordedbyP.W.23,DCPVijaysinghJadhavExh.284. P.W.
23hasbeenworkingasDCPHeadquarterNo.I,Mumbai.Herecorded
confessional statement of A5 Anil Giri in this crime pursuant to a
communication by Joint C.P. Mr. Rakesh Maria through a letter Exh.
285. Accordingly, he wrote a letter to the I.O. to produce A5 Anil
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 275
beforehimon4.6.2008at10.30hours.Theofficecopyoftheletteris
atExh.286.PSIChavanattachedtoDCB,CIDacknowledgedreceiptof
thesaidletter.P.W.23DCPJadhavsentalettertoSr.PI,LTMargpolice
stationformakingarrangementsofescortpartyon4
th
June2008.The
letterismarkedatExh.287.
256. Accordingly,on4.6.2008,PSIChavanproducedA5Anilin
veilbeforeP.W.23DCPMr.JadhavalongwithaletterExh.288.Inhis
chamber, P.W. 23 DCP Mr. Jadhavasked PSI Chavan and his party to
leavehisoffice.HeensuredthatexceptA5AnilandladyconstableMs.
Sunita Patil who would operate the computer, none was there. He
askedconstableBorsetoclosethedoorofhischamberandnottoallow
anyoneinhischamberwithouthispermission.
257. P.W. 23 DCP Mr. Jadhav put preliminary questions to A5
Anil and was found him comfortable after the discussion. A5 Anil
couldunderstandHindilanguagewell. Heputhimsomequestionsin
Hindi. A5Anilwantedtomakeaconfessioninconnectionwiththe
murderofKamlakarJamsandekar.Thewitnessintroducedhimselfand
informed the accused that he is in no way connected with the
investigation of the crime. He assured the accused that he is in his
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 276
custody.ThewitnessalsoaskedA5Anilwhetherhehadanycomplaint
againsttheofficerconnectedwiththeinvestigationwhichherepliedin
thenegative. After ascertaininghis name,age etc., he examinedthe
person of the accused and found him normal. The witness also
informedtheaccusedthatheisnotboundtomakeaconfessionandif
hemakesso,thatcanbeusedasevidenceagainsthim.Healsoensured
fromA5whetherhewasthreatenedorpromisedtomakeaconfession
whichA5answeredinthenegative.HealsoinformedA5Anilthatif
he retracts his confession, he would not be sent back to the
investigating agency. He also enquired with the accused whether he
requirespresenceofhisfriends,relativeoradvocateduringrecordingof
hisconfession.A5declinedtheoffer.Hewasagainaskedwhetherhe
wanted to make a confession voluntarily which he answered in the
affirmative. Thewitness hadgiven24hours' timefor retractionand
informedhimthathewouldbeinhiscustodyandkeptinthelockupat
L.T.Margpolicestation.
258. The entire facts have been recorded in the computer
simultaneouslyandthereafter,itsprintoutwastaken.P.W.23DCPMr.
Jadhav read over it to A5 Anil who affirmed about its contents and
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 277
thereafter,signedeachpageoftheproceeding.P.W.23DCPMr.Jadhav
hadalsosignedoneachpageofPartI.
259. Thereafter,custodyoftheA5AnilwashandedovertoPSI
MachhindraofL.T.MargpolicestationwithadirectiontokeepA5Anil
inaseparatelockup.Itwasalsodirectedthatnobodyshouldmeetthe
accusedfromtheinvestigatingagency. ThePartIisatExh.289. P.W.
23DCPMr.JadhavhadalsodirectedthePIofLTMargpolicestationto
get the accused medically examined and directed to produce him on
5.6.2008at17hours.ThesaidletterisatExh.290. P.W.23DCPMr.
Jadhavfurthertestifiedthatatlateinthenight,hecontactedLTMarg
policestationtoensurethattheaccusedwasmedicallyexaminedand
thathisinstructionswerefollowed.Heobtainedcertifiedcopiesofthe
stationdiaryofthepolicestationwhicharecollectivelymarkedatExh.
291.TheDCPandAdditionalC.P.ofthatregionappointsomeofficers
to have surprise visit of the lockup during night hours. The station
diaryentryatSr.No.67speaksofthesaidexercise.
260. Hefurtherdeposedthaton5
th
June,2008at17.15hours,
PSI Machhindra produced A5 Anil before him. They left the office.
The lady constable Ms. Sunita Patil was called for recording the
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 278
proceedings.P.W.23DCPMr.JadhavaskedconstableBorsetoclosethe
doorofthechamberandensuredthatnobodywouldenter.P.W.23DCP
Mr.JadhavrealizedfromtheappearanceofA5Anilthathewasnot
under pressure and asked whether 24 hours' time was sufficient for
reflectiontowhichA5answeredintheaffirmative. Healsoenquired
with A5 whether any police officer connected with the investigation
methiminthelockup. Herepliedinthenegative. HeinformedA5
that he was not bound to make a confession and that if he makes a
confessionalstatement,itmightbeusedasevidenceagainsthim.A5
saidthathewasawareofit.A5Anilalsorefusedtohavepresenceof
hisrelatives,friendsorlawyerduringtherecordingofstatement. On
being asked, A5 told that he wants to make a confession about
whateverheknewabouttheoffenceandwantedtotellthetruth.P.W.
23 DCP Mr. Jadhav recorded the confession as it progressed further
simultaneously.ThewitnessrealizedthatA4Narendrawasgivinghis
statementvoluntarily.Itwascompletedby19.30hours.Aprintoutwas
takenout.Itwasreadovertotheaccused.TheA4Narendratoldthe
witnessthatitwas recordedasperhissayandwascorrect. TheA4
NarendrasignedeachpageofhisstatementPartII. P.W.23DCPMr.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 279
Jadhav also signed each page thereof. It is at Exh. 289A. The
certificateisatExh.289B.ItbearssignatureofP.W.23DCPMr.Jadhav,
whichisinhishandwriting.P.W.23DCPMr.JadhavsealedPartIand
Part II along with certificate in an envelope and gave it to PSI
MachhindraalongwiththeA4Narendrawithadirectiontoproduce
himbeforetheCMMon6.6.2008at10.30a.m.Healsowrotealetter
totheSr.PIinthatregard.TheofficecopyisatExh.292.Hewrotea
letter to the Sr. PI instructing him to keep the accused in a separate
lockup and also get him medically examined and nobody should be
allowedtomeethim.TheofficecopyofthesaidletterisatExh.293.
P.W. 23 DCP Mr. Jadhav ensured that the accused was medically
examinedon6.6.2008,onthesameday,hewrotealettertotheCMM
Exh.294.Thereafter,P.W.23DCPMr.JadhavwrotealettertotheIO
askinghimtotakethecustodyofA5Anilaftertheproductionbefore
theCMMwasover. Accordingly,PSIChavantookthecustodyofthe
accusedno.5.ThelettertothateffectisatExh.295.Thereportofthe
CMMisatExh.296.
261. TheconfidentialletterofCMMaddressedtothiscourtdated
6.6.2008revealsthatwhenthecontentsoftheconfessionalstatement
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 280
ofPartIIwerereadovertotheA5Anil,hestatedthathissignatures
wereobtainedonapaper inwhich, somethingwaswritteninHindi.
The A5 Anil had stated before the CMM that he had not given any
confessional statement before the DCP. A2 Vijay is his uncle. He
residesinGoregaonrightfromthechildhoodandhadstudiedupto10
th
standardinMumbai.HedoesnotknowaboutthemurderofShivSena
CorporatorKamlakarJamsandekar. Nobodyhad paid himRs.1000/,
especially A2 Vijay. A2 Vijay resides at Dahisar. He works as an
Assistant Cameraman with Balaji Telefilms. The signature was
obtained on a paper which was already written. He does not know
anythingaboutthiscrime.Hehadnotcommittedanyoffence.Hehad
notgivenanyconfessionalstatement.
262. P.W. 23 DCP Mr. Jadhav has also accorded sanction under
theArmsAct.Hetestifiedthathehadperusedtheseizurepanchanama
of the firearm and the ballistic expert's report and after applying his
mind,hesatisfiedthattherewasenoughmaterialagainstA2Vijayfor
his prosecution under Arms Act. He, therefore, accorded sanction,
whichisprovedatExh.297.
263. DuringhiscrossexaminationbylearnedcounselMr.Ponda
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 281
forA1,usualquestionswereaskedaboutformulatingofquestionsfor
beingputtotheaccused,aboutreceiptofletters Exh.285, itstiming
andaboutotherdocumentsExhs.289and289A. Hedeniedthathe
obtainedreadymadequestionnaireinadvancefromtheIOandthathe
simplycombinedsomeofthequestionsandsplitsomeofitandputto
theaccusedonbothdays.Hetestifiedthatherecordedtheconfessional
statement of A5 Anil as narrated by him except on one or two
occasionswherehehadbeenintervened,astheaccusedhadchanged
thesequenceofeventsduringthenarrativepart.Theattentionofthe
witnesshasbeendrawntosomeportionunderlinedwithredinkonthe
5
th
lineofthirdparagraphofnarrativepart,whichreadsthatatthat
time,A2VijaytoldthisaccusedaboutthenameofA10Shrikrishna
alias Babu. The witness did not ask the accused whether he knew
Babu. The purpose for asking this question is not clear as it is a
confessional statement of the accused even in a narrative form and
recordedasperhissay. Thewitnessadmitsthataftergoingthrough
Exh.285,herealizedthatitwasacaseofconspiracyandmurder.He
didnotquestiontheaccusedwhowerethepartyoftheconspiracyand
didnotquestionhimwhatroleheplayedintheconspiracy.Thewitness
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 282
deniedthatExh.285,286and288arefabricateddocuments.Healso
deniedthatdocumentsatExhs.287and290to294arealsofabricated
documents.Hedeniedthattheaccuseddidnotmakeanyconfessional
statements. P.W. 23 DCP Jadhav testified that he was aware that a
confessional statement could have been recorded on any mechanical
devices. Heisalsoawarethatatanypointoftime,theaccusedcan
retract their statements. He was also aware that after recording a
confession, the accused should be immediately produced before the
CMM. As he was preoccupied with the meeting, he did not give
instructions to produce the accused before him before 5.00 p.m. He
admitsthatitwashisdecisiontokeepaccusedinthelockup,butdenied
thathehaddeliberatelykeptA5AnilinthelockupofLTMargpolice
stationashewasawarethatC.R.No.118/2008hadregisteredagainst
him with L.T. Marg police station. He also denied that accused was
convenientlyproducedbeforehimat5.00p.m.sothathecanbekeptin
a lockup overnight and was tortured with a view that he would not
retracttheconfessionalstatementonproductionbeforetheCMM.The
entirecrossexaminationisintendedtoshowastohowtheofficerhad
flouted the procedural aspects of the recording the confessional
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 283
statementinwhichthedefencecouldnotsucceedforthereasonthatall
thesuggestionshavebeendeniedandthewitnesshasclarifiedcertain
delaysorminorerrorswhichoccurredduringrecordingofaconfession.
ItshouldnotbelostsightofthefactthatalltheDCPsarethehighrank
IPSofficers. However, inviewof theratio laiddownby theHon'ble
SupremeCourtcitedsupra,inthecaseofMohd.FarooqAbdulGafur
andanr.vs.StateofMaharashtra,reportedin2010(3)AIRBomR
(S.C.)551,suchminorthingscannotbelookedintotofindsomefault
ifinsubstance,theconfessionsarefoundtobereliableandacceptable.
Itis,moreparticularly,inviewofthefactthattheotherevidenceinthe
form of CDR and other witnesses exists to which this confessional
statementcorroboratesinmaterialparticulars.
264. There is no material on record to show that the IO had
asked P.W. 23 DCP Mr. Jadhav to accord sanction for prosecution of
concernedaccusedpersonsfortransportandmanufactureoffirearm.It
is,therefore,obviousthatA4Narendra,A5Anil,A8Surendra,A11
Narkar,A12PratapandA13Ranecannotbeheldliableforviolationof
anyoftheprovisionsofArmsActexceptA2VijayGiri.
265. No doubt, there are certain minor discrepancies in the
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 284
sanctionorderExh.297whichdoesnotindicatethedateonwhichP.W.
23DCPMr.Jadhavreceivedtheproposalandthedocumentssubmitted
bytheIO. Surprisingly,P.W.23DCPMr.Jadhavadmitsthatongoing
throughallthepapers,hedidnotfindmaterialtoaccordsanctionfor
transporting and manufacturing firearm. This admission is quite
strangewhichindicatesthateitherthiswitnesshadnotgonethrough
allthepapersofprosecutionorperhapsunabletounderstandthelegal
provisionsundertheArmsAct. Bethatasitmay. Headmitsthatthe
sanctionwasaccordedinrespectofpossessionoffirearmon26
th
April
2008.AsalreadyheldthatitwasA2Vijaywhoshotthefireresulting
intodeathofKamlakarJamsandekarbyusingthesameweaponand,
therefore,merelybecausethesanctionwasaccordedtoprosecutehim
in respect of the firearm on 26.4.2008 would not absolve him from
possessing the firearm on the date of commission of the offence. A
perusalofExh.297revealsthatP.W.23DCPMr.Jadhavhadaftergoing
throughtherecordandafterapplicationofmindaccordedsanctionto
prosecute A2 Vijay for contravention of the provisions of Sec. 3
punishable u/s. 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act. I, therefore, do not see
thatthesanctionisbadinlaw.Section3oftheArmsActreadsthus:
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 285
Licence for acquisition and possession of fire
arms and ammunition. (1) No person shall
acquire,haveinhispossession,orcarryanyfire
arm or ammunition unless he holds in this
behalf a licence issued in accordance with the
provisions of this Act and the rules made
thereunder:
Provided that a person may, without himself
holding a licence, carry any firearm or
ammunition in the presence, or under the
writtenauthority,oftheholderofthelicencefor
repairorforrenewalofthelicenceorforuseby
suchholder.
25(1B)(a): Whoever, acquires, has in his
possession or carries any firearm or
ammunitionincontraventionofSection3.
266. Itisclearthatnoprosecutioncanbeinstitutedagainstany
personinrespectofanyoffneceu/s.3whichappliestothiscasealso,
withouttheprevioussanctionoftheDistrictMagistrate.Therefore,this
mandateoflawcannotbetakenasamereformality,beingofsinequo
non before institution of any prosecution. P.W. 23 DCP Mr. Jadhav
appearstohaveaccordedsanctioninviewofSection39oftheArms
Act,1959,aftertakingintoconsiderationtherecordoftheaccusedand
theattendingcircumstancesthereof.
267. Mr.PasbolawhilecrossexaminingP.W.23DCPMr.Jadhav
triedtobringonrecordcertainminortechnicalflawswhichdonotgo
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 286
totherootofthematter.Thecrossexaminationofthiswitnessonthe
pointofconfessionalstatementofA5Anilisinsimilarlinestothatof
otherDCPs.
268. ThelearnedcounselMr.PasbolaandMr.Sejpalhaveplaced
relianceonseveralrulings.Thesaidrulingsareasunder:
(1) Veera Ibrahim vs. State of Maharashtra,
(1976)SCCCr278.
(2) Pakhala Narayan Swami vs. Emperor
reportedinAIR1939PrivyCouncil47.
(3) Palvindar Kaur vs. The State of Punjab
reportedinAIR1952SupremeCourt354.
(4) Omprakash vs. State of UP reported in
1960,SC409.
(5)Dagduvs.StateofMaharashtrareported
in(1977)3,SCC68.
(6) Thimma and Thimma Raju vs. State of
Mysorereportedin(1970)SCCCri320.
269. The ratio laiddown in the aforesaid rulings is that
confession must pass the twin test of voluntariness and truthfulness.
Thecourtmayrefusetoactuponaconfessionevenifitispermissible
inevidenceifthefactsandcircumstancessurroundingthemakingof
confession appear to cast a doubt on the veracity or voluntariness of
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 287
confession.Thecourtmustalsoseethatsurroundingcircumstancesdo
not indicate that a confession is inspired by some improper and co
lateralcircumstancestosuggestitmaynotbetrue.
(7) Arup Bhuyan vs. State of Assam
reportedin(2011)1SCC(Cri)855.

270. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that confession

made to a police officer u/s. 15 of the TADA Act in the absence of
corroboration can sustain a conviction on its sole basis, however, it
beingaweakkindofevidenceandconsideringwidespreadandrampant
practiceofpolicetousethirddegreemethodsforextractingconfessions
fromaccused,courtsshouldbecautiouswhileacceptingtheevidence.
Intheinstantcase,dehorsconfessions,otherevidencehassubstantiated
the commission of the offence which is fully corroborated by the
confessionalstatements.Thereisnothingtoshowthatathirddegree
method was used for extracting the confession and, therefore, this
authoritywouldbeofnohelptothedefence.
(8) Pacho vs. State of Haryana reported in
(2011)10SupremeCourtCases165.
(9) Goma Rama and others v. Emperor
reportedinAIR(32)1945Bombay152.
(10) Parmanand Pegu vs. State of Assam
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 288
reported in (2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases
779.
ThisauthorityisonSec.24oftheEvidence.Therelevantparagraphof
thiscitationcanbereproducedasunder:
Beforeactingonaconfessionmadebeforea
JudicialMagistrateintermsofSection164,the
courtmustbesatisfiedfirstthattheprocedural
requirementslaiddowninsubsections(2)to
(4) are complied with. These are salutary
safeguards to ensure that the confession is
made voluntarily by the accused after being
apprised of the implications of making such
confession. After this first requirement of
acting on a confession is satisfied, the court,
called upon to consider the evidence against
theaccused,shouldstillseewhetherthereare
any circumstances appearing from the record
which may cast a doubt on the voluntary
natureoftheconfession.Theendeavourofthe
court should be to apply its mind to the
question whether the accused was free from
threat, duress or inducement at the time of
makingtheconfession.Indoingso,thecourt
shouldbearinmind,thatunderSection24of
theEvidenceAct,astringentruleofproofasto
the existence of threat, duress or inducement
should not be applied and a prima facie
opinionbasedonevidenceandcircumstances
may be adopted as the standard laiddown.
Having thus reached a finding as to the
voluntary nature of a confession,the truth of
the confession should then be tested by the
court. The fact that the confession has been
made voluntarily, free from threat and
inducement, can be regarded as presumptive
evidence of its truth. Still, there may be
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 289
circumstances to indicate that the confession
cannotbetruewhollyorpartlyinwhichcaseit
losesmuchofitsevidentiaryvalue.Inorderto
beassuredofthetruthofconfession,therule
of prudence is that the court should look to
corroboration from other evidence. However,
thereneednot becorroborationinrespectof
each and every material particular. The
expression corroboration of material
particulars does not imply that there should
be meticulous examination of the entire
materialparticulars.Itisenoughthatthereis
broad corroboration in conformity with the
generaltrendoftheconfession.Broadly,there
shouldbecorroborationsothattheconfession
takenasawholefitsintothefactsprovedby
otherevidence.Insubstance,thecourtshould
have assurance from all angles that the
retractedconfessionwas,infact,voluntaryand
itmusthavebeentrue.
271. Itcanbeseenthattheauthoritiesrelieduponbythedefence
aremostlyinrespectoftheoffenceofIPCandthenatureofoffencein
thepresentcaseisoforganizedcrimewhichisacontinuingunlawful
activitiesand,therefore,lawwillhavetobeappreciatedinthelightof
thenatureoftheoffenceandmoreparticularlyinviewofSection18of
theMCOCAct,1999.
272. The prosecution has placed reliance on the following
authorities:
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 290
(1)StateofMaharashtravs.BharatChaganlal
Raghani & others reported in (2001) 9
SupremeCourtCases1.
Therelevantparagraphfromthesaidrulingcan
bequotedforadvantageasunder:
As per Section 15 of the TADA Act, while
discussingretractedconfession,itisheldthat:
if confession is found to have been made
voluntarily and in accordance with law, it is
heldtobeagoodconfession.Requirementof
corroborationinsuchacaseisnotaruleof
law, but a rule of prudence. Sufficiency of
corroboration depends upon facts and
circumstances of the case, a general
corroboration of confession statement is
sufficient of corroboration on confessional
statement.
As such, this ratio is clearly applicable to the
presentcase.
273. As already stated above, the judgment directly under the
provisions of MCOC Act, delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is
reported in 2010(3) AIR BOM R(SC) 551 (S.B. Sinha, Dr.
Mukundakam Sharma, JJ), Mohd. Farooq and anr. v. State of
Maharashtra wherein, almost all the aspects have been considered
includingtheevidentiaryvalueofTIParade,itsdelay,thestatementof
accusedu/s.313ofCr.P.C.,confessionalstatement,applicabilityofthe
provisions of Cr.P.C. and Evidence Act etc. The relevant para can be
reproducedforadvantage:
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 291
Para 76: The contention of the learned
counsel appearingforaccusedpersonsthat
therewasinordinatedelayinconductingthe
TIP cannot be accepted in view of the fact
that both the accused persons were taken
into custody on 25.6.1999 whereas the TIP
was held on 10.8.1999. Therefore, the TIP
wasconductedonlyafteraperiodof45days
whichisnotsuchalongperiodtocastany
doubt over the evidentiary value of the TIP.
Even otherwise, a TIP does not constitute
substantiveevidencebutcanonlybeusedfor
corroborationofthestatementincourt.Itis
primarily meant for the purpose of helping
the investigating agency with an assurance
that their progress with the investigation is
proceeding on the right lines. The
substantive evidence is the evidence of
identificationincourt,whichinthepresent
casehasbeendonebyP.W.18.Thiscourtin
thecaseofAmitsinghBhikamsinghThakarv.
StateofMaharashtra, (2007) 2 SCC 310,at
page 315, has succinctly observed as
follows:
As was observed by this court in Matru v.
State of U.P. 1 identification tests do not
constitute substantive evidence. They are
primarily meant for the purpose of helping
the investigating agency with an assurance
that their progress with the investigation is
proceeding on the right lines. The
identification can only be used as
corroborativeofthestatementincourt.(See
Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain2). The
necessityforholdinganidentificationparade
can arise only when the accused are not
previously known to the witnesses. The
wholeideaofatestidentificationparadeis
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 292
that witnesses who claim to have seen the
culprits at the time of occurrence are to
identify them from the midst of other
personswithoutanyaidoranyothersource.
Thetestisdonetocheckupontheirveracity.
Inotherwords,themainobjectofholdingan
identification parade, during the
investigationstage,istotestthememoryof
the witnesses based upon first impression
andalsotoenabletheprosecutiontodecide
whetheralloranyofthemcouldbecitedas
eyewitnessesofthecrime.
274. Onsimilarpoints,theprosecutionhasalsoplacedreliance
onarulinginthecaseof(2)PrakashKumaraliasPrakashBhuttovs.
State of Gujarat reported in (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 409
with Abdulwahab Abdulmajid Shaikh and others vs. State of
GujaratwithMusaKhanaliasBabaKhanvs.StateofGujarat.The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said ruling has also held about the
applicabilityofSection12and15oftheTADAAct.Itisfurtherheldin
paragraph20aboutinterpretationofstatutewhichcanbereproduced
asunder:
Para20:Beforeweproceedtoconsiderthe
rigoursofSections15and12wemayatthis
stagepointoutthatitisatritelawthatthe
jurisdictionofthecourttointerpretastatute
canbeinvokedonlyincaseofambiguity.The
courtcannotenlargethescopeoflegislation
orintentionwhenthelanguageofthestatute
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 293
is plain and unambiguous. Narrow and
pedantic construction may not always be
given effect to. Courts should avoid a
construction which would reduce the
legislation to futility. It is also well settled
thateverystatuteistobeinterpretedwithout
any violence to its language. It is also trite
that when an expression is capable of more
thanonemeaning,thecourtwouldattemptto
resolvetheambiguityinamannerconsistent
with the purpose of the provision, having
regardtotheconsequencesofthealternative
constructions.
It is also apposite to reproduce Para 14 which
readsthus:
Para14:Themorestringentthelaw,theless
isthediscretionofthecourt.Stringent laws
are made for the purpose of achieving its
objectives. This being the intendment of the
legislaturethedutyofthecourtistoseethat
the intention of the legislature is not
frustrated.Ifthereisanydoubtorambiguity
in the statutes, the rule of of purposive
construction should be takenrecourse to, to
achieve the objectives. (See Swedish Match
AB v. Securities & Exchange Board of India,
Scalepara84atp.176).
(3) ThelearnedSPPhasplacedrelianceontheauthority
inthecaseofKrishnaMochiandors.vs.StateofBiharreportedin
AIR2002SC1965.probablytodemonstrateastohowinaCriminal
Appeal,theprosecutorhastofacesomanyoddsandhowtoappreciate
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 294
the evidenceof awitnessinagiven case. Paragraph76 and77has
beenhighlightedbythelearnedprosecutor,whichcanbereproduced
foradvantage:
Para76:Itismatterofcommonexperience
that in recent times there has been sharp
declineofethicalvaluesin publiclifeeven
indevelopedcountriesmuchlessdeveloping
one,likeours,wheretheratioofdeclineis
higher.Eveninordinarycases,witnessesare
not inclined to depose or their evidence is
not found to be credible by courts for
manifold reasons. One of the reasons may
bethattheydonothavecouragetodepose
against an accused because of threats to
their life, more so when the offenders are
habitual criminals or highups in the
Governmentorclosetopowers,whichmay
be political, economic or other powers
includingmusclepower.Awitnessmaynot
stand the test of crossexamination which
may be sometime because he is a bucolic
person and is not able to understand the
question put to him by the skillful cross
examiner and at times under the stress of
crossexamination, certain answers are
snatched from him. When a rustic or
illiterate witness faces an astute lawyer,
there is bound to be imbalance and,
therefore, minor discrepancies have to be
ignored.Thesedaysitisnotdifficulttogain
over a witness by money power or giving
him any other all urence or giving out
threats to his life and/or property at the
instance of persons, in/or close to powers
and muscle men or their associates. Such
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 295
instances are also not uncommon where a
witnessisnotinclinedtodeposebecausein
the prevailing social structure he wants to
remain indifferent. It is most unfortunate
that expert witnesses and the investigating
agenciesandotheragencieswhichhavean
importantroletoplayarealsonotimmune
form decline of values in public life. Their
evidence sometimes becomes doubtful
because they do not act sincerely, take
everything in a casual manner and are not
abletodevoteproperattentionandtime.
Para77:Thus,incriminaltrialaprosecutor
isfacedwithsomanyodds.TheCourtwhile
appreciating the evidence should not lose
sight of these realities of life and cannot
afford to take an unrealistic approach by
sitting in ivory tower. I find that in recent
times the tendency to acquit an accused
easilyisgallopingfast.Itisveryeasytopass
anorderofacquittalonthebasisofminor
points raised in the case by a short
judgment so as to achieve the yardstick of
disposal. Some discrepancy is bound to be
there in each and every case which should
notweighwiththeCourtsolongitdoesnot
materially affect the prosecution case. In
case discrepancies pointed out are in the
realmofpebbled,courtshouldtreadupon,
it,butifthesameareboulders,courtshould
notmakeanattempttojumpoverthesame.
Thesedayswhencrimeisloominglargeand
humanityissufferingandsocietyissomuch
more. Now the maxim let hundred guilty
persons be acquitted, but not a single
innocent be convicted is, in practice,
changing world over and courts have been
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 296
compelledtoacceptthatsocietysuffersby
wrongconvictionsanditequallysuffersby
wrongacquittals.IfindthisCourtinrecent
times has conscientiously taken notice of
these facts from time to time. In the case
Inder Singh and Anr. v.
MANU/SC/0093/1978 : state (Delhi
Administration)1978CriLJ766,KrishnaIyer,
J.laiddownthatproofbeyondreasonable
doubtisaguideline,notafetishandguilty
mancannotgetawaywithitbecausetruth
suffers some infirmity when projected
through human processes. In the case of
State of U.P. v. MANU/SC/0503/1988 : Anil
Singh1989CriLJ88,itwasheldthataJudge
doesnotpresideoveracriminaltrialmerely
toseethatnoinnocentmanispunished.A
Judgealsopresidestoseethataguiltyman
doesnotescape.Oneisasimportantasthe
other. Both are public duties which the
Judgehastoperform.InthecaseofStateof
WestBengalv.MANU/SC/0321/1994:Orilal
JaiswalandAnr.1994CriLJ2104,itwasheld
that justice cannot be made sterile on the
plea that it is better to let hundred guilty
escape than punish an innocent. Letting
guiltyescapeisnotdoingjustice,according
tolaw.InthecaseofMohanSinghandAnr.
v. MANU/SC/0035/1999 : State of M.P.
1999CriLJ1334, it was held thattheCourts
havebeenremovingchafffromthegrain.It
has to disperse the suspicious cloud and
dustoutthesmearofdustasallthesethings
clogtheverytruth.Solongchaff,cloudand
dustremains,thecriminalsareclothedwith
thisprotectiveIayertoreceivethebenefitof
doubt.Soitisasolemndutyofthecourts,
not to merely conclude and leave the case
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 297
the moment suspicions are created. It is
onerous duty of the court, within
permissible limit to find out the truth. It
means, on one hand no innocent man
shouldbepunishedbutontheotherhandto
seenopersoncommittinganoffenceshould
get scot free. If in spite of such effort
suspicionisnotdissolved,itremainswritat
large,benefitofdoubthastobecreditedto
theaccused.
275. Lastly, again on the point of confession, prosecution has
relied upon the ruling in the case of (4) (2007) 4 Supreme Court
Cases257inthecaseofAbdulvahabAbdulmajidShaikhandothers
vs.StateofGujaratwithCr.AppealNo.129of2005inthecaseof
StateofGujaratvs.AbdulvahabAbdulmajidShaikhandothersand
with Cr. Appeal No. 130/2005 in the case of State of Gujarat vs.
YasinGanibhaiHaveliwalaandothers.Inthisauthority,itisheldby
Hon'bleSupremeCourtastohowtodeterminethevoluntarynatureof
aconfessionalstatementwhichisretractedatalaterstage. Itisheld
that merely because the confession was retracted later, that does not
mean that the confession is not voluntary in nature. Whether the
accused was willing to give confession voluntarily or not is to be
determined from his mental state at the time when he gave the
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 298
confession.Inthegivencase,theDCPstookalltheprecautionstosee
thattheconfessionsarevoluntaryandcompliedwithalltheformalities
whichhavebeenincorporatedintheconfessionalstatement,whichis
corroborated by other record and documents and, therefore, ratio is
applicabletothepresentsetoffacts.
276. Tosummaries,afterconsideringtheconfessionalstatements,
the prosecution has established the following facts, independent of
otherevidenceintheformofCDRandwitnesses:
(a)A1ArunGulabGawalialsoknownas'Daddy' istheheadofthe
OrganisedCrimeSyndicateoperatingfromGitaiBuilding,Dagali
ChawlCompound,Byculla,Mumbai.
(b)HeisalsoathelmofthePoliticalWingof theOrganizedCrime
syndicatenamelyAkhilBhartiyaSena.
(c)The members of the Organized Crime syndicate would bring
information about the builders, cable operators and other
businessmanintherespectiveareaswhowouldbecalledunder
threatstoDagadi Chawlintheground floor roombelonging to
A20SunilGhateandunderthethreatofdireconsequenceshuge
amountwasextortedfromsuchbuilder,businessmanregularly.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 299
(d)Any member of the Organized Crime syndicate who would not
accountfortheextortedmoneywouldbedealtseriouslybyA1
ArunGawalibybringinghimtoDagaliChawl.
(e)A20SunilGhatewouldleadtheOrganizationintheabsenceof
A1ArunGawali.
(f) A15 Suresh Patil and PW 25 Vishwnath Hinge would keep the
recordoftheaccountinsmalldiaries.
(g)A9SandipGanganwasregularlyworkingwiththeOrganization
headed by A1 Arun Gawali, knowing and having reasons to
believe that A1 Arun Gawali is involved in commission of
ContinuousUnlawfulActivities.
(h)A12PratapGodse,A13AjitRane,A10BabuGurav,A11Dinesh
NarkarhadgonetovillageRajapurforprocuringweaponwhich
theyneededforthreateningthebusinessmen,buildersandothers
for extorting money from them on behalf of Organized Crime
syndicateheadedbyA1ArunGawali.
(i) A6SahebraoBhintadeandA7SadashivSurevealongwithA12
Pratap Godse and A13 Ajit Rane had come to give Contractof
Killing Kamalakar Jamsandekar to A1 Arun Gawali at Mid of
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 300
December2006.TheyweretakentoA1ArunGawalionSecond
floorofGitailBuilding,DagaliChawlathisofficebyA9Sandeep
GanganwhereA12PratapGodsegaveabagcontainingRs.30
lacs to A1 Arun Gawali who in turn handed it over to A15
Suresh Patil and assured A6 Bhintade and A7 Sureve that the
work of Kamalakar Jamsandekar would be done, and in fact
KamakarJamsandekarwasmurderedon2
nd
March,2007.
(j) Some where in the beginning of January 200,A15 Suresh
Patil under the instructions of A1 Arun Gawali gave Rs. 60
thousandtoA12PratapGodsethroughA9SandeepGangan.
277. ItisarguedbySPPMr.Thakarethatthelawasregardsthe
confessioniswellsettled. Thereisnodenialofthefactthatjudicial
confessions are usually retracted. Retracted confessions are good
confessions, ifheldto havebeenmadevoluntarilyandinaccordance
withtheprovisionsoflaw.Corroborationoftheconfessionalstatement
isnotaruleoflaw,butaruleofprudence.Aconfessionrecordedu/s.
18oftheMCOCAct,isasubstantivepieceofevidencewhichcanbe
used even against coaccused if held to be admissible, voluntary and
believable. He further argued that merely because the confession is
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 301
recordedafteraprolongedcustody,therecannotbeapresumptionthat
confessionisnotvoluntary.Thisisbecauseitisnotnecessarytoknow
when and how the accused would express his desire to make a
confession.
278. Asregardscertificates,itissubmittedthatwhentheformat
is given in the rule, then merely because there is similarity in the
certificate either in the same format or near thereto in another
language, it cannot be discarded. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
accepted the confession and upheld conviction even when confession
waswithoutcertificatesofDCPs.Consequently,theobjectionraisedby
thedefence regardingthesimilarityofthe questionsandcopying the
certificate does not hold water thereby discrediting the prosecution
evidence. He,therefore,placedrelianceonarecentjudgmentofthe
Division Bench of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the matter of
Confirmation Case No. 5/2009, Sayed Mohd. Hanif Abdul Rahim
and others vs. State of Maharashtra, decided by (Hon'ble Mr.
KhanvilkarandMr.KodeJJ).
279. However,thelearnedSPPhasnottenderedthetextofthe
saidjudgmentnoritcouldbemadeavailable.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 302
280. ItisfurthersubmittedbythelearnedSPPthatallDCPs.have
recordedtheconfessionswhicharevoluntaryinnaturebyfollowingdue
procedure and after producing relevant station diary entries. The
confessionsintersecorroboratedeachother.Itisfurtherarguedthatas
regardstheconfessionsofA3Ashokkumar,A5Anil,A9Sandipand
A10 Shrikrishna were over after the court hours, consequently, they
couldbeproducedinthecourtofCMMonlyonthenextworkingday.
Moreover,oncetheaccusedistakentothecourtofCMM,itisnotinthe
hands of the carrier as to when the Magistrate would call him for
presenting in view of the heavy judicial as well as administrative
workload,oftheCMM.Hefurtherarguedthatsignificantlythereisno
mentionbythelearnedCMMaboutanydelayinproducingtheaccused
beforehimand, therefore, theallegationstothat effectarefalseand
baseless.
281. Most of the arguments of the defence counsel are on the
realm of surmises and, therefore, I am not inclined to discredit the
confessionalstatementsandtheevidenceofotherwitnesses.
282. Now,anotherimportantandvitalaspectunearthedinorder
tosubstantiatetheprosecutioncaseistheevidenceintheformofcall
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 303
detailrecordsofthemobilephones.ThisevidenceintheformofCDR
hasopenedacanofworms.Prosecutionhas,therefore,examinedP.W.
30CharlesDaniels Exh.329, P.W.34PrashantVasantraoGawdeExh.
425andP.W.35ShekharPalandeExh.431.
283. Before scrutinising the oral and documentary evidence to
thateffect,theprosecutionhastenderedthefollowingchartsdepicting
the call detail records amongst the accused on different dates and at
differenttimes,includingthemobilenumbers,thedate,thedurationof
time,thecallingnumbercell,idaddressandthecorrespondingrecord
ontheparticularpagenumber.Thechartscanbedepictedasunder:
Tower Locations showing presence of A-12 Pratap Godase at the relevant time of
giving money for Contract Killing 'SUPARI'
NOTE:'B'standsforEXHBITNo.427Colly.
Date Time Call
Dura
tion
Calling No Calling
No Cell
ID
address
Called No Called No
Cell ID
address
Page
No
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
15/12/2006 135151 60 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
17475
(Sant
Savta
Marg,
Opposite
Gloria
Church,
Byculla
East,
Mumbai
9223317263 - B-7
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 304
400 027)
15/12/2006 135323 196 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
17475
(Sant
Savta
Marg,
Opposite
Gloria
Church,
Byculla
East,
Mumbai
400 027)
2220551270 - B-7
15/12/2006 135704 167 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
16465
(24,
Motibai
Street,
Agripada,
Mahalaxm
i, Cyrus
Avenue
Road,
Mumbai
400 008)
9833873756
(Ajit Rane)
- B-7
15/12/2006 140014 204 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
17475
(Sant
Savta
Marg,
Opposite
Gloria
Church,
Byculla
East,
Mumbai
400 027)
9867027359 - B-7
15/12/2006 141341 83 2220551270 - 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
17475
(Sant Savta
Marg,
Opposite
Gloria
Church,
Byculla
East,
Mumbai
400 027)
B-59
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 305
15/12/2006 141657 69 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
17475
(Sant
Savta
Marg,
Opposite
Gloria
Church,
Byculla
East,
Mumbai
400 027)
9833873756
(Ajit Rane)
- B-7
15/12/2006 141840 730 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
31618
(Saat
Rasta)
9223317263 - B-7
15/12/2006 143229 12 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
31618
(Saat
Rasta)
9322869861 - B-7
15/12/2006 151826 56 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
21539
(GTB
Morni
CHS)
9223317263 - B-7
TowerLocationsshowingpresenceofA12PratapGodaseatthe
relevanttimeofreceivingmoneyforContractKilling'SUPARI'
NOTE:'B'standsforEXHBITNo.427Colly.
Date Time Call
Dura
tion
Calling No Calling
No Cell
ID
address
Called No Called No
Cell ID
address
Page
No
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
08/01/2007 130255 375 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
17475
(Sant
Savta
Marg,
Opposite
Gloria
Church,
Byculla
East,
9833873756
(Ajit Rane)
- B-13
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 306
Mumbai
400 027)
08/01/2007 131018 10 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
17475
(Sant
Savta
Marg,
Opposite
Gloria
Church,
Byculla
East,
Mumbai
400 027)
9833873756
(Ajit Rane)
- B-13
08/01/2007 131238 80 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
17475
(Sant
Savta
Marg,
Opposite
Gloria
Church,
Byculla
East,
Mumbai
400 027)
9869148966
(Ajit Rane)
- B-13
08/01/2007 141040 42 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
31618
(Saat
Rasta)
9819251750
(Babu
Gurav)
- B-13
08/01/2007 141359 31 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
31618
(Saat
Rasta)
9819251750
(Babu
Gurav)
- B-13
08/01/2007 172508 41 9322468462 - 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
17475
(Sant Savta
Marg,
Opposite
Gloria
Church,
Byculla
East,
Mumbai
400 027)
B-73
08/01/2007 174844 41 9820901814 - 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
17475
(Sant Savta
Marg,
Opposite
B-73
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 307
Gloria
Church,
Byculla
East,
Mumbai
400 027)
08/01/2007 174945 227 2240058561 - 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
17475
(Sant Savta
Marg,
Opposite
Gloria
Church,
Byculla
East,
Mumbai
400 027)
B-73
08/01/2007 175545 11 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
17475
(Sant
Savta
Marg,
Opposite
Gloria
Church,
Byculla
East,
Mumbai
400 027)
2224014587 - B-13
08/01/2007 175619 51 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
17475
(Sant
Savta
Marg,
Opposite
Gloria
Church,
Byculla
East,
Mumbai
400 027)
9322869861 - B-13
08/01/2007 180034 39 9322869861 - 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
17475
(Sant Savta
Marg,
Opposite
Gloria
Church,
B-73
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 308
Byculla
East,
Mumbai
400 027)
08/01/2007 181024 8 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
31618
(Saat
Rasta)
9833873756
(Ajit Rane)
- B-13
284. The second chart depicts the tower locations indicating
presenceofA12PratapwhenhehadbeentoDagdichawl,Bycullato
givecontractkillingi.e.'supari'alongwithA6Bhintade,A7Surveand
A13 Rane, which corroborates the confessional statements of A9
Sandip Exh. 324 when he had stated that in the midst of December
2006,themembersofAkhilBhartiyaSenaviz.A12PratapandA13
Ranealongwithtwoagedpersonsi.e.A6BhintadeandA7Survehad
beentoDagdichawlwithabrowncolouredbagcontainingRs.30lakhs
asacontractmoneytokillKamlakarJamsandekar.Itfurtherfindsfull
corroboration to the confessional statement of A15 Patil Exh. 241
whichIhavealreadydisucssed. A15PatilasperthedirectionsofA1
ArunGawali,keptthebagcontainingRs.30lakhsinthecupboard.As
such,fromthischart,itcanbeseenthepresenceofA12Pratapinthe
areaofBycullanearSantSavtaMarg,oppositeGloriaChurch.Hemade
notonlyoneortwocalls,butsixcallsfromthesaidspotofwhichtwo
calls were on the mobile of A13 Rane at 13:57:04: and second at
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 309
14:16:27.
285. Thethirdchartdepicts12callson8
th
January,2007byA12
PrataptoA13Rane,A10Shrikrishnaandviceversa.Firstthreecalls
are from Byculla area and the call numbers 4 and 5 were from Saat
RastaareawhenA12PratapcalledA10ShrikrishnaaliasBabu.These
calls also corroborates the presence of A12 Pratap at Byculla Dagdi
ChawlfromtheconfessionalstatementsofA9SandipandA15Patil
whenanamountofRs.60,000/waspaidtoA12PratapbyA9Sandip.
286. Thefourthchartdepictstowerlocationsindicatingpresence
ofA3AshokkumarinthevicinityofAsalfavillageandcommunication
with other accused persons involved in the murder of Kamlakar
Jamsandekar.Thesaidchartisselfexplanatorywhichneednofurther
clarificationaboutdateswhichcommencedfrom15
th
February2007to
1
st
March2007,comprising50calls.
287. The next chart indicates calls and tower locations of A3
AshokkumarandA2Pratapaswellastheotheraccusedinvolvedinthe
conspiracy on the day of murder of Kamlakar Jamsandekar, which is
most important. This chart indicates that there were as many as 16
callson2
nd
March2007betweentheseaccused.CallatSr.Nos.11and
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 310
14 are significant in the sense that the first call at 16:48:17, from
mobileNo.9224676768wasmadefromthemobileofA3Ashokkumar
toA12Pratapi.e.No.9223202133forabout74seconds. Thetower
locationsof the shootersi.e.A2 Vijay Giri, A3Ashokkumar and A4
NarendraindicatesthattheywereonTilakRoad,GhatkoparEast. It
hascomeintheconfessionthataftertheincident,theyranawayfrom
the spot from Narayan Galli, Ghatkopar which clearly suggests that
incoming call of A12 Pratap was made from that area when A12
PratapwasatShantiPark,MiraRoadEast,whenhereceivedthesame.
ItisthematterofrecordthatKamlakarwasmurderedatabout16.45
hoursandwithinthreeminutes,thefirstcallwasmadebyA2Vijayto
A12 Pratap. Immediately thereafter, at 16:50:08, A12 Pratap
intimatedaboutittoA13Raneandat17:06:08alsotalkedtoA5Anil.
Immediatelyat17:14:49,A12PratapcalledA3Ashokkumarwhoby
thattimereachedNavapadaLane,KurlaWest.Thereafter,A12Pratap
calledA10Shrikrishna at 18:12:58 and thenA10Shrikrishna called
A12 Pratapat 22:52:20. What else is requiredto establish the well
connected accused after they succeeded in the conspiracywhich they
hadhatchedtoeliminateKamlakarJamsandekar?
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 311
288. Thenextchartindicatesthecallsandtowerlocationsduring
therelevantperiodafterthemurderi.e.3
rd
March2007betweenA3
Ashokkumar and A5 Anil from Vikhroli to Borivali East. At that
relevant time, the money was collected by A2 Vijay from A10
Shrikrishna. A3AshokkumarandA5AnilwerewithA2Vijayatthe
BorivaliNationalParkwheretheyreceivedtheamount.
TowerLocationsshowingpresenceofA3AshokJaiswarinthe
vicinityofAslafavillageandcommunicationwithotheraccused
personsinvolvedinconspiracypriortomurderofKamalakar
Jamsandekar
NOTE
(1) 'A' stands for EXHBIT No. 426 Colly
(2) 'B' stands for EXHBIT No. 427 Colly.
(3) CallsinBoldandItalichavingcorrespondingentriesinCDRs
ofboththeaccused.
Date Time Call
Dur
atio
n
Calling No Calling
No Cell
ID
address
Called No Called No
Cell ID
address
Page
No
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
15/02/2007 225419 157 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
20355
(Bhandup,
Near
Mangatra
m Petrol
Pump)
9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- A-47
17/02/2007 091107 65 9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
19441
(Junction of
Andheri
Ghatkopar
A-13
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 312
RD and
Jangaleshwa
r Mahadeo
Mandir
RD,Asalpha
village,Mu
mbai-84)
17/02/2007 184508 53 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
19825
(GOREG
AON -
P.L.Lokha
nde marg,
Buddha
nagar,
Govandi)
9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- A-47
17/02/2007 190342 35 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
19825
( GOREG
AON
-P.L.Lokh
ande
marg,
Buddha
nagar,
Govandi)
9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- A-47
17/02/2007 224744 23 9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
898
(Plot No.
52, Jai Hind
Society, Vile
Parle West,
Mumbai
400 057)
A-13
18/02/2007 091906 36 9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
3458
(Near ICICI
Bldg,
Chandivali,
Andheri
east)
A-13
18/02/2007 112154 14 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
3459
(Near
ICICI
Bldg,
Chandival
i, Andheri
east)
9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- A-47
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 313
18/02/2007 192931 18 9819251750
(Babu Gurav)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
3458
(Near ICICI
Bldg,
Chandivali,
Andheri
east)
A-13
19/02/2007 081221 95 9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
20355
(Bhandup,N
ear
Mangatram
Petrol
Pump)
A-13
19/02/2007 091353 51 9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
19441
(Junction of
Andheri
Ghatkopar
RD and
Jangaleshwa
r Mahadeo
Mandir
RD,Asalpha
village,
Mumbai-84)
A-13
19/02/2007 091816 11 9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
19441
(Junction of
Andheri
Ghatkopar
RD and
Jangaleshwa
r Mahadeo
Mandir
RD,Asalpha
village,Mu
mbai-84)
A-13
19/02/2007 100739 52 9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
19441
(Junction of
Andheri
Ghatkopar
RD and
Jangaleshwa
r Mahadeo
Mandir
RD,Asalpha
village,Mu
A-13
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 314
mbai-84)
19/02/2007 101301 62 9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
19441
(Junction of
Andheri
Ghatkopar
RD and
Jangaleshwa
r Mahadeo
Mandir
RD,Asalpha
village,Mu
mbai-84)
A-13
19/02/2007 102607 40 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
19441
(Junction
of Andheri
Ghatkopar
RD and
Jangalesh
war
Mahadeo
Mandir
RD,Asalp
ha
village,M
umbai-84)
9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- A-47
19/02/2007 104000 34 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
19441
(Junction
of Andheri
Ghatkopar
RD and
Jangalesh
war
Mahadeo
Mandir
RD,Asalp
ha
village,M
umbai-84)
9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- A-47
19/02/2007 114334 27 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
19443
(Junction
of Andheri
Ghatkopar
RD and
Jangalesh
9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- A-47
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 315
war
Mahadeo
Mandir
RD,Asalp
ha
village,M
umbai-84)
19/02/2007 122156 23 9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
20354
(Bhandup,N
ear
Mangatram
Petrol
Pump)
A-13
19/02/2007 130255 23 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
20355
(Bhandup,
Near
Mangatra
m Petrol
Pump.)
(Bhandup,
Near
Mangatra
m Petrol
Pump)
9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- A-47
19/02/2007 130719 27 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
20355
(Bhandup,
Near
Mangatra
m Petrol
Pump.)
(Bhandup,
Near
Mangatra
m Petrol
Pump)
9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- A-47
20/02/2007 102710 28 9819251750
(Babu Gurav)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
3459
(Near ICICI
Bldg,
Chandivali,
Andheri
east)
A-13
20/02/2007 110150 22 9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
19441
(Junction of
Andheri
A-13
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 316
Ghatkopar
RD and
Jangaleshwa
r Mahadeo
Mandir
RD,Asalpha
village,Mu
mbai-84)
20/02/2007 202033 1 9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
21746
(Goregaon
H/w)
A-5
20/02/2007 202104 14 9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
21746
(Goregaon
H/w)
A-5
22/02/2007 140527 112 9819251750
(Babu Gurav)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
7586
(S.N.Dubey
road,
Rawalpada,
Dahisar(east
))
A-5
22/02/2007 212344 7 9819251750
(Babu Gurav)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
21697
(KEDARA
M ROAD
MALAD E)
A-5
23/02/2007 215437 96 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
3459
(Near
ICICI
Bldg,
Chandival
i, Andheri
east)
9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- B-41
23/02/2007 220453 81 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
3459
(Near
ICICI
Bldg,
Chandival
i, Andheri
east)
9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- B-41
23/02/2007 220845 65 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
3459
(Near
ICICI
Bldg,
Chandival
9819251750
(Babu
Gurav)
- B-41
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 317
i, Andheri
east)
23/02/2007 225345 156 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
3459
(Near
ICICI
Bldg,
Chandival
i, Andheri
east)
9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- B-41
23/02/2007 234219 33 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
3459
(Near
ICICI
Bldg,
Chandival
i, Andheri
east)
9819251750
(Babu
Gurav)
- B-41
24/02/2007 202050 52 9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
20355
(Bhandup,N
ear
Mangatram
Petrol
Pump)
A-15
24/02/2007 203402 21 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
3458
(Near
ICICI
Bldg,
Chandival
i, Andheri
east)
9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- B-43
24/02/2007 211407 14 9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
3458
(Near ICICI
Bldg,
Chandivali,
Andheri
east)
A-15
25/02/2007 113529 33 9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
4930
(Junction of
M V Road
and Baji
Pisalkar
Marg,Sakin
aka
Junction,Sa
kinaka,And
B-127
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 318
heri
-East,Mumb
ai-59)
25/02/2007 114000 49 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
19441
(Junction
of Andheri
Ghatkopar
RD and
Jangalesh
war
Mahadeo
Mandir
RD,Asalp
ha
village,M
umbai-84)
9819251750
(Babu
Gurav)
- B-43
25/02/2007 114118 134 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
19441
(Junction
of Andheri
Ghatkopar
RD and
Jangalesh
war
Mahadeo
Mandir
RD,Asalp
ha
village,M
umbai-84)
9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- B-43
25/02/2007 120241 19 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
3459
(Near
ICICI
Bldg,
Chandival
i, Andheri
east)
9819251750
(Babu
Gurav)
- B-43
25/02/2007 121302 68 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
3459
(Near
ICICI
Bldg,
Chandival
i, Andheri
east)
9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- B-43
25/02/2007 152642 12 9323709336 - 9224676768 19441 A-15
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 319
(Anil Giri) (Ashok
Jaiswar)
(Junction of
Andheri
Ghatkopar
RD and
Jangaleshwa
r Mahadeo
Mandir
RD,Asalpha
village,Mu
mbai-84)
25/02/2007 154914 23 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
3458
(Near
ICICI
Bldg,
Chandival
i, Andheri
east)
9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- B-43
25/02/2007 173524 17 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
19441
(Junction
of Andheri
Ghatkopar
RD and
Jangalesh
war
Mahadeo
Mandir
RD,Asalp
ha
village,M
umbai-84)
9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- B-43
25/02/2007 180256 22 9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
19441
(Junction of
Andheri
Ghatkopar
RD and
Jangaleshwa
r Mahadeo
Mandir
RD,Asalpha
village,Mu
mbai-84)
B-127
25/02/2007 180638 48 9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
19441
(Junction of
Andheri
B-127
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 320
Ghatkopar
RD and
Jangaleshwa
r Mahadeo
Mandir
RD,Asalpha
village,Mu
mbai-84)
25/02/2007 185329 12 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
3459
(Near
ICICI
Bldg,
Chandival
i, Andheri
east)
9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
3458
(Near ICICI
Bldg,
Chandivali,
Andheri
east)
B-43
A-15
26/02/2007 110613 43 9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
20307
(LBS Marg,
Ghatkopar(
W),
Mumbai-86)
A-15
26/02/2007 202911 34 9819251750
(Babu Gurav)
- 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
6113
(inorbit
mall,malad
link road)
B-129
26/02/2007 232612 28 9819251750
(Babu Gurav)
- 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
3458
(Near ICICI
Bldg,
Chandivali,
Andheri
east)
B-129
28/02/2007 123618 24 9819251750
(Babu Gurav)
- 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
19441
(Junction of
Andheri
Ghatkopar
RD and
Jangaleshwa
r Mahadeo
Mandir
RD,Asalpha
village,Mu
mbai-84)
B-131
28/02/2007 123913 25 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
19441
(Junction
of Andheri
9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- B-45
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 321
Ghatkopar
RD and
Jangalesh
war
Mahadeo
Mandir
RD,Asalp
ha
village,M
umbai-84)
01/03/2007 195805 30 9819251750
(Babu Gurav)
- 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
3459
(Near ICICI
Bldg,
Chandivali,
Andheri
east)
B-131
CallsandTowerLocationsofA3AshokJaiswarandA12Pratap
Godaseandotheraccusedinvolvedintheconspiracyonthedayof
murderofKamalakarJamsandekar
Date Time Call
Dur
atio
n
Calling No Calling
No Cell
ID
address
Called No Called No
Cell ID
address
Page
No
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
02/03/2007 114247 42 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
3458
(Near
ICICI
Bldg,
Chandival
i, Andheri
east)
9819251750
(Babu
Gurav)
- B-45
02/03/2007 124213 42 9819251750
(Babu
Gurav)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
19441
(Junction of
Andheri
Ghatkopar
RD and
Jangaleshwa
r Mahadeo
Mandir
RD,Asalpha
village,Mu
A-17
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 322
mbai-84)
02/03/2007 130311 50 9819251750
(Babu
Gurav)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
19441
(Junction of
Andheri
Ghatkopar
RD and
Jangaleshwa
r Mahadeo
Mandir
RD,Asalpha
village,Mu
mbai-84)
A-17
02/03/2007 130932 38 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
3459
(Near
ICICI
Bldg,
Chandival
i, Andheri
east)
9833873756
(Ajit Rane)
- B-45
02/03/2007 133234 11 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
3458
(Near
ICICI
Bldg,
Chandival
i, Andheri
east)
9869148966
(Ajit Rane)
- B-45
02/03/2007 141553 10 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
1363
(Plot No.
275/C,
Tilak
Road,
Ghatkopar
East,
Mumbai
400 077)
9833873756
(Ajit Rane)
- B-45
02/03/2007 142245 22 9833873756
(Ajit Rane)
- 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
- B-133
02/03/2007 142341 13 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
20307
(LBS
Marg,
Ghatkopar
(W),
Mumbai-8
9833873756
(Ajit Rane)
- B-45
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 323
6)
02/03/2007 144051 18 9819251750
(Babu
Gurav)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
3458
(Near ICICI
Bldg,
Chandivali,
Andheri
east)
A-17
02/03/2007 150102 90 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
1138
(Dindoshi,
Opp. Patel
Aluminium,
Malad
East,
Mumbai
400 097)
9819251750
(Babu
Gurav)
- B-45
02/03/2007 164817 74 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
1363
(Plot No.
275/C,
Tilak
Road,
Ghatkopar
East,
Mumbai
400 077)
9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
1857
(Shanti
Park, Mira
Road East,
Dist. Thane
401 107)
B-131
B-133
A-47
A-49
02/03/2007 165008 59 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
1857
(Shanti
Park,
Mira
Road
East, Dist.
Thane
401 107)
9869148966
(Ajit Rane)
- B-45
02/03/2007 170608 25 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
20049
(Behind
Shell
Petrol
Pump ,
Munshi
compound
, WE
Highway ,
Thane-40
1104)
9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- B-45
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 324
02/03/2007 171449 74 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
7587
(S.N.Dub
ey
road,Raw
alpada,Da
hisar(east)
)
9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
17907
(Navapada
Lane, Kurla
Kamani,
Kurla West,
Mumbai
400 070 )
B-45
A-25
02/03/2007 172158 37 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
1233
(Thakur
Complex,
Kandivali
East,
Mumbai
400 101)
9819251750
(Babu
Gurav)
- B-45
02/03/2007 225220 113 9819251750
(Babu
Gurav)
- 9223202133
(Pratap
Godase)
3459
(Near ICICI
Bldg,
Chandivali,
Andheri
east)
B-133
CallsandTowerlocationsduringtherelevantperiodshowing
journeyofA3AshokJaiswarfromVikrolitoBorivaliEast
Date Time Call
Dura
tion
Calling No Calling
No Cell
ID
address
Called No Called No
Cell ID
address
Page
No
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
03/03/2007 184742 27 9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
9891
(off.LBS
ROAD,
Opp. Vikroli
Bus Depot,
vIKROLI
WEST.)
A-37
03/03/2007 214202 12 9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
17409
(Opp. IIT,
Powai,
Mumbai
400 076)
A- 17
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 325
03/03/2007 220829 60 9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
1009
(Vijay
Nagar,
Marol
Maroshi
Road,
Mumbai
400 059)
A- 17
03/03/2007 221139 36 9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
3538
(Seepz ,
Andheri(E),
Mumbai)
A- 17
03/03/2007 222721 25 9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
21745
(Goregaon
H/w)
A- 5
03/03/2007 223246 54 9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
19827
(GOREGA
ON
-P.L.Lokhan
de marg,
Buddha
nagar,
Govandi)
A- 5
03/03/2007 224153 46 9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
19809
(MALAD
Nirlon
Industries)
A- 5
03/03/2007 231428 44 9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
2243
(Near
Omkareshw
ar
Mandir,W E
Highway,
Borivali
East)
A- 5
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 326
CallsbetweenA3AshokJaiswarandA5AnilGiriafteralong
periodsince03/03/2008onthedayofarrestofA12PratapGodse
andA13AjitRaneandthereafter
Date Time Call
Dura
tion
Calling No Calling
No Cell
ID
address
Called No Called No
Cell ID
address
Page
No
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
11/03/2007 120902 31 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
20355
(Bhandup,
Near
Mangatra
m Petrol
Pump.)
(Bhandup,
Near
Mangatra
m Petrol
Pump)
9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- A-49
11/03/2007 172506 38 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
17427
(L.B.S.
Marg,
Opp.
Badwaik
Hospital,
Bhandup
West,
Mumbai
400 078)
9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- A-49
12/03/2007 185655 87 9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
20355
(Bhandup,N
ear
Mangatram
Petrol
Pump)
A- 17
12/03/2007 210312 16 9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
20355
(Bhandup,N
ear
Mangatram
Petrol
Pump)
A- 17
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 327
16/03/2007 104031 12 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
20355
(Bhandup,
Near
Mangatra
m Petrol
Pump)
9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- A-49
16/03/2007 123829 81 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
1730
(Gokhale
Road,
Opp.
Hotel
Alok,
Naupada,
Thane 400
602)
9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- A-49
17/03/2007 185839 30 9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
17074
(Kalyani
Complex,
Panch Marg,
Andheri
West,
Mumbai
400 061)
A- 5
23/03/2007 191842 72 9224676768
(Ashok
Jaiswar)
20371
(Bhandup
MD Keni
roiad,
Bhandup
east,
Mumbai)
9323709336
(Anil Giri)
- A-49
289. The evidence of P.W. 34Prashant Gawde indicates that he
was working with TATA Teleservices Maharashtra Ltd., Sanpada as a
AssistantManager,VigilancefromSeptember2007toJune2010.Prior
to it, he was working as a Sr. Executive in the same company. He
testified that Central server of TATA Communications is situated at
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 328
Hyderabad. Thereisalinkprovidedtoextractthedataofthephone
calls by which he can extract the details of the phone calls. They
provided data as per their demand. As per the request of ACP, D1
(South),DCB,CID,Mumbai,byletterbearingNo.5/09dated3.1.2009,
the call details of Mobile No. 9224676768 and 9224770420 were
demanded from 1.12.2006 to 31.3.2007. Accordingly, he extracted
those detailsfrom the centralserver through the link providedtohis
office. Thosebearssealofhisofficeoneachpage. Thecertificateof
calldetailswithhissignatureandwasdulyprovedwhichcomprises84
pagesandiscollectivelymarkedasExh.426.
290. The document X63 is referred by the witness as per the
demandofACPD1(South),DCB,CID,MumbaibyaletterNo.156/08
dated 27.4.2009. The details of mobile no. 9223202133 were
demandedfrom1.12.2006to12.3.2007andofmobileno.9224770420
from1.7.2006to30.9.2006.Heextractedthosedetailsfromthecentral
serverandaccordinglyfurnishedacertificateaboutitwhichbearshis
signatureandsealcomprising92pages.ItismarkedasExh.427.
291. Heclarifiedthatthefirstcolumnofthecalldetailsindicates
thatcalldateonwhichcallwasmade. Secondcolumnindicatescall
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 329
starts time. Third column indicates duration in terms of seconds.
Fourthcolumnindicatescallingnumber. Fifthcolumnindicatescalled
number.SixthcolumnindicatescellsiteID(location).Seventhcolumn
indicates ESN number. Eighth column indicates MINIMSI number.
Ninthcolumnindicatesincomingrouteanddirectionsandtenthcolumn
indicatesoutgoingrouteanddirections.Datecolumnindicatesfirstthe
yearthenthemonthandthentheday.Secondcolumnregardingtime
first indicates hours, thereafter minutes and lastly seconds. At some
places,cellsiteIDi.e.locationisnotshownintheextractsofthedetails
ofthecallthatmayhappenbecauseofroaming.CapitalINindicatesthe
callisreceivedandOUTindicatesthecallwasmade.
292. Hewascrossexamined by learned counsel Mr. Pasbola on
behalfofAccusednos.1,2,3,7,11,15and20.thereisnothinginhis
crossexamination by which it can be said that he has given false
evidenceorhasanyreasontodeposefalse. Itisatechnicalevidence,
which remained unrebutted during cross. There is no violation of
Section 65(B) of the Evidence Act which is about admissibility of
electronicrecord.
293. P.W. 35 Shekhar Palande Exh. 431 is working with TATA
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 330
TelecommunicationMaharashtraLtd.since2004asaAssistantManager
atTurbhe,NaviMumbai. Hehadproducedapplicationformsofthree
mobilenumbers,theyare:9223202133,9224770420and9224676768.
He deposed that application in the name of Pratap Tukaram Godse
(A12) is annexed with the xerox copy of electricity bill and identity
proof along with agreement with customer. It was an agreement
betweenTATAcompanyandcustomer. Itbearssealofthedistributor
i.e.AshaElectronicsPvt.Ltd.Italsobearsthenameoftheretaileri.e.
Vijay Communication. It is in the name of Pratap Tukaram Godse
(A12)formobileNo.9223202133.Hefurtherdeposedthatoldphone
number was 55202133 which later on converted into ten digits i.e.
9223202133. Initially, digits 9223 are added and previous digits
remainedasitis.CapitalESNnumberindicatesequipmentSr.No.i.e.
handsetnumber.3D60BD9DistheESNnumberofthesaidmobileNo.
9223202133. This particular handset is not sim card based handset.
Becauseofthat,otherSimcardcannotbeinsertedinit.Thedistributor
has to get executed the agreement with the customer. Accordingly, it
wasexecutedwhichisannexedwiththeformhavingsignatureofthe
customer and employee of the distributor. The said agreement is in
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 331
prescribed form. The application and the annexures (fivepages) are
markedasExh.432.
294. Second application is in the name of Ravindra Panchal of
mobile no. 9224770420. Even in his statement u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C.,
SurendraPanchalA8admitsthatRavindraPanchalishisrealbrother
andthenumberisinhisname. P.W.35Palandehastestifiedthatthe
applicationbearsretailer'sseali.e.S.K.Enterprises.ItisaprepaidSim
card.ThesaiddocumentisprovedatExh.433collectively.
295. Third application is in the name of A3 Ashok Jaiswar
having mobile no. 9224676768. It bears retailer's stamp Jeet
Electronics,accompaniedbycopyofPancardandrationcard.Thereare
totalthreepageswhichareprovedatExh.434.
296. HefurthertestifiedthattheCDRi.ecalldetailrecordExh.
426 bearsESNnumberinColumnNo.7. ESNnumberchangeswhen
callermakescallfromTATAtoTATA.HewasshownExh.427,pageno.
1. Accordingtohim,ESNchangesifthehandsetwaschanged. ESN
numberofincomingcallsaretheonlychangesinPageno.1/426.The
witness clarified that in Column No. 8, some of the places are blank
whichoccurredifthereisnetworkofotherthanTATA.Ifthecallerand
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 332
receiver of the mobile handset are both of TATA, then it reflects the
entriesinCDR. Insuchcase,bothcallerandreceiverarereflectedin
CDR.TATAcompanystorescellIDwhichlocatestheareaofthecaller
andreceiver. ThewitnesshadproducedthedataoflocationIDinthe
formofCDRalongwithacertificateasrequiredbytheEvidenceAct.It
waspreparedbyP.W.35andisprovedat Exh.435. Hedeposedthat
CDRisdrawnbyhimfrommastercomputer. ThesaidCDRismarked
asExh.436. HefurthertestifiedthatthedataonthecellIDbearsthe
towernumberandaddressoftheareawherethecallsaremadeand
received.FromthebasisoftheTATAnumber,acellIDnumbercanbe
ascertained.TheaddressofthecellsiteIDnumberareasunder:
Sr.
No.
CellsiteID
no.
Address
1 1363 Kailash Mension, Block no.275/C, Tilak Road,
Ghatkopar(E),Mumbai77.
2 1922 Oxford Chamber, Saki Vihar Road, Near L & T,
Andheri(E),Mumbai72.
3 1938 VikasCHS,'A' Wing,SirM.V.Road,Andheri(E),
Mumbai.
4 3458 Shivom, near ICICI Building, Chandivali, Andheri
(E),Mumbai.
5 3459 Shivom, near ICICI Building, Chandivali, Andheri
(E),Mumbai.
6 4929 Neelkhanth, M. V. Road, Sakinaka Junction,
Sakinaka,Andheri(E),Mumbai.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 333
7 16465 A1HashmiCHS,24MotibaiStreet,SairusAvenue
Road,Agripada,Mumbai400008.
8 16914 HotelAthithi,77A&B,NehruRoad,VileParle(E),
Mumbai400057.
9 17475 Hotel Heritage, Opp. Gloria Church, Sant Savata
Mal,Byculla(E),Mumbai400027.
10 17907 Bhabha Apartment, Navava pada lane, Kurla
Kamani,Kurla(W),Mumbai400070.
11 19441 KhannaApartment,JangleshwarMahadevMandir
Road, Andheri Ghatkopar Road, Asalpha village,
Mumbai400084.
12 31618 ModelResidency,Satrasta,Byculla,Mumbai400011.
13 31619 Model Residency, Satrasta, Byculla, Mumbai 400
011.
14 28402 Not available because cell Id is from out of
Mumbai.
ThewitnesstestifiedthathehadobtainedthedataofthecellIDfrom
Mumbaionly. However,dataofCellIDNo.28402isoutofMumbai
and,therefore,addressisnotavailablewithP.W.35Palande.According
tohim,rangeofeachtowersurroundsfivekilometersapproximately.If
anytowerisbusy,thenanothertowercancatchthefrequency.
297. During crossexamination, the learned counsel Mr. Pasbola
failedtoshakehistestimonyormakeanydent.Obviously,itbeingan
unimpeachabledocumentaryevidenceintheformofelectronicrecord
aboutthecalldetails,thereishardlyanyscopetoshowthattheseare
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 334
allfabricateddocuments. Section65(B)(1)oftheEvidenceActreads
thus:
Admissibility of electronic records.(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this
Act, any information contained in an
electronic record which is printed on a
paper,stored,recordedorcopiedinoptical
ormagneticmediaproducedbyacomputer
(hereinafter referred to as the computer
output) shall be deemed to be also a
document, if the conditions mentioned in
this section are satisfied in relation to the
information and computer in question and
shall be admissible in any proceedings,
without further proof or production of the
original,asevidenceofanycontentsofthe
original or of any fact stated therein of
whichdirectevidencewouldbeadmissible.
Alltheconditionsrequiredinthesaidsectionarecompliedwithand,
therefore, it is an admissible evidence without further proof or
productionoftheoriginalasevidenceofanycontentsoftheoriginalor
ofanyfactstatedthereinofwhichdirectevidencewouldbeadmissible.
Thereisreasonforthiswitnesstofabricatethefalsedocumentstohelp
theprosecutionasheisanindependentwitnesswhohasnogrudgeor
axetogrindagainsttheaccused.Mostofthequestionsareintheform
of seeking clarification about the abbreviations and other technical
aspectswhichthewitnesshasaptlyanswered.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 335
298. P.W. 30 Charles Daniels Exh. 329 is working as a Nodal
Officer with Vodafone since 2006. He testified that the name and
address of the other details of the subscribers are stored as per the
documents submitted. CDR are also stored in the data. As a nodal
officer, he has to interact with law enforcement agencies and supply
themnecessaryinformationasaskedfor,whichisstoredintheirsystem.
299. In view of the requisition from ACP, D1, South dated
3.1.2009(Exh.330),callingforcertaindetailsoffiveSimnumbers,the
details were submitted, with a forwarding letter Exh. 331. The data
wasretrievedwhichisintheformofelectronicrecordandfurnishedto
thepolice.Thewitnesshasproducedtheoriginalrecordi.e.subscribers
form. The application forms were with respect to Mobile No.
9920698927fortheperiod 7.5.2007to 4.9.2007. Thedocumentsto
thateffectareprovedatExh.406.Secondapplicationwaswithrespect
to Mobile No. 9919251756 wherein the name of the applicant is
Shrikrishna A10, for the period from 22.7.2005 to 25.10.2006. A
drivinglicenceinsupportofthesamewasproduced. Thedocuments
are proved at Exh. 408. The application form clearly depicts
photographofA10withhisname.P.W.30Danielstestifiedthatagain
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 336
thesamenumberwasallottedtoA10,however,cardwaschangedfrom
prepaidtopostpaid.Theentiredocumentaryevidencetothateffectis
provedat Exh.409 whichcomprisessevenpapers. Italsocomprises
drivinglicenceofA10Shrikrishna.
300. Thewitnesshasbeencrossexaminedonsimilarlinestothat
of earlier witness byMr. Pasbolawho failedtomakeanydentin his
evidence which is unimpeachable and cogent and inspires full
confidencefromthedocumentsonrecord.Onthecontrary,ithasbeen
reiteratedthattheapplicationsarepreservedinthewarehouseandthat
thedepartmenthasprovidedthiswitnesswithallthedocuments.The
subscriber'sdetailsaremaintainedandoperatedbythecustomerservice
department.Thewitnessclarifiesthatonthebasisofapassword, he
canaccesstheinformationstoredbythecustomerservicedepartment.
On that basis, he can get name, address and activation date of the
applicant.
301. Byreexamining,theSPPclarifiedthatthereisnosealon
Exh.409 becauseitisanapplicationforpostpaidSimcardwhichhas
beensoldbythedirectsalesagentwhichbearsacodeofaparticular
salesagency.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 337
302. Itcanbeseenfromtheevidenceoftheaforesaidwitnesses
visavisthedocumentaryevidenceproducedbythemthatmobileno.
9223202133 is in the name of A12 Pratap Godse. The original
customerapplicationformanddocumentsofproofi.e.passportcopyof
A12PratapbearinghisphotographisprovedatExh.432.
303. Mobile No. 9224770420 stands in the name of P.W. 8
NarendraPanchal,whoisrealbrotherofA8SurendraPanchal. The
originalcustomerapplicationformalongwithPancardandrationcard
Exh.433provesthatthisphonebelongstoP.W.8NarendraPanchal.It
wasusedbyA8Surendra. AsithascomeintheconfessionofA10
Shrikrishna Exh. 251 about the use of said number by A8 Surendra
andheusedtocontactA12Pratap.MobileNo.9224676768standsin
the name of A3 Ashokkumar Jaiswar. The original customer's
application with the documentary proof i.e. ration card is proved at
Exh.434.
304. Mobile No. 9819251750 stands in the name of A10
Shrikrishna @ Babu Gurav. The original customer's application form
alongwithdocumentsofproofintheformofdrivinglicenceofanauto
rikshawbearinghisphotographandtherationcardareprovedatExhs.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 338
408and409. FromtheconfessionsofA10ShrikrishnaandA5Anil
Giri,ittranspiresthatfollowingmobilenumberswerebeingusedbythe
followingaccused:
A5AnilGiri:9323709336
A13AjitRane:9869148966
The witness P.W. 30 Daniels, P.W.34 Gawde and P.W. 35Palande have
categoricallyexplainedthedifferentcolumnsofthecalldetailrecord,
suchascallingparty,duration,callingnumber,callnumber,cellsiteID,
ESNnumberetc.
305. If the call detail record (CDRs) are analysed, it furnishes
unimpeachableevidenceabouttheconnectionoftheaccusedinterseat
therelevanttimeaswellasthetowerlocationsfromwhichthemobile
callsweretransmittedorreceived.
306. ItisthecaseoftheprosecutionthatfromlastweekofJuly
2006 to August 2006, A12 Pratap was residing in Chandivali, Powai
areainMumbai,wascontactingA8SurendrawhowasinRajapur,in
connectionwiththeprocurementofthecountrymadehandgun. The
locationofmobilenumberofA8SurendracanbeseentobeatRajapur
asmajorityofthecallsreceivedbyhimfromlandlinenumber,theSTD
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 339
codenumberofRajapurwhichis02353depictedinExh.427(colly).at
pagenos.157to185.
307. In view of confession of A10 Shrikrishna Exh. 251, A11
Narkar Exh. 264 and 268 as well as from the evidence of P.W. 11
Ramchandra,thehandgunwasreadyinthemonthofAugust2006and
A10ShrikrishnaandA11Narkarhadbeentothesaidvillagetofetch
theweaponadaybefore Gokulashtamii.e.Janmashtami. TheCDR
indicatesthaton27.7.2006,A12Pratapcontactedonmobilephoneof
A8Surendra.On7.8.2006,A8SurendrahadcalledA12Pratapwho
wasinMumbaiandtillprocurementofthehandgun,Art.5,therewere
coupleofcallsbetweentwoofthemandthelastcallbeingdated15
th
August2006at16.13hours,onwhichday,theweaponwasdelivered
byA8SurendratoA10ShrikrishnaandA11Narkar. Ithappenedto
bethepreviousdayof 'Gokulashtami'. Thisfactexactlymatchedwith
the contents of the confession and interestingly there were no calls
betweenthesetwoaccusedthereafter(DepictedinJudgmentatPg.nos.
143to145).
308. TheprosecutioncaseisthatA12PratapandA13Ranehad
gonewithA6BhintadeandA7SurvetoDagdichawl,Bycullatogive
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 340
'supari' for eliminating Kamlakar Jamsandekar to A1 Arun Gawali
somewhereinmidstofDecember2006. Thetowerlocationofmobile
phonenumberofA12Pratapdated15.12.2006intheafternooncanbe
seeninthelocalityofBycullai.e.Dagdichawl(DepictedinJudgmentat
Pg.nos.303to305).
309. In the first week of January 2007, in the afternoon, A12
Pratap had again been to Dagdi chawl, Byculla when A15 Patil paid
himRs.60,000/throughA9SandipaspertheinstructionsofA1Arun
Gawali.ThetowerlocationofmobileofA12Pratapdated8.1.2007in
the afternoon is depicted in the locality of Byculla (Depicted in
JudgmentatPg.nos.305to308).
310. ItisthecaseoftheprosecutionthatA12PratapandA13
RanewiththehelpofA10ShrikrishnacommunicatedwithA2Vijay,
A3Ashokkumar,A4NarendraandA5AnilforeliminatingKamlakar
Jamsandekarandforabout15dayspriortothemurder,A2Vijay,A3
Ashokkumar, A4 Narendra and A5 Anil were keeping watch at
KamlakarJamsandekar,whowasresidingatAsalfavillage.
The CDR and tower location of mobile number of A12
PratapandA13RaneshowsthatA3Ashokkumarwasinthelocalityof
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 341
AsalfavillageandChandivaliwhileA12Pratapwasinthelocalityof
Chandivali and they were in contact with each otheras well as with
A13Rane,A10ShrikrishnaandA5Anilfrom15.2.2007to2.3.2007.
Thereafter, the mobile phone of A3 Ashokkumar does not show this
locationatall.(DepictedinJudgmentatPgs.311to324).
311. ItisthecaseofprosecutionthatKamlakarJamsandekarwas
assassinatedon2.3.2007at16.45hours.Aftercommittingthemurder,
theshootersA2Vijay,A3AshokkumarandA4Narendraescapedfrom
thespotandcontactedA12PratapfromNarayanGalli,Ghatkopar.The
said contact was made by A2 Vijay from the mobile phone of A3
Ashokkumar.
The CDR and tower location shows that A12 Pratap
receivedanincomingcallfromthemobilenumberofA3Ashokkumar
exactly at 16.48 hours through the tower location at Tilak Nagar,
Ghatkopar(DepictedinJudgmentatPg.no.323).
312. ThelearnedcounselMr.Pasbolaarguedatthebarthatthe
twocallson2
nd
March2007betweenA3AshokkumarandA12Pratap
donotmatch. Theargumentdoesnotstandtoreasonfor,onecallis
notacorrespondingcalloftheother.Thecallat16.48hourshadbeen
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 342
madefromthemobileofA3Ashokkumar(DepictedinJudgmentatPg.
no.324)whereascallwhichismadeat17.14hourswasreceivedby
A12 Pratap (Depicted in Judgment at Pg. no. 324) and the
corresponding entries are reflected inincoming and outgoing calls of
A12Pratap.Thechartspeaksforitself.
313. It is alleged by the prosecution that after the murder of
KamlakarJamsandekar,A10Shrikrishnapaidsomecontractamountto
A2VijayatBorivali.A2Vijayhad,inturncalledA3Ashokkumarand
A5AnilatBorivaliNationalPark,BorivaliEastforcollectingthemoney.
Accordingly,bothofthemwenttoNationalPark,Borivalitoreceivethe
money.
TheCDRandthetowerlocationsofA3Ashokkumarshows
thathewascontinuouslyincontactwithA5Anilfrom18.47hoursto
23.14hoursandthelastcalllocationwasattheBorivaliEast(Depicted
inJudgmentatPg.nos.324&325).Significantlytherearenocallsat
all on both these numbers, however, on 11.3.2007, at about 12.09
hours, the date on which A12 Pratap and A13 Rane came to be
arrestedbySakinakapolicestationincaseofKamlakarJamsandekar's
murder,therewasadirectcontact.(DepictedinJudgmentatPg.nos.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 343
326&327).
314. Thus, the aforesaid evidence completely substantiates the
prosecutioncaseregardingthecontentsofconfessionalstatementvisa
vis the connection and association of the accused persons through
mobiles with actual knowledge of being engaged in assisting and
conspiring with each other and with the members of the organized
crimesyndicate.
315. The prosecution has succeeded in unearthing the
perpetrators of crime as well as the role of kingpin of the organized
crimesyndicate,A1ArunGawali.
316. TheprosecutionhasexaminedP.W.9AmrutPatilExh.182
onthepointofrecoveryofdiariescontainingtheaccounts/detailsofthe
organizedcrimesyndicateofA1ArunGawaliu/s.27oftheEvidence
Act, at the instance of A15 Patil from the house of P.W. 10 Ankush
Gharkar.P.W.9AmrutwascalledbytheCrimeBranchinthemonthof
June2008initsoffice.Heconsentedtoactasapanchwitness.A15
Patil was present at the Office of Crime Branch. A15 Patil made a
statement in his presence that a bag containing documents/books of
accounts of Gavali's gang had been kept by him with his friend.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 344
Accordingly,statementofA15Patilwasrecorded,whichwassignedby
himandP.W.9Amrutaswellasbyanotherpanch.Thecontentswere
narratedbyA15Patil. ThesaidmemorandumisprovedatExh.183.
TheevidenceofP.W.9Amrutfurtherrevealsthatthereafter,thepolice
partystartedgoingtowardsthedirectionbeinggivenbyA15Patilina
policevehicle.FirsttheywenttoBycullaandthentoSaatRasta.They
enteredabiggate. A15Patiltookthemonthefirstfloor. Aperson
cameoutofthesaidroomtowhomA15Patilaskedtohandhimover
thebagwhichhadgiventohim.HewasP.W.10AnkushGharkar.P.W.
10AnkushgaveabagtoA15Patilwhichcontainedsomedocuments
pertainingtothe accounts whichA15 Patil usedtomaintain. There
were1012diariesandsomeloosesheetsofpapercontainingaccount.
Thereweretwocellphones.Thepoliceofficermarkedthediarieswith
Sr.nos.1onwards.Thepageswerecountedineachdiary.P.W.9Amrut
and copanch signed each of the diaries. The loose sheets also
numbered which were signed by the panchas. The police officer
examinedthecellphones.Thebagwasofblakishashcolour.Thecell
phones were of Nokia company. After preparing the panchanama, it
was signed by both the panchas as well as by P.W. 10 Ankush. The
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 345
witnesshasdulyidentifiedallthearticlesshowntohim. Theseizure
panchanama is thus proved at Exh. 183A. P.W. 9 Amrut has also
identifiedA15Patilinthecourt.Thethreesealedpacketswhichwere
showntothewitnessbearshissignature. Thecellphonesaremarked
at Art. 2 (colly.) and the wrappers at Art. A. There were 11 small
diaries,oneregister,anaccountbook,ninedocumentsinthenatureof
affidavits,saledeed,agreementofdevelopmentrightsetc. Therewas
alsoatelephonediary.Allthesedocumentsanddiariesarecollectively
markedatArt.3. Thewitnesshasidentifiedhissignaturesoneachof
thediariesaswellasthesignatureofcopanch.Thebagismarkedat
Art. 4. The witness has also testified that A15 Patil took the police
party along with him to Gitai Building, Room no. 11. He is an
independentwitnesswhohadtestifiedthemannerinwhichheactedas
apanchwitnessonthepointofthediscoveryoftheaforesaidarticlesat
thebehestofA15Patil.
317. Hiscrossrevealsthatheisatailorbyprofessionsincelast
14years.Hehadnoothersourceofincomeandhadnotactedaspanch
inanyofthepolicecases.Interestingly,ithasbeensubstantiatedinthe
crossthatatGitaibuilding,hehadputabout5060signatureswhich
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 346
confirmedthatheindeedvisitedGitaibuildingalongwiththepoliceas
per the directions of A15 Patil. Not only that, it has further been
fortifiedthatheputallthesignaturesinonestrokeafterwritingofthe
panchanamawascompleted. Thepanchanamawasreadovertohim.
Thecrossfurtherindicatesthatasperhissayonly,twoarticleswere
placedundersealinhispresence,whichwerecellphones. Hewasat
Gitai building for about two and half hours. He doesnot remember
whetherthebagwaslockedwhenitwasdeliveredbyP.W.10Ankush
whichconfirmedthatthebagwasdeliveredbyP.W.10Ankush. The
crossfurtherrevealsthat89personsproceededtowardsGitaibuilding
and that during the period of two and half hour, no other person
entered the room nor anyone left the said room ruling out any
possibilityofplantinganyofsucharticlesinthesaidroombythepolice.
ThecrossfurtherrevealsthatwhentheylefttheCrimeBranchoffice,
theydidnotknowthattheywereheadingtowardsGitaibuilding.Italso
confirmsthefactthatthepolicepartywasledbynoneotherthanA15
Patil as it was exclusively within his knowledge as to where he had
concealedthearticles.Notonlythat,itisbroughtoutfromhismouth
that A15 did not give in his statement the name of his friend with
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 347
whomhehadkeptthebagnorhegavetheaddressoftheroom.Onthe
dayofthepanchanama,P.W.9Amrutdidnothaveanypersonalworkat
the Crime Branch or at N.M. Joshi Marg police station. A constable
namelyAdamenquiredwiththiswitnesswhetherhewouldassistthe
police by acting as a panch witness. He further deposed that police
officerShelkepreparedthestatementmadebytheaccusedno.15Patil.
The writing of the statement commenced simultaneously with the
statement made by A15 Patil. His entire statement was recorded.
Thus,fromtheevidenceofthiswitness,itiscrystalclearthattheI.O.
has perfectly followed the procedureenunciated in Section 27 of the
Evidence Act while discovering the fact deposed to by A15 Patil i.e.
diaries,mobilephones,accountbooksetc.atthebehestofA15Patil
fromthehouseofA10AnkushGharkar.Thereisabsolutelynoreason
todisbelievetheconvincingevidenceofP.W.9Amrutwhichinspiresfull
confidence.
318. P.W.10AnkushGharkar,however,turnedhostile.Headmits
that he is residing at Gitai Cooperative Housing Society i.e. Dagdi
chawl in Room No. 11 on the first floor since last eight years and
servingasasecurityguardforover18years.Onecanseeastohowthe
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 348
witness has lied on somany material aspects. Though he has been
workingasasecurityguardattheDagdichawl,hesaysthathedoesnot
know anybody residing in his neighbourhood. Though he knew A1
ArunGawali,ExM.L.A.,butsaysthathisrelationsareneitherfriendly
norlikeneighbours.However,hemeetsA1ArunGawaliwheneverhe
has some personal work i.e. admission in school for his children etc.
Duringelections,hesaysthatheusedtocanvassforA1ArunGawali,
but never assisted him in his domestic work. He even refused to
identifyA15Patil,butidentifiesA20SunilGhate. Accordingtothis
witness,A20SunilGhateisanexcorporatorwhoisunemployed. He
had never worked for A20 Ghate. He does not know as to who is
looking after the Arun Gawali's work whenever he remains in jail.
AccordingtoP.W.10,AnkushafterthearrestofA1ArunGawali,hewas
enquiredwithbythepoliceofficeralongwithotherinhabitantsofthe
building.Thepoliceofficeraskedhimtosignabunchofpapers.
319. Afterdeclaringhimhostile,thelearnedSPPcrossexamined
the witness at length. However, the witness has denied all the
suggestionsgivenbySPPMr.Thakare.Hestatesthathedidnotmake
anystatementbeforethepolice.Hedidnotstatebeforethepolicethat
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 349
A1ArunGawaliusedtoassisthimfinancially,incaseofneedandthat
A15 Patil used to look after the financialaffairs of A1 Arun Gawali
gang. The witness is confronted with portion marked A in his
statementwhich he denied to have made before the police. He was
unabletogiveanyreasonastowhyitwassorecorded.Accordingly,his
attentionwasdrawntoportionmarkedB,whichreferstoA15Patil
who, inthemonthofApril2008,approachedthiswitness and asked
himtoconcealthesaidbagand,therefore,thiswitnessconcealedthe
saidbaginasofainhishouse.Restofthecrossexaminationrelatesto
thediscoveryofthediariesandarticlesmadeattheinstanceofA15
PatilinthepresenceofA9Sandip,whichhasbeendeniedbyP.W.10
Ankush. However,headmitshissignatureoverthepanchanamaExh.
183A. According to him, when he refused to sign the panchanama
without reading over to him, the police officer threatened him, and,
therefore,hesignedthesame.However,inthenextbreath,headmits
thathissignatureover Exh.183A ishisnormalsignature. Ifhewas
threatened and forced to sign, the signature could not have been
normal.Bethatasitmay.Itwouldbedifficulttoplacefullrelianceon
thiswitness,however,inviewoftheevidenceofP.W.9Amrut,itcanbe
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 350
safelyinferredthattheaforesaidarticleshavebeendulydiscoveredby
A15PatilfromthehouseofP.W.10Ankush.Obviously,duringhiscross
byMr.Pasbola,hesupportedthedefencebystatingthatafterobtaining
his signature on a written paper, the police gave him threats not to
make it public. For that reason, he did not disclose the said fact to
anybody.Fromthefurthercrossexamination,itisapparentthatthough
heisaresidentofDagdichawlforlast18years,workingasasecurity
guard, campaigning for A1 Arun Gawali in his election, he would
definitelydenythefactthatA15Patilhaddepositedthearticlesinhis
house.
320. Eveniftheprosecutionhasprovedthediscoveryu/s.27of
theEvidenceAct,itispertinenttonotethatmerelybecausethereare
certain names written in the diary and certain figures mentioned
therein,itisapparentfromitsperusalthatitcouldnotbesaidthatthe
personsnamedinthosediarieshadinfactwerepayingsomeamountto
A1ArunGawaliorhewasextortingtheamount.Theprosecutionhas
notprovedthatthehandwritinginthesaiddiarywasofA15Patilor
otheraccusedoranyothermemberoftheorganizedcrimesyndicateof
A1 Arun Gawali. In the absence of proof of handwriting, as no
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 351
handwriting expert has been examined, it would be difficult to place
completerelianceonthecontentsthereofaswellasonthetwomobile
handsetsallegedtohavebeenusedbythemembersoftheorganized
crime syndicate. The evidence in the form of these articles is
insufficient to establish any link with A15 Patil in preparing these
documents.ItisarguedbyMr.PasbolathattheHon'bleSupremeCourt
hasheldthatdiariesareveryweakpieceofevidenceandunlessitis
cogentlyestablishedastotheidentityofthepersonsmentionedinthe
diary,thesameareinsufficientandunreliable.
321. Even P.W. 25 Vishwanath Sawalaram Hinge who also is a
residentofDagdichawl,RoomNo.4andlikeP.W.10Ankush,healso
usedtocampaignfortheelectionofA1ArunGawalihasturnedhostile
anddeniedthehandwritinginthe12diariesArticle3(colly.),shownto
him by the prosecution. During the course of his evidence, he
volunteeredthatafterthearrestofDadywhichisthenicknameofA1
Arun Gawali, he was continuously thrashed for three months by the
police,atthepolicestation.HewastakentoheMagistrate'sCourtfor
recording his statement u/s. 164. He testified that the police
threatened him to give the statement before the Magistrate. He,
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 352
therefore,gaveastatementbeforetheMagistrateasperthedictateof
thepoliceofficer. Hetestifiedthatthecourtdidnotadministeroath
beforerecordinghisstatement.Afterdeclaringhimhostile,thelearned
SPP Mr. Thakare tried to impeach credit of the witness in his cross
examination.ThewitnessidentifieshisstatementmarkedasExh.308,
whichwasrecordedbytheMetropolitanMagistrateon21.7.2008.He
further admits that he was again produced before the Magistrate on
22.7.2008 and answered the questions put to him by the said
Magistrate.TheMagistratehadaskedhimwhetherhehadanyfearor
pressureuponwhichheansweredthathehadnogrievanceofanykind.
However,P.W.25volunteeredthatsincethepoliceofficerswerepresent
justoutsideandthattheyhadtoldhimthattheywoulddefinitelycome
to know about his statement and, therefore, he did not make any
complainttotheMagistrate. Thisappearstobeprobableinthegiven
circumstances. Thoughheadmitsthatthestatementwasrecordedon
thetypewriterbytheMagistrateasperhissay,itcannotbelostsightof
the fact from the evidence that he was inthe gaze of the police. He
admits that he did not make any complaint against the police since
22.7.2008.WhenhewasconfrontedwithparagraphsmarkedAtoD
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 353
inhisstatementdated12.7.2007,hedeniedtohavestatedbeforethe
police about A15 maintaining accounts of A1 Arun Gawali's income
and assisting him in writing his diaries containing the accounts. He
deniedthatthehandwritinginthediariesArt.3areofA15Patiland
himself.HedeniedthatA1ArunGawaliisadreadedgangsterandthat
peoplehaveafearabouthimandthathealsohasafearand,therefore,
hecouldnotgiveevidenceagainsthim.Hedeniedthattheentiresin
the diary Art. 3 pertain to the entries/accounts of illgotten money
whichareinhishandwritingandinthehandwritingofA15Patil. It
canbesafelysaidthatthiswitness,likeP.W.10Ankush,wouldsupport
thecauseofA1ArunGawalibeinghishenchman,yet,intheabsenceof
proofofthehandwritingandtheproofofauthenticityofthecontentsof
thediaryandentries,itwouldbedifficulttoplacecompleterelianceon
it. Theevidence oftheprosecutiononthat point is insufficient and,
therefore,itcannotbeacceptedthatthediariesandaccountbooksArt.
3 are the accounts of the illgotten money of the organized crime
syndicateofA1ArunGawali.
322. P.W.28MaheshNanjiShahExh.318isawitnessexamined
bytheprosecutionwhoissaidtobeaownerofHetalPhotoStudio
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 354
who used to pay extortion to the members of the organized crime
syndicate headed by A1 Arun Gawali, operating from Dagdi Chawl,
Byculla.Hetestifiedthatsincelast27years,heisrunningtheaforesaid
photostudioatByculla.OneChandrakantShahistheSecretaryofAll
IndiaPhotographicTradeandIndustriesAssociation. Thiswitnesshas
been purchasing goods/material of his business from him. He has,
therefore,goodrelationswiththesaidChandrakantShah.Chandrakant
ShahrunshisbusinessinthenameandstyleasAngelPhoto. This
witness also knows one Mahendra Shah who is a relative of
Chandrakant Shah since last many years. Mahendra Shah was
sometimesstaysinAmerica.Thiswitnesshasalsogoodrelationswith
MahendraShah.
323. According to this witness, in 2005, Chandrakant had
informedhimthatMahendrahadbeenreceivingextortioncallsinthe
nameofA1ArunGawali.Chandrakanthadalsoinformedhimthatin
Surat, Mahendra Shah had been shot at. Chandrakant had also
informedthiswitnessthatduetosuchcalls,Mahendrabhaiwantedto
payRs.2lakhspermonthtoA1ArunGawali. Itwasacaseof2005.
ChandrakantallegedtohavetoldthiswitnessthathewouldkeepRs.2
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 355
lakhs at his studio for being paid to A1 Arun Gawali on behalf of
Mahendrabhai because the studio of this witness was in the area of
Bycullaanditwouldbeconvenienttohandoverthemoney. P.W.28
Mahesh further deposed that for about three years, a man of
Chandrakant would keep Rs.2 lakhsat his studio every month and a
manofA1ArunGawaliusedtocollectthesaidamounteachmonth.
ThepaymentofmoneytothemanofArunGawliusedtobemadeon
4
th
or5
th
dayofeachmonth.OnepersonbynameofPrabhakarusedto
collectmoneyfromthiswitnessorsometimes,fromhisemployee. He
alsotestifiedthatPrabhakarwouldsaythattheentryofreceiptofthe
amountismadeintheirdiaryandthattheyshouldnotworry. When
thewitnesswassummonedbytheCrimeBranchinthemonthofJuly
2008 and enquired with him, he learnt that the amount was being
shown as received from Hetal. His testimony has been shattered
duringcrossexaminationbyMr.Pasbola,asrightlysothatthiswitness
canbesaidtobeagotupwitnessoftheprosecutionforthefollowing
reasons:
324. Itissurprisingthateventhoughsincelastthreeyears,the
extortion money was being paid to a man of Arun Gawali by this
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 356
witnessonbehalfoftheMahendra,hedidnotdiscloseittoanybody.
Thereisnoevidenceabouttheallegedthreatsreceivedbythesocalled
Mahendrawhoisnotexaminedbytheprosecutionnorhiswhereabouts
are brought to fore. Interestingly, P.W. 28 Mahesh admits that the
incident of extortion of money from Mahendra occurred in Surat 15
yearsago.Thisissomethingquitestrangeasitisnotthecontentionof
theprosecutionthattheextortionwasmadebyoronbehalfofA1Arun
Gawali at Surat 15 years ago or that Mahendrabhai was shot at on
behalf of A1 Arun or by his henchmen. The fact that Chandrakant
informed this witness is also an omission. The reference of
Chandrakantintheevidenceofthiswitnessisanomission.However,in
the absence of the evidence of either Chandrakant or Mahendra, the
evidence of this witness is of hearsay nature and, therefore,
inadmissible,intheabsenceofanyothercorroborativeevidence. Itis
difficult to believe that a man (Mahendra) who is now staying in
America has been regularly paying a ransom of Rs.2 lakhs through
Chandrakant.ThefactthatthesocalledPrabhakarwhousedtocollect
theransomfromthiswitnessinformedhimthattheamountwhichwas
beingreceivedisshowntohavebeenreceivedfromHetal,isalsoan
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 357
omission.Thewitnesstooadmitsthathedidnottellthepoliceabout
thesaidfact.Thewitnessisunabletogivedescriptionofthesocalled
Prabhakar. Interestingly, this witness had no direct interaction with
Mahendrabhai but only with Chandrakant, as according to him,
Mahendrabhai and his children have been settled in America. The
witness has denied that he has cooked up a story in the name of
ChandrakantandMahendrabhaijusttosavehim.Assuch,theevidence
ofthiswitnessisrequiredtobediscardedintoto.
325. InordertoshowtheorganizedcrimesyndicateofA1Arun
Gawali, apart from the evidence of other witnesses i.e. P.W. 9 Amrut
Patil, P.W. 10 Ankush Dharkar and P.W. 25 Vishwanath Hinge, the
prosecutionhasalsoexaminedP.W.6ArunkumarIndrajitSingh,acable
networkdistributorExh.169.Ihavealreadydiscussedtheevidenceof
P.W.9AmrutPatilonthepointofseizureofdiariesattheinstanceof
A15PatilfromP.W.10Ankush. P.W.10Ankushturnedhostileandso
also P.W. 25 Hinge. However, this witness has supported the
prosecution case. He testified that he operates his business of cable
network in the name of Ashish Vision Cable, situatedat C.B. Road,
Mazgaon.Heisinthesaidbusinesssince1989.Heisinthebusinessof
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 358
distributionofcablenetworkforHathwayCompanysince1997.
326. Accordingtothiswitness,inthemonthofJune,1998,he
received several threatening calls from a person claimed to be one
SwamiwhousedtoaskthiswitnesstocometoDagdichawlandmeet
'Daddy'aliasArunGawali.Initially,thiswitnessdidnotcare,butwhen
thesaidSwamistartedextendingthreatstohislifethatifhedidnot
go to Dagdi chawl to meet 'Daddy', the consequences will be serious
and,therefore,hewasleftwithnooptionbuttogotoDagdichawl.He
went to Dagdi chawl in May, 1998 on the ground floor. Within five
minutes,apersoncameandtookhimtoaroomonthegroundfloorof
theGitaibuilding.Hedidnotdisclosehisname.Heintroducedhimto
oneSunilGhateA20. ThesaidSunilGhateA20madeademandof
Rs.5lakhspermonthasanextortionmoneyasthiswitnesswasdoing
business in his area. The said Sunil Ghate A20 had also told P.W. 6
Singhthatsince'Daddy' hadaskedhimtomakesuchdemand,hewas
askingforthesame. SunilGhateA20alsothreatenedthewitnessof
direconsequencesifthedemandisnotfulfilled.P.W.6Singhexpressed
his inability to fulfill the demand, however, after negotiation, it was
reducedtoRs.1.5lakhpermonth.HehadtoagreetopayRs.1.5p.m.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 359
to the extortionist. Accordingly, on 20
th
of each month, P.W. 6 Singh
wouldpayRs.1.5lakhtoA20SunilGhate. Hehadpaidtheamount
everymonthtillMay2008.OneBabuDigheusedtocollecttheamount
everymonthfromhimfromtheyear2006toMay2008. Beforethat,
A20SunilGhateusedtocollecttheamountfromP.W.6Singh. The
witnessfurtherdeposedthatsometimes,thereusedtobesomedelayin
payment,whereupon,A20SunilGhateusedtomakehimthreatening
calls.ThewitnesshasidentifiedA20SunilGhateinthedock.
327. In cross by Mr. Pasbola, P.W. 6 Singh admits that before
12.7.2008, he did not give any complaint to the police against A20
Sunil or Babuand that for the first time, on 12.7.2008, hedisclosed
aboutthecallsandalsoaboutthefactthathewasmakingpayments
pursuanttothethreats. Healsoadmitsthatpolicedidnotcallupon
himtogiveanydocumentaryprooftoshowthathewaspayingRs.1.5
lakheverymonth.Obviously,itcannotbeexpectedthatapersonwould
keepanaccountofsuchilllegitimatetransaction.Inhisdeposition,it
hascomethatthewitnesshad6000recordedcableconnectionsanda
staffof1415members. Atthattime,hewouldchargeRs.100/per
connection.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 360
328. Now,againthecrossreiteratesthatthefirstcallofSwami
wasreceivedinthemonthofApril1998. Thewitnessdidnotreceive
anysuchcallonhiscellphone. Hetestifiedthatheignoredthecalls
receivedinthemonthofAprilandMay1998.Duringthecallsinthe
monthofAprilandMay1998,hewasaskedtovisitDagdichawlbythe
callerwhodidnotgiveanyreasonastowhyhewascalledtoDagdi
chawl.Swamididnotaskthiswitnesstomeetaparticularpersonat
Dagdi chawl. The defence has brought out certain omissions with
respectofthestatementofP.W.6SinghrecordedbeforetheMagistrate
whichmainlypertainstoaskinghimtomeetA1ArunGawaliatDagdi
chawlbythesaidSwami. Thereisalsoanomissionwithrespectto
thethreatstohislifegivenbythecallerifhedidnotvisittheDagdi
chawl.ThefactthatA20SunilGhatetoldhimthat'Daddy'hadasked
himtomakesuchdemandisalsoprovedtobeanomissionandthefact
thatwheneverthereusedtobedelayinmakingpayment,A20Sunil
Ghateusedtogivethreatsisalsoprovedtobeanomission.However,
theevidentiaryvalueofthiswitnessisrequiredtobeseeninviewofhis
statementgiventothepoliceu/s.161ofCr.P.C.Thedefenceitselfhad
reiterated in his further crossexamination that P.W. 6 Singh did not
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 361
meetSwamiafterJune1998nordidhereceiveanycallthereafter.
HefurtherdeposedthathehadnooccasiontovisitDagdichawlafter
his visit in June 1998 which obviously means he did visit the Dagdi
chawl in the month of June 1998. Further crossexamination in
paragraph 7 of P.W. 6 Singh confirms the fact that A20 Sunil Ghate
would visit his office to collect the amount. It was December 2006,
whenA20SunilGhatehadbeentohisoffice.Hehadnevermadeany
phonecalltoA20SunilGhateoranybodyintheDagdichawl,asking
fortimetomakepayment. ThecallsmadebyA20werereceivedby
himandsometimesbyhisstaff.Thisportionofevidencesubstantiates
thefactthatanamountofRs.1.5lakhwasbeingextortedfromhimby
the organized crime syndicate through its member A20 Sunil Ghate
continuouslyfromJune1998tillMay2008.
329. Furthercrossexaminationofthiswitnessmostlyrelatesto
the nature of his business, asking the witness to tender documentary
evidence to show about the same and also asking for his income tax
return papers, which he had aptly answered and also tendered
documentaryevidenceinsupportofhisbusiness.Thewitnessdenieda
suggestionthatattheCrimeBranch,thepoliceofficertoldhimthathe
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 362
wasgoingtobearrestedonthegroundoffinanciallyassistingA1Arun
Gawali's gang, which would mean that there was some exchange of
money which can be safely inferred in regard to extortion by the
organizedcrimesyndicateofA1ArunGawali.Sofarastheomissions
withrespecttohispreviousstatementtothepoliceareconcerned,they
are of minor nature and, therefore, would not make his testimony
unbelievable.Theomissionsareonlywithrespecttothewitnessdoing
businessintheirareaandthatA1ArunGawaliisknownasDaddy.
In paragraph 12 of the crossexamination of P.W. 6 Singh, several
questionswereaskedabouttheproprietorshipofAshishVisionCable
by suggesting that one Reshmibai was its owner. According to the
witness, she was operator for Ashish Vision Cable. Thereafter, some
questions were asked about payment of entertainment tax to the
governmentandhowtocollectrevenueetc.,whicharenotrelevantin
thematter. Thewitnesshadtenderedallthedocumentsaskedforby
thedefencesuchasthereceiptofentertainmenttaxetc.areinthefile,
fortheperiodfrom19931998.ThedocumentsareprovedatExh.170
(colly.). It can be safely inferred that this witness isa businessman,
conducting his business faithfully by paying all the dues to the
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 363
governmentincludingincometax. Thedocumentsareinhisfilewith
respect to his income tax returns for the assessment year 20032004
and 20052008 are proved at Exh. 171 (colly.). Not only that, it is
brought in his crossexamination that the account of Ashish Vision
Cable is opened with Development Credit Bank, Hasnabad in 2003.
TheregistrationcertificateofAshishVisionCablefortheperiod2003
to2010isalsoproducedalongwithotherrelevantdocumentsat Exh.
172.
330. This witness also does the cable network business on the
N.M.JoshiMargwhichisprovedatExh.173andtheotherdocuments
whichareatExh.174(colly.).Hecategoricallyadmitsthathehadnot
given any cable connection at Dagdi Chawl. His deposition further
reveals that when he had been to the said building, there were
occupantsandsincenameGitaiBuildingfounddisplayedoverit,he
realizedthatitwasGitaibuilding. Hedidnotvisitthesaidbuilding
afterJune2008.HehadnooccasiontointeractwithA1ArunGawali,
obviously,forthereason,whenhishenchmanwasextortingthemoney,
itwasneedlessforthekingpintodirectlythreatenthewitness.Itwas
askedwhetherthewitnessknowsoneAmarYadav@Natetowhichthe
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 364
witnessansweredthatthesaidpersonishisaccountantforthelastso
manyyears.Restofthedefencecounseldeclinedtocrossexaminethe
witness.
331. Thus,havingconsideredtheevidenceofP.W.6Singhvisa
vistheconfessionalstatementofA9SandipaliasSandyExh.324,A10
ShrikrishnaExh.251andA15Patil Exh.241 andotherevidenceon
record,theprosecutionhasestablishedthatA1ArunGawaliwiththe
aid and assistance of A20 Sunil Ghate as well as A12 Pratap, A13
RaneandA15Patilwasrunninganorganizedcrimesyndicate. The
evidenceofP.W.6inspiresconfidenceand,therefore,Idonotseeany
reason to disbelieve the prosecution story as regards the organized
crimesyndicateofA1ArunGawali.
332. It is pertinent to note that A10 Shrikrishna alias Babu
Gurav had stated in his confessional statement that during the
ceremonyof'Navratri',A12PratapandA13Ranehadextortedmoney
frombuildersandmerchantsoutofwhich,someamountwasretained
byhimandrestoftheamountwassenttoA1ArunGawalithroughA9
Sandip.
333. Whereas, A9 Sandip in his confessional statement had
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 365
statedthaton10
th
January2007,therewasanelectionoftheunionof
Mumbai Mahanagar Telephone Ltd. In each pocket of Mumbai, the
membersofAkhilBhartiyaSenawerecontestingtheelection. Atthat
time,asperthedirectionsofA1ArunGawali,A15PatilhadsentA12
PratapandA13RanetotheTrombayTelephoneExchangeandasked
them to create ruckus by forcibly making bogus voting during the
election. Accordingly, A12 Pratap and A13 Rane created terror at
TromabyTelephoneExchangebyinducingsomeoftheirhenchmanas
bogusvoters. Whentheywereproducedbeforethecourtonthenext
day,A1ArunGawali,throughA15Patilmanagedtotakethemouton
bailbypayingtheentireexpensesofsuretyandthefeesofadvocate.
A15 Patil in his confessional statement has stated that he had been
lookingafterthefinancialmattersofA1ArunGawalifrom2001and
thatA1usedtopayhimRs.15,000/permonthplussomeadditional
amount.HewasalsoknownasBigBankinthecoterieofA1.These
aspectshavebeendiscussedagaininordertosubstantiatethecharge
u/s.3(2),3(4)oftheMCOCAct,1998.
334. P.W.16SadanandLaxmanRasamExh.217 hastestifiedon
theaspectoftwopreviouschargesheetsagainstA1ArunGawaliinthe
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 366
year 2004 (Exh. 218 and 219), which are considered as previous
chargesheetsforinvocationofoffenceunderSec.2(1)(d)oftheMCOC
Act.
335. HetestifiedthathewasattachedtoAgripadaPoliceStation
duringAugust2003to2005asapoliceinspector.Hehadinvestigated
C.R.No.77/2004. OneShaikhwasacomplainantinthatcase. A1
Arun Gawali along with one Hussein Shaikh, Arun Gulabrao Gawali,
AshaGawaliandsomeothersweretheaccused,againstwhom,offences
u/s.465,467,471,420,380,506(II)r/w34ofIPCwereregistered.
After investigation, a chargesheet was filed in the Court of
Metropolitan Magistrate (46
th
Court). The certified copy of the said
chargesheet is tendered in evidence and proved at Exh. 218. It is
testifiedthatthecaseispendingintheCourt.
336. Hefurtherdeposedthaton31.10.2004,PIUttamraoJadhav
lodged an FIR bearing No. 189/2004 u/s. 341, 506(II), 323 of IPC
against A1 Arun Gawali, A20 Sunil Ghate and others. PI Jadhav
conductedinvestigationofthesaidcrime,however,P.W.16Rasamhas
filedthechargesheetsincePIU.Jadhavhadretiredfromservice.The
trialispendinginthecourt. Thecertifiedcopyofthechargesheetis
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 367
provedatExh.219.
337. There is no effective cross of this witness by the defence.
ThereisonlyanadmissionthatsofarasthechargesheetatExh.219is
concerned,A1ArunGawalihasbeenacquittedofallthecharges.The
conviction or acquittal of the accused is not the criteria while
interpretingSection2(1)(d)ofMCOCActwhichreadsthus:
2(1)(d): continuing unlawful activity
meansanactivityprohibitedbylawforthe
time being in force, which is a cognizable
offence punishable with imprisonment of
three years or more, undertaken either
singly or jointly, as a member of an
organised crime syndicate or on behalf of
such syndicate in respect of which more
than one chargesheets have been filed
before a competent Court within the
precedingperiodoftenyearsandthatCourt
hastakencognizanceofsuchoffence.
Thus,therequirementhasbeenfulfilledastherewasanactivitywhich
wasprohibitedbylaw. Acognizanceoftheoffencehasbeentakenby
thecompetentcourt.Theoffencesarecognizablewithimprisonmentof
three years or more undertaken by A1 Gawali and his members of
organizedcrimesyndicateandtheoffenceswerecommittedwithinthe
precedingperiodoftenyears.
338. P.W. 33 DivakarBhaskarShelke Exh.414 wasattached to
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 368
DCB,CID,UnitIIIintheyear2007.Hetestifiedthaton28.4.2008,Sr.
PIMr.Sandbhorsentoneletterandinformedhimthathehadarrested
four accused in the offence of dacoity (A2 to A4), who have had
committedtheoffenceinC.R.No.82/2007ofSakinakapolicestation.
ItwasalsoinformedbyPIMr.Sandbhortothiswitnessthattheweapon
usedinthesaidcrimewasalsousedinC.R.No.82/2007ofSakinaka
Policestation.Sr.PIMr.Sandbhorhadalsoinformedthiswitnessthat
A10ShrikrishnaaliasBabuGuravwhobelongstoA1ArunGawali's
gangwasarrestedinC.R.No.52/2008ofDCB,CID,UnitIII.Thesaid
letter is proved at Exh. 415. P.W. 33 Shelke testified that during
interrogation of A10 Shrikrishna, while in police custody, it revealed
thathepaidtheamount. ItseemsthattheamountwaspaidbyA10
Shrikrishna to four accused i.e. A2 Vijay, A3 Ashokkumar and A4
Narendra,afterexecutingKamlakarJamsandekar.PSISawantwassent
tofetchA6BhintadeandA7Survewhoweresuspectsinthecrime
registeredatSakinakapolicestation. Thiswitnessgotanorderfrom
JointC.P.Mr.DevenBhartithatheshallinvestigatethesaidcrime.This
letterisprovedatExh.416.Thereafter,P.W.33ShelkedirectedPNNaik
tohandoverthepapersofC.R.No.82/2007,whichwereinthecustody
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 369
ofUnitIIItotheSakinakaPolicestationandmadeastationdiaryentry
forgettingthosepapersfromSakinakapolicestation.Heinterrogated
A6 Bhintade and A7 Surve. He registered a crime vide C.R. No.
69/2008(DCB,CID,UnitIII)andarrestedA6BhintadeandA7Surve.
HealsoarrestedA2Vijay,A3AshokkumarandA4Narendrafromthe
custodyofCIUUnit.AnentrywasmadeinthestationdiaryatSr.No.
21on29.4.2008whichismarkedatExh.417. Thexeroxcopyofthe
saidentryismarkedatExh.417A.
339. P.W.33ShelkefurthertestifiedthatheproducedA2Vijay,
A3Ashokkumar,A4Narendra,A5Anil,A6BhintadeandA7Surve
before 37
th
ACMM, Mumbai. He interrogated them during which it
revealed that the weapon used in the crime was prepared by A8
Surendra Panchal. His further investigation revealed as to how he
arrested rest of the accused, recorded statements of the witnesses,
obtainedthescarbuttseizedbySakinakapolicestationbylettersExh.
418 and 419. He arrested A9 Sandip on 15.5.2008, A11 Dinesh
Narkaron16.5.2008,whowerealreadyarrestedinC.R.No.52/2008.
HealsoobtainedthegunandtheothermuddemalseizedbyCIU.The
lettertothateffectisprovedatExh.420.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 370
340. AccordingtoP.W.33Shelke,duringinvestigation,itrevealed
thatA1ArunGawaliwasalsoinvolvedinthesaidcrimebeingagang
leader. There were four offences registered against A1 Gawali
regarding pecuniary benefit. He, therefore, prepared a proposal to
prosecuteA1GawaliundertheprovisionsofMCOCActandsentitto
the Joint C.P., Crime, Mumbai through his senior for prior approval.
Accordingly,thepriorapprovalwasgivenbyJointC.P.Mr.RakeshMaria
whichisprovedatExh.421. HehandedoverthecasetoACPDurafe
P.W.37.Thereafter,hedeposedthaton28
th
June,2008,A15Patilgave
a memorandum statement and discovered certain diaries, mobile
handsets etc. of which I had already made a discussion in preceding
paragraphs.ThesaidpanchanamaisalreadymarkedatExh.183.
341. The crossexamination reveals that P.W. 33 Shelke had
received the papers of Sakinaka police station on 23.4.2008 from PI
Daundandpursuanttothereceiptofthosepapers,hewasdirectedto
make further investigation. This is again clear that it was not a re
investigation, but further investigation in the matter after filing the
chargesheetby Sakinakapolicestation. However, he admits thathe
hadnotinformedthecourtaboutthefurtherinvestigationu/s.173(8)
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 371
ofCr.P.C.Ihavealreadymadeanelaboratediscussiononthispointin
theprecedingparagraphs.
342. Thecrossrevealsthatthiswitnesspointedouttohissenior
that the investigation was incomplete. He clarified that incomplete
investigationmeans,inthesaidcase,handgunwasnotrecoveredand
seized. Certain questions were asked to this witness as regards the
investigation conducted by him more particularly, while interrogating
theaccusedpersonson28.4.2008and29.4.2008.Inparagraph25,the
witness testified that on 15.5.2008, he came to the conclusion that
MCOCActisapplicabletothiscase.HearrestedA9SandipandA11
NarkarafterinterrogatingA10Shrikrishna.Hehaddiscussedwithhis
seniorPIandP.W.37ACPDurafebeforepreparingaproposalunderthe
MCOCAct. ThewitnessfurtheradmitsthatexceptA6Bhintadeand
A7Surve,hedidnotenquirewithanybodyaboutthepreviousenmity
betweenthedeceasedandthesetwoaccused.Exceptthesetwoaccused,
hedidnotenquireaboutthereasonofgiving'supari' toanyoneelse.
Restofthecrossexaminationofthiswitnessisinsignificantfor,except
bringing the minor errors, nothing has been surfaced in the further
searchingcross. Thelawiswellsettledthatthedefencecannottake
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 372
advantageofdefectiveinvestigation,iftheevidenceoftheprosecution
isotherwiserelevant,cogentandreliable.Itisnottheruleoflawthat
eachandeveryaspectistobenotedinthestationdiaryorthereshould
beawrittencommunication.Thewitnesshastestifiedthatmostofthe
directions in regard to the investigation after 20.5.2008, were orally
giventohimbyACPMr.Durafe.Forthisreason,noflawcanbefound
in the investigating process which appears to have been conducted
properlyandasperlawbythiswitness.
343. Minor omissions in so far as P.W. 4 Addu and P.W. 11
Ramchandraareproved,however,thoseareinsignificant.Theattention
ofthewitnesswasdrawntoExhs.415,416and418.Exh.415isthe
letteraddressedbytheSr.PIofDCB,CID,addressedtotheSr.PIof
UnitIIIofCIU,indicatingthearrestofA2Vijay,A3Ashokkumar,A4
NarendraandA5Anilinteralia,seizureofthehandgunfromthemand
theirinvolvementintheinstantcrime. Exh.416 isanofficeorderby
ACPMr.DevenBhartiwhichdepictsthataspertheorderofJointC.P.
(Crime), the investigation of C.R. No. 82/2007 of Sakinaka police
stationhadbeenhandedovertotheDCB,CID, directingtheSr.PIof
DCB,CIDtocollectalltherelevantpapersoftheinvestigationfromthe
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 373
Sr. PI, Sakinaka police station and to further prepare a plan of
investigation. Exh. 418 is a letter addressed to the Sr. PI, Sakinaka
policestationbytheSr.PI,DCB,CID,requestinghimtohandoverthe
scarbuttforforwardingthesametotheFSL,Kalina,Mumbai.Thereis
noendorsementofreceiptoftheselettersbytheaddressee.Thatdoes
notmeanthatthoseletterswerenotreceivedbytheaddresseeinthe
normal course of business as these are public documents and unless
contrary is shown, there cannot be any automatic presumption. The
witnesshascategoricallydeniedthesuggestionthatExh.415toExh.
419areconcocteddocumentsandthattheyhavebeenpreparedonlyto
implicateA1ArunGawaliwithaconspiracybythepoliceofficers.
344. During cross by advocate Mr. Moomen for A9, P.W. 33
Shelke admits that nothing was found on the person of A9 Sandip
whenhewasarrested.Healsoadmitsthathehadnottakenthesearch
of houseof A9 Sandip. He also admits thatwhen he produced A9
Sandip, he did not express his willingness to make the confessional
statement. HedeniedthesuggestionthatA9Sandiphasbeenfalsely
arrested in this case. The remaining counsel adopted the cross
examination of the earlier counsel. Thus, the sum and substance of
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 374
evidence of P.W. 33 Shelke is that he has properly conducted the
investigationasperthedirectionsofP.W.37ACPDurafe.
345. P.W. 36 Hasan Gafoor Exh. 438 was the Commissioner of
Police,Mumbai,then,whohadaccordedsanctionu/s.23(2)ofMCOC
ActExh.439,440and441.Accordingtothiswitness,hewasworking
asaCommissionerofPolice,MumbaifromFebruary2008toJune2009.
HewasintherankofanAdditionalD.G. Oneofhisfunctionswasto
accordsanctionaspertheMCOCActforprosecution.Hetestifiedthat
he had to accord sanction on the basis of evidence and as per the
provisionsofMCOCAct.Hisevidencerevealsthathehadanoccasion
toaccordsanctioninC.R.No.69/2008inDCB,CIDwhichwasaC.R.of
Sakinaka police station bearing C.R. No. 82/2007. He received the
proposal for application of MCOC Act with relevant papers. He had
gone through the papers and had a detailed discussion with the I.O.
about the said crime. He thereafter, arrived at a conclusion that
sanctionundertheprovisionsofMCOCActisnecessary. Hedisclosed
thattheoffenceunderMCOCActhadbeencommittedby19accused
outofwhich,fourwerewantedaccusedandtwowereabsconding.He
accorded the sanction on 17.7.2008 which is proved by him at Exh.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 375
439.Similarly,byfollowingthesamecriteria,heaccordedsanctionin
respect of A20 Sunil Ghade on 20.11.2008, which is proved at Exh.
440 andA21GaneshKrishnaSalvion28.1.2009whichisprovedat
Exh.441.
346. WhilecrossexaminingbyMr.Pasbola,P.W.36HasanGafoor
hasadmittedthathehadconsideredthesamefourchargesheetswhile
according the aforesaid sanction. He testified that he required
approximatelyoneweektoaccordsanctionafterreceivingthepapers,
whichmeansthathedidtakeconsiderabletimeforapplicationofmind
before according sanction. According to him, after his subjective
satisfaction,heaccordedthesanction. Hedeniedthesuggestionthat
onthebasisofnotingswhichhehadput,thesanctionwasaccorded.
Sincethewitnesshasbeenretiredonthedateofhisevidence,hecould
notbringtheoriginalfilewhichaccordingtohim,wasavailablewith
hisoffice. Inparagraph7ofhiscross,headmitsthatwhileaccording
sanction,whichisat Exh.439, whatwasavailablewithhimwasthe
reports of the officers and the papers of investigation. What else is
requiredforthesanctioningauthority? Thisalsofortifiesthefactthat
hedidapplyhismind. Nodoubt,hisorderdoesnotdisclosethathe
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 376
hadadiscussionwiththeIOoranyotherofficerinconnectionwiththe
saidcase,however,itisnottherequirementoflaw. Thewitnesswas
awareabouttheinvestigationconductedbySakinakapolicestationin
C.R.No.82/2007andthefilingofchargesheet.Thereferencetothat
effectcanbenoticedinExh.439.Hefurtherdeposedthathehadgone
throughthepriorapprovalgrantedbyJointCommissionerofPoliceMr.
RakeshMaria.
347. TheattentionofthewitnesswasdrawntoExh.439which
indicatesthatexceptA1Gawali,thereisnoreferenceofotheraccused
inthefourchargesheets,whichwerereferredwhileaccordingsanction.
Thefactthatthecompetentcourthadtakencognizanceoftheoffenceis
apparentfromthecertifiedcopiesofthechargesheets.Aquestionwas
askedwhetheritiscorrectthatthreeoutoffourchargesheetsdonot
disclose cognizance taken by the competent court. The witness
answeredthathewassatisfiedthatthosecaseswerefiledintheCourt.
As a matter of fact, this question should not have been asked to the
witness as he is not competent to answer, for the reason that once
chargesheet is filed in the court of Magistrate and the case is
registered, it means that the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 377
offences.
348. Thelearnedcounselfortheaccusedhas,therefore,drawn
attention of the witness to Section 2(1)(d) and (e) of MCOC Act.
Thoughthewitnesshastestifiedthatprivateandpersonaldisputesare
outofthewayofSection2(1)(d)and(e)ofMCOCActasitistheduty
of the court to interpret the provisions of law and to see whether
provisions of law have been properly made applicable or not. This
questionwasirrelevantsofarasP.W.36isconcerned.Itisthequestion
of interpretation of law which is to be argued by the lawyers. Of
course,thesanctioningauthoritybeingoneofthehighestpoliceofficer
intherankoftheAdditionalDirectorGeneralofPoliceisexpectedto
knowthebasicprovisionsofMCOCAct,yetsofarasinterpretationand
applicabilityisconcerned,itisthedomainofprosecution,defenceand
theCourt.
349. Restofthelearnedcounseladoptedthecrossexamination
conductedbyMr.Pasbola.
350. Thus,itcanbeseenthatnothinghasbeenelicitedincross
whichwouldrenderhistestimonyunacceptableinsofarasthesanction
u/s.23(2)ofMCOCActisconcerned.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 378
352. Thelastwitnessoftheprosecutionisthemaininvestigating
officer P.W. 37 Ashok Tukaram Durafe, Exh. 446, who was posted as
ACP, D1, Mumbai on 22.4.2007. He testified that Unit III of the
DCB,CID had registered C.R. No. 69/2008. On 20.5.2008, Joint C.P.
gaveapprovaltoapplyMCOCActinC.R.No.69/2008. Onthesame
day, API Shelke P.W. 33handed over further investigation of the said
crimetohim.HeconsultedwithAPIShelkeP.W.33andgonethrough
thepapers. HeappliedtheprovisionsofMCOCAct. Heinterrogated
the accused persons who were arrested in this case. His evidence
further reveals astohow earlierit wasacaseregisteredatSakinaka
policestationvideC.R.No.82/2007u/s.452,302r/w34ofIPCand3,
25 of Arms Act and submission of chargesheet by the said police
station.Thisaspecthasalreadybeenclarifiedintheearlierpartofthe
judgment.
352. P.W. 37 has thereafter, with all details and particulars
testified about the correspondence made by him with Joint C.P. Mr.
Rakesh Maria by which the seven accused had expressed their
willingness to give their confessional statements and accordingly, the
recordingoftheirconfessionalstatementsbyP.W.15DCPDabhade,P.W.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 379
17 DCP Vinaykumar Chaube, P.W. 18 DCP Dilip Sawant, P.W. 19 DCP
Phadtare,P.W.20DCPDhoom,P.W.23DCPVijaysinghJahdav. P.W.29
Brijesh Singh. I had already discussed about the correspondence
between the aforesaid DCPs visavis the Joint C.P. Mr. Rakesh Maria
andP.W.37ACPMr.Durafe.Inparagraph11,thiswitnesshasdeposed
that while sending the aforesaid accused for recording their
confessionalstatements,allprecautionsweretakensuchastheaccused
weresentinveilandeventheentriesintherespectivecasediarieshave
beenmadeattherespectivepolicestationwheretheaccusedwerekept
afterrecordingthefirstpart.Thisaspecthasalreadybeendiscussedby
meand,therefore,needsnorepetition.Hetestifiedaboutthesending
ofmuddemalarticlestotheCFSL,Kalinaforanalysisandrecordedthe
statementofconcernedconstable.Hetestifiedthatsincetherewereso
many crimes registered against A1 Arun Gawali and, therefore, he
recordedstatementsofPIRamaneandPIRasamP.W.16ofAgripada
police station who investigated C.R. No. 164/2004, 77/2004 and
189/2004ofAgripadapolicestation.HealsorecordedstatementofPI
Sawant of Kalachowki police station who had investigated C.R. No.
159/2005.Heobtainedcertifiedcopiesofchargesheetsoffinalreport
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 380
inC.R.No.164/2004,77/2004,189/2004and159/2005.Thereafter,
hetestifiedabouttherecordingofstatementofotherwitnessesi.e.P.W.
12MotilalChaudhari,P.W.7Ms.Manali. ArrangementofTIPthrough
SEOKambliP.W.24.
353. Thewitnesshasproducedandprovedthreeidentitycardsof
A15 Patil Art. 22 (colly.). A perusal of these three identitycards of
A15Patilshowthatthesepertaininthreedifferentcapacities.Thefirst
identitycardrevealsthatheisaworkerofMaharashtraRajyaMathadi
TransportandGeneralKamgarUnion,depictinghisphotographandthe
sealofthesaidUnion.Thesecondidentitycardappearstohavebeen
issued by the Chief Secretary of the Maharashtra State Legislative
Assembly,VidhanBhavan,Mumbai,Nagpur,whichindicatesthatheisa
member of Akhil Bhartiya Sena of A1 Arun Gawali and the third
identity card reveals that he is also a member of Mumbai BhajiPala
AsanrakshitKamgarMandal. Thepanchanamahasbeenadmittedby
thedefencewhichisprovedatExh.443. P.W.37ACPMr.Durafehas
testified that the letter sent by Additional Secretary of Legislative
Council of Maharashtra dated 20.2.2009, which was in reply to the
letterofA1ArunGawaliclearlyindicatesthatapartfromA15Patil,
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 381
Exh. 461 which is an important document on the letter head of the
Legislative Council of Maharashtra, indicating the names of the
followingpersonswhoarerecognizedasthemembersofthepolitical
party(AkhilBhartiyaSena),whohavebeenissuedwithidentitycards
toenterintotheSachivalayandalsointheVidhanBhavan.Theyareas
under: (1) Suhas Eknath Vilankar as an Assistant, (2) Vishwanath
SavleramHinge,Clerk,(3)NileshMahadevIngavale,Typist,(4)Vasant
Jayram Raut, Typist, (5) Ankush Gajanan Gharkar,Peon,(6)Suresh
RaghunathPatil,Clerkand(7)RajendraM.Sadvilkar,Assistant.These
personswereissuedPassNo.0044to0050toenterintotheofficeof
LegislativeCouncil. Whatelseisrequiredtoprovetheassociationof
A15Patilalongwithotheraccused,beingthemembersoforganized
crimesyndicateofA1ArunGawaliinthenameofhispoliticalparty
calledAkhilBhartiyaSena.
354. P.W. 37 ACP Mr. Durafe has thereafter testified about the
seizureof 12diariesattheinstance ofA15 Patil fromRoomNo. 11
ThewitnessP.W.10AnkushGharkaraboutwhichIhadalreadymadea
discussion in the preceding paragraphs. The final report inC.R. No.
164/2004 is at Exh. 454 and final report in C.R. No. 159/2005 is
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 382
provedat Exh.455. Thesearethetwochargesheets. Acognizance
hasbeentakenbythecompetentcourt. Hisevidencefurtherreveals
aboutthecollectionofballisticreportinrespectofthescarbuttandthe
handgunArt.5.Thereafter,hetestifiedaboutthecorrespondencewith
theNodalOfficersofmobilephonecompanieswhichhasalreadybeen
discussedbyme.Healsotestifiedthatduringinvestigation,itrevealed
that A15 Patil purchased a motorbike bearing No. MH01MA 3482.
Another motorcycle i.e. Bajaj Discover which was used for keeping
watch on deceased Kamlakar Jamsandekar, could not be traced out.
However,itsnumberwasfake.
355. During the crossexamination by Mr. Pasbola, the witness
reiteratedthat healsoinvestigatedC.R. No. 52/2008 (MCOCSpecial
CaseNo. 5/2008), which is pending in this court in which A1 Arun
Gawali, A10 Shrikrishna, A13 Rane, A11 Narkar are arraigned as
accused.Thiswitnessinvestigatedthesaidcrimeaftergettingtheprior
approvalfromtheauthority.Headmitsthat,inthepresentcase,prior
approvalwasaccordedon20.5.2008forwhichtheproposalwassent
one day before. He discussed the matter with IO. After putting his
remarks ontheproposal, hehad forwardedthesametohis superior.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 383
Healsoadmitsthatduringtheprocess,hisseniorofficersi.e.Additional
C.P.andJointC.P.hadadiscussionwithhim.Thisclearlyindicatesthat
there was an application of mind by the concerned authority.
Thereafter, he also admits that about the previous investigation
conducted and completed by the Sakinaka police station and the
submissionandfinalreportaswellascommittalofthecase. Healso
admits that he had a discussion with the IO of C.R. No. 82/2007 as
regardsthenecessityoffurtherinvestigationintothecrimeregisteredat
Sakinakapolicestation.Thoughitisviewedwithdoubtbythedefence
thatpriorapprovalinC.R.No.52/2008wasobtainedon29.4.2008and
on the same day, thiswitness hadreceivedpapersofinvestigationof
C.R.No.82/2007,Idonotfeelanythingunusualinthesameasitcan
besaidtobejustacoincidence. Idonotfindanythingwhichcanbe
said to be illegal or against the provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The endeavour of Mr. Pasbola through out the cross
examinationofthiswitnessistopointouttheminortechnicalerrors
andmistakeswhichdonotgiveanyfatalblowtothecruxofthematter
in the light of the discussion of evidence of prosecution witnesses as
well as the confessional statements of some of the accused. I have
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 384
alreadystatedthatthereisnothingunusualtodoubttheinvestigation.
356. P.W.37ACPMr.Durafehasbeenfurtherextensivelycross
examinedonaveryminorandtechnicalaspectsaboutthearrestofeach
accusedwhowerereferredforrecordingtheirconfessionalstatements
to the concerned DCPs. and how and when these accused were
interrogated as well as their first expression indicating willingness to
giveconfessionalstatement.Thecrossalsorevealsthatthedefencehas
triedtobringonrecordastowhatadviceheshouldhavegiventothe
APIShelkewhichhedidnotandwhatadvicehedidnotgivewhichhe
oughttohavegiven.ThecrossexaminationfurtherrevealsthatP.W.37
ACPMr.DurafedidnotaskPIShelkeastowhyhedidnotcallSaili
Jamsandekari.e.daughterofthedeceasedKamlakar,NeetaShahand
MayureshTandelforTIP.Thereasonhasalreadybeendiscussedinthe
earlier paragraphs. However, P.W. 37 ACP Durafe has clarified that
becauseofherexamination,SailiJamsandekarrefusedtocome.
357. TheattentionofthiswitnessisdrawntoExhs.470and471
which pertains to TIP in respect of A18 Mohd. Saif and A19
Badreaalam who have been discharged, in which Neeta Shah and
MayureshTandelweretheidentifyingwitnesses. Thisaspecthasalso
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 385
been discussed by me that since the accused have already been
dischargedandthattheidentifyingwitnesseshadnotactuallyseenthe
assault nor the weapons in the hands of those accused, there is no
proprietytodiscussonthataspect.
358. In paragraph 69, the witness was confronted with the
retracted confession of A9 Sandip which is dated 1.7.2008 and the
witness was asked whether he had filed any reply on it to which he
answered,hewasnotawareaboutthesaidfact.Similarly,hisattention
wasdrawntotheretractedconfessionofA10Shrikrishnaon17.6.2008
andbyA15Patilon26.6.2008.Thisaspecthasalreadybeendealtwith
bymeanditseffectinviewofthelatestpronouncementoftheHon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur and anr. vs.
StateofMaharashtrareportedin2010(3)AIRBOMR(S.C.)551,
whichiscommonlyknownasMilindVaidyaCase.
359. In paragraph 89, the witness admits that A2 Vijay, A3
Ashokkumar,A4NarendraandA5AnilwerenotacquaintedwithA6
BhintadeandA7Surve. Itwasnotnecessarythattheyshouldknow
eachother.Incaseofconspiracyu/s.120BofIPC,itisnotnecessary
that all theconspiratorsandcoconspiratorsshould know eachother,
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 386
especially when in the given case, the link between A2 Vijay, A3
Ashokkumar, A4 Narendra and A5 Anil is established with A10
Shrikrishna, A12 Pratap and A13 Rane and, therefore, this is not
somethingwhichcanaffecttheprosecutionstory.
360. Inparagraph94ofthecrossexamination,P.W.37ACPMr.
Durafe was asked by the defence whether he had recorded two
incidentswhilerecordingthestatementofP.W.2NilkanthBanewhich
pertains to the touching of the feet of A6 Bhintade by deceased
Kamlakarandsecondonewhenbloodpressurewasshotup, P.W.37
answered that he did not record those two incidents. He further
testifiedthatwhilerecordingstatementofP.W.2NilkanthBane,hedid
not ask him to narrate those two incidents before the court. This
importantadmissionsbroughtduringcrossexaminationbythedefence
aresignificantsinceitisnotthesuggestionofthedefencethatnosuch
statementwasmadebyP.W.2Baneduringhisstatementu/s.161of
Cr.P.C.Whathasbeensimplyansweredbythiswitnessthathedidnot
ask this witness to narrate those facts before the court. It can be
presumedthatP.W.2BanewastryingtogiveallthetruefactstoP.W.37
ACP Mr. Durafe, however, this witness appears to have ignored the
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 387
material aspects while recording the statement of the witness u/s.
161(3)ofCr.P.C. ItappearsthatP.W.2Banewasacquaintedwiththe
aforesaid material facts and circumstances, but P.W. 37 had turned a
nelson'seye.Thus,theaspectof'motive'inthemindofA6Bhintadeis
apparent.
361. In paragraph 95 of the crossexamination, P.W. 37ACP Mr.
Durafeclearlydeposedthathehadtoldthewitnesstonarratethefact
of unauthorised structures of nephew of A7 Surve, only to avoid
repetition. Therefore, there is no clear mention of the fact of
unauthorisedconstructioninhisstatement.Thus,itisexplicitfromthis
partofevidenceincrossthatP.W.2Baneindeedhadstatedbeforethis
witnessabouttheunauthorisedstructuresofthenephewofA7Surve.
362. ThereisnoreferenceofthewordDaddyinthestatement
ofP.W.6ArunSingh,butthatwouldnotamounttoamaterialomission
as regards the payment of extortion money to the organized crime
syndicateofA1ArunGawali.ItisamatterofjudicialnoticethatA1
ArunGawaliisalsoknownas'Daddy'intheunderworld.Ihavealready
discussed the evidence of P.W. 6 Arun Singh. The defence has also
reiterated that the witness was running the business in the name of
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 388
Ashish Vision Cable. It is of common experience that when a
prosecutionwitnesscomestoaCourttodepose,normaltendencyofthe
witnessistoexaggeratecertainfactswhichisanormaltendencyofany
humanbeing,however,itdoesnotnecessarilymeanthatthewitnessis
stating somethingfalse oris lie. Improvementsand minoromissions
are bound to be there, for it cannot be expected of a witness to
reproduceeachandeverywordfromhisstatementbeforethepolice.If
a witness reproduces his statement, he can be branded as a tutored
witness.Likewise,whathasbeendeposedbyP.W.12Motilalandother
witnesses is nothing but some exaggeration which does not discredit
theirtestimonywhichareotherwisebelievable,iftested,onthetouch
stoneofLawofEvidence.Thetestimonyofthiswitnessaswellasthe
testimonyofP.W.4AdduandP.W.7Manaliisfoundtobeconsistent
withoneanotherasregardsthetime,placeandmannerofoccurrence.
363. It is pertinent to note that crossexamination of the
prosecutionwitnessesbythedefencehasnotbeendoneinconformity
withSection162ofCr.P.C. Manyatimesthewitnessesweredirectly
confronted with their statements recorded by the police u/s. 161 of
Cr.P.C.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 389
364. Inparagraph115ofthecrossexamination,thewitnesswas
confrontedwithadocumentwhichpertainstoacomplaintmadebyA2
Vijayto the Hon'bleHighCourt whichistreatedasWrit PetitionNo.
2361/2008andbyA4Narendradated24.8.2008,whichisfiledinS.C.
No. 482/2008. The witness denied the alleged illegal arrest of A2
Vijay,A3Ashokkumar,A4NarendraandA5Anilandtheirdetention
at Kalbadevi Road near Govindram Lachhiram Hotel. The witness
denied the torture and illegal detention as well as extracting forced
confessionalstatements.Havingconsideredtheevidenceonrecordvis
avis their statements u/s. 313, it can, prima facie, be said that the
accusedhavemadefalseallegations.Thewitnesshasalsodeniedthat
duetothepressureofhissuperior,A1ArunGawalihasbeenfalsely
implicatedwhowasasittingMLAattherelevanttime. Interestingly,
thedefencehasnotadducedanyevidencetosubstantiatethefactas
regards the false implication of A1 Gawali to jeopardize his political
career by the rival group. Even during cross, there is no suggestion
given to the witnesses specifically as to who was behind this entire
exercisetofalselyimplicateA1Gawali.Thedefencetherefore,appears
to be improbable, unacceptable and unbelievable. Even A1 Gawali
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 390
couldhaveexaminedhimself,buthedidnot,whichalsospeaksvolume.
365. WhilecrossexaminationonbehalfofA6,Mr.Kulkarni,the
learned counsel reiterated the fact of arrest of A2 Vijay, A3
Ashokkumar, A4 Narendra and A5 Anil on 26.4.2008 in C.R. No.
66/2008u/s.399byDCB,CIDandtheirrearrestinthepresentcaseon
29.4.2008 as well as the TIP on 20.6.2008. As regards the delay in
conductingTIP,Ihadalreadydiscussedthattherewasnodelay. Even
thewitnesstestifiedthatassoonasthewitnessesweretracedouton
18
th
June2008,heproceededtoarrangefortheTIP.Healsoreiterated
thatduetoherprobleminformantP.W.7Manali,couldnotcome.
366. Inparagraph118,itisspecificallysuggestedtothewitness
that he did not enquire about the complaints made by deceased
KamlakarandP.W.1KomalJamsandekartothepoliceaboutthethreats
givenbyA6BhintadeandA7Surve. Thisalsosuggeststhatindeed
therewerecomplaintsbythedeceasedandhiswifetothepoliceabout
thethreatsatthehandsofA6BhintadeandA7Surve.Notonlythat,it
hasalsobeenadmittedbythiswitnessthathecametoknowaboutthe
possible motive behind the commission of the murder of Kamlakar
whileperusingthestatementofMr.Bailkar.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 391
367. Mr. Moomen, the learned counsel for A9 Sandip cross
examinedP.W.37ACPMr.DurafeinwhichthewitnessadmitsthatA9
Sandiphasnotbeenprosecutedinanyothercaseandisnottheowner
ofmovableorimmovableproperty.
368. Assuch, fromthe entire testimony of thiswitness,certain
importantaspectsoftheprosecutioncasesuchasmotive,membership
ofA15Patil,recordingofconfessionalstatementsofsevenaccusedby
followingdueprocedureetc.havebeenfortified.
369. Theargumentofthedefencethatapprovalu/s.23(1)(a)of
the MCOC Act as well as the sanction u/s. 23(1)(b) is without
applicationofmind. Ihavealreadydiscussedasregardsthesanction
accordedbyP.W.36Mr.HasanGaffurwithdueapplicationofmindand
afterfollowingtheprocedure.Itiscrystalclearfromtherecordaswell
astheearlierdiscussionthatbetweenJanuary2007and2.3.2007,the
accusedhadhatchedacriminalconspiracyalongwithothersandhave
aidedandabettedeachotherinassassinatingKamlakarJamsandekar.
Thelawiswellsettledthatevenifthereisalacunainapproval,itcan
befilledinbytheprosecutionatthestageofleadingevidenceduring
trial. ThisaspecthasbeensubstantiatedbytheDivisionBenchofthe
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 392
Hon'bleBombayHighCourtincaseof AnilSadashivNanduskarvs.
StateofMaharashtrain2008(3)MLJ(Crimes),650. Paragraph14
ofthesaidjudgmentcanbereproduced,whichreadsthus:
14.Revertingtothefactsofthecase,ifone
peruses the approval dated 28
th
August
2004,undoubtedlyitreferstotheeffectof
consideration of all the materials which
were placed before the authority and
thereafter grant of approval for initiating
proceedingsunderMCOCAct.Undoubtedly,
while referring to the acts of the accused,
all the ingredients of the definition of the
organized Crime do not seem to have
beenincorporatedintheorderofapproval.
However,thatitselfcannotbeajustification
for interferenceinholding the approvalto
beinvalidorbadinlaw,inviewofthefact
thattheprosecutionisentitledtoestablish
the same by leading necessary evidence.
Prima facie the competent authority
appearstohavetakenintoconsiderationall
the materials which would reveal or
disclose the commission of the offence of
organized crime involving the
appellant/accused. It is too premature to
arrive at any conclusion to the contrary
merelyonreadingoftheorderofapproval.
As such, inviewofthisclearpositionoflaw, theargument does not
holdwater.
370. As regards the reference of four cases against A1 Arun
Gawali,itcanbeseenthattwochargesheetsu/s.380and387ofIPC
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 393
which involves a pecuniary gain. Thus, there is due compliance of
Section2(1)(d)ofMCOCAct.
371. SofarasA6BhintadeandA7Surveareconcerned,they
canbeverywellsaidtobethepersonswhohaveaidedandabettedthe
organizedcrimesyndicateinkillingKamlakarJamsandekar.Theyhave
playedanactiveroleinviewofthediscussionhereinabovebypaying
Rs.30lakhstoA1ArunGawaliwhileaccompanyingwithA12Pratap
andA13Rane.Theiractcanindeedbesaidtobeanabetmentinview
ofSection2(1)(a)(i)(iii)ofMCOCAct. Theywerepartandparcelof
the conspiracy. In case of Bharat Shah vs. State of Maharashtra
reportedin2003BCR(Cri)947,ithasbeenheldthatthedefinitionof
abetmentunderMCOCActwouldinclusiveandincludetheingredients
ofSection107ofIPC.Thesaidviewhasagainbeenreenforcedbythe
Hon'ble Supreme Courtincase of Ranjit SinghSharmavs.State of
Maharashtra and another reported in (2005) 5 SCC 294. Two
conspiracieswerehatchedbetweenA1ArunGawali,A6Bhintade,A7
SurveandA12PratapandA13RaneinthemiddleofDecember2006
forpurelymonetaryreasonsaswellasfortheeliminationofCorporator
KamlakarJamsandekar. Anotherconspiracybythesamepersonshad
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 394
beenhatchedinJanuary2007fordifferentreasons.A6Bhintadeand
A7Survewerethecommonaccusedinboththechargesheets.Thus,it
isclearthatthesedifferentaccusedhavedifferentmotivesatdifferent
points of time with a one common agenda to kill the Corporator
Kamlakar Jamsandekar. The prosecution has brought on record that
A20 Sunil Ghate is actively associated with the organized crime
syndicate of A1 Arun Gawali. The evidence is weak in so far as
involvement in the conspiracy of assassination of Kamlakar
Jamsandekarisconcerned.Nevertheless,A20SunilGhate'sindulgence
invariouscriminalunlawfulactivitiesandhisinvolvementinorganized
crimehasbeensufficientlyestablishedbytheprosecutioninviewofthe
confessionalstatementsofA10Shrikrishna,A15PatilandA9Sandip
aswellasfromtheevidenceofP.W.6ArunkumarSingh,whichhasbeen
sufficientlyprovedthatheisanactivememberoftheortanizedcrime
syndicate of kingpin A1 Arun Gawali. Not only that, during the
absenceofA1ArunGawali,heusedtoactastheheadoftheorganized
crimesyndicatewhichinvolvedinextortion,collectingransomfromthe
builders,cableoperatorsetc.
372. Similarly, the prosecution has not adduced cogent and
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 395
convincingevidenceinsofarasA11NarkarandA21GaneshSalviare
concerned or their directinvolvement androle inthe conspiracyand
murderofKamlakarJamsandekar. SofarasA8SurendraPanchalis
concerned,asalreadydiscussed,whentheweaponArt.5wasprocured
fromhim,hewasnotawarethattheaccusedweregoingtocommitthe
offence of murder of Kamlakar Jamsandekar. The prosecution has
failedtobringonrecordsufficientevidenceagainsthimforviolationof
theprovisionsofArmsActi.e.manufacturingacountrymadehandgun.
TheevidenceasregardsthebreachofprovisionsofArmsActisonly
against A2 Vijay Giri. These three accused, according to me, are
required to be given a benefit of doubt after having considered the
entire circumstances and evidence on record. Thus, A8 Surendra
Panchal,A11DineshNarkarandA12GaneshSalviareacquittedofthe
offenceswithwhichtheyarecharged.
373. Much has been argued by the defence on the point of
Section2(1)(d)oftheMCOCActbycontendingthatexceptA1Arun
Gawali,theprosecutionhasnotrelieduponanyofthepreviouscharge
sheetsagainstanyoftheaccused.Thelawiswellsettledonthisaspect.
Whatisrequiredtobeseenisthenexusorthelinkofthepersonwith
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 396
organizedcrimesyndicate. Thelinkwithorganizedcrimesyndicateis
thecruxofthetermcontinuingunlawfulactivity.TheDivisionBench
oftheHon'bleBombayHighCourt,incaseofGovindS.UbhevsState
ofMaharashtrareportedin2009ALLMR(Cri)1903(Smt.Ranjana
Desai&R.G.Ketkar,JJ.),heldandIreproducetherelevantparagraphs
thus:
35. It is now necessary to go to the
definition of 'continuing unlawful activity'.
Section2(1)(d)defines'continuingunlawful
activity' to mean an activity prohibited by
law for the timebeing in force, whichisa
cognizable offence punishable with
imprisonment of three years or more,
undertaken either singly or jointly as a
memberofanorganizedcrimesyndicateor
on behalf of such syndicate in respect of
which more than one chargesheet have
been filed before a competentcourt within
theprecedingtenyearsandthatcourthave
takencognizanceofsuchoffence.Thus,for
an activity to be a 'continuing unlawful
activity'.
a)theactivitymustbeprohibitedbylaw;
b) it must be a cognizable offence
punishable with imprisonment of three
yearsormore;
c)itmustbeundertakensinglyorjointly;
d)itmustbeundertakenasamemberofan
organized crime syndicate or on behalf of
suchsyndicate;
e)inrespectofwhichmorethanonecharge
sheet have been filed before a competent
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 397
court.
36. The words 'in respect of which more
than one chargesheet have been filed'
cannot go with the words 'a member of a
crimesyndicatebecausein thatcase,these
words would have read as 'in respect of
whom more than one chargesheet have
beenfiled'.
37.Butevenotherwise,ifallprovisionsare
readtogetherwereachthesameconclusion.
Section 2(1)(d) which defines 'continuing
unlawful activity' sets down a period of 10
years within which more than one charge
sheethavetobefiled.Themembersofthe
crime syndicate operate either singly or
jointly in commission of organized crime.
Theyoperateindifferentmodules.Aperson
may be a part of the module which jointly
undertakes an organized crime or he may
singlyasa memberoftheorganizedcrime
syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate
undertake an organized crime. In both the
situations,theMCOCAcanbeapplied.Itis
the membership of organized crime
syndicatewhichmakesapersonliableunder
the MCOCA. This is evident from section
3(4) of the MCOCA which states that any
person who is a member of an organized
crime syndicate shall be punished with
imprisonmentforatermwhichshallnotbe
lessthanfiveyearsbutwhichmayextendto
imprisonmentforlifeandshallalsobeliable
tofine,subjecttoaminimumoffineofRs.5
lakhs.ThechargeundertheMCOCAropesin
apersonwhoasamemberoftheorganized
crime syndicate commits organized crime
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 398
i.e.actsofextortionbygivingthreats,etc.to
gaineconomicadvantageorsupremacy,asa
member of the crime syndicate singly or
jointly. Charge is in respect of unlawful
activities of the organized crime syndicate.
Therefore, if within a period of preceding
tenyears,onechargesheethasbeenfiledin
respectoforganizedcrimecommittedbythe
membersofaparticularcrimesyndicate,the
said chargesheet can be taken against a
memberofthesaidcrimesyndicateforthe
purpose of application of the MCOCA
against him even if he is involved in one
case.Theorganizedcrimecommittedbyhim
will be a part of the continuing unlawful
activity of the organized crime syndicate.
Whatisimportantisthenexusorthelinkof
the person with organized crime syndicate.
Thelinkwiththe'organizedcrimesyndicate'
isthecruxoftheterm'continuingunlawful
activity'. Ifthis link is notestablished, that
personcannotberopedin.
44. In the light of this, we are of the
opinion that the words 'more than one
chargesheet' contained in Section 2(1)(d)
refertounlawfulactivitiesoftheorganized
crimesyndicate.Requirementofmorethan
one chargesheet is qua the unlawful
activities of the organized crime syndicate
andnotquaindividualmemberthereof.
45.Mr.Desai'ssubmissionthatinasmuchas
theappellant'snameisnotmentionedinthe
approvalgrantedunderSection23(1)(d)of
the MCOC Act, the prosecution qua the
appellant isvitiated,mustalsobe rejected.
InitsjudgmentinVinodAsraniVs.Stateof
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 399
Maharashtra (Special Leave Petition (Cri)
No. 6312 of 2006 dated 21.2.2007, the
Supreme Court has considered the same
submissionandobservedthatnoninclusion
oftheaccusedintheapprovalunderSection
23(1)(d)oftheMCOCActisnotfataltothe
investigation qua that accused. The
SupremeCourtobservedthatSection23(1)
(a) provides a safeguard that no
investigation into an offence under the
MCOC Act should be commenced without
the approval of the concerned authorities.
Once such approval is obtained, an
investigation is commenced. The Supreme
Court further observed that those who are
subsequently found to be involved in the
commissionoftheorganizedcrimecanvery
well be proceeded against once sanction is
obtained against them under Section 23(2)
oftheMCOCAct.
374. IncaseofDineshMadhavBhondvevs.StateofMaharashtra
reportedin2007(2)Mh.L.J.(Cri)718(A.M.Khanwilkar,J.).Thesaid
positionhasbeenclarified.Iquotetherelevantparagraphasunder:
a) the sine qua non for institution of
offencepunishableunderthepresentActi.e.
MCOCA, is concerned, is essentially in
relationtoanoffenceoforganizedcrime.If
organized crime committed has resulted in
death of any person, that is punishable in
termsofsection3(1)(i).INallothercases,it
is punishable under section 3(1)(ii). The
ortanizedcrimeasperceivedbythisActisof
continuing unlawful activities as contained
in section 2(1)(d), which in turn provides
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 400
thattheactivityisprohibitedbylawforthe
time being in force which is a cognizable
offencepunishable with imprisonmentof3
yearsormore,undertakensinglyorjointly
asmemberoftheorganizedcrimesyndicate
or onbehalfof such syndicate. If however,
the activity prohibited by law, though
qualifies the abovesaid requirement of
clause(d),iscommitted,but,ifitisfirstof
its kind, that will not become continuing
unlawfulactivity.Forthat,repetitionofsuch
activity within the stipulated period would
attract clause (d), as itpostulates that, for
such activity more than one charge sheet
have been filed before a competent court
withintheprecedingperiodof10years.
As such, the requirement of more than one chargesheet is qua the
unlawful activities of the organized crime syndicate and not qua
individualmemberthereof.
375. Thus,afterhavingconsideredtheentirefacts,circumstances
andevidenceonrecord,Iholdthattheprosecutionhasproveditscase
beyondallreasonabledoubtsagainstA1ArunGawali,A2VijayGiri,
A3 Ashokkumar Jaiswar, A4 Narendra Giri, A5 Anil Giri, A6
SahebraoBhintade,A9SandipaliasSandyGangan,A10Shrikrishna
aliasBabuGurav,A12PratapGodse,A13AjitRane,A15SureshPatil
andA20SunilGhate. Theprosecutionhasprovedachargeu/s.3(1)
(ii)and3(4)oftheMCOCActsofarasA1ArunGawali,A9Sandip
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 401
Gangan, A10 Shrikrishna Gurav, A12 Pratap Godse, A13 Ajit Rane,
A15SureshPatilandA20SunilGhate.
376. The prosecution has proved the charge against A2 Vijay
Giri,A3AshokkumarJaiswar,A4NarendraGiriandA5AnilGiriu/s.
3(2)oftheMCOCAct.
377. TheprosecutionhasprovedachargeagainstA2VijayGiri,
A3AshokkumarJaiswar,A4NarendraGiriu/s.452r/wSec.34ofthe
IPC.
378. TheprosecutionhasprovedachargeagainstA2VijayGiri,
A3AshokkumarJaiswar,A4NarendraGiriandA5AnilGiriu/s.302
r/w34and120BoftheIPCr/wSec.3(1)(i)oftheMCOCAct.
379. The prosecution has further proved a charge against A1
Arun Gawali, A6 Sahebrao Bhintade, A9 Sandip Gangan, A10
ShrikrishnaGurav,A12PratapGodse,A13AjitRane&A15Surersh
Patil, under Sec. 3(2) of the MCOC Act, for hatching conspiracy to
eliminatethedeceasedKamlakarJamsandekar.
380. The prosecution has proved a charge against A1 Arun
Gawali,A6SahebraoBhintade,A9SandipGangan,A10Shrikrishna
Gurav,A12PratapGodse,A13AjitRaneandA15SureshPatilu/s.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 402
3(1)(i)oftheMCOCAct. Ofcourse,thechargehasalsobeenproved
against the deceased accused A7 Sadashiv Surve who died after the
arguments were heard, u/s. 3(2) and 3(1)(i) of the MCOC Act.
However,thecasestandsabatedwithrespecttodeceasedA7Sadashiv
Surve.
381. Theprosecutionhasprovedachargeu/s.3r/w25(1B)of
theArmsActagainstA2VijayGiri.
382. Theprosecutionhasfailedtoprovethechargeu/s.3r/w25
(1B) of Arms Act against A8 Surendra Panchal, A10 Shrikrishna
Gurav,A11DineshNarkarandA12PratapGodse.
383. Lastly,theprosecutionhasfailedtobringhometheguiltof
A8 Surendra Panchal, A11 Dinesh Narkar and A21 Ganesh Salvi
underanyofthechargeswithwhichtheyarecharged.
384. There are absolutely no material omissions, or
contradictionsonrecord.Thedefenceraisedbytheaccusedappearsto
beimprobable, unacceptable and unbelievable. I, therefore, holdthe
aforesaidaccusedguiltyasabove.
385. Atthispointoftime,Itakehereapausetoheartheaccused
onthepointofsentence.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 403
24
th
August,2012. (P.K.CHAVAN)
SpecialJudge,
CityCivil&SessionsCourt,
GreaterMumbai.
386. As regards the sentence to be awarded to each of the
accused,Ihaveheardeachofthemindependently.
387. A1ArunGawalihasprayedforleniencyonthegroundthat
heisagedabout60years,havingchildrenandagedmotherwhoarehis
dependents.Heurgedthattheperiodundergonebyhimduringtrialis
sufficientandhebereleased. Ihaven'tfoundanyrepentanceonhis
face.
388. A9 Sandip Gangan has also urged for leniency on the
groundthatthereisnobodytolookafterhis80yearsoldfather. A9
SandipGanganisabachelor,agedabout41years.
389. A10ShrikrishnaGuravhasurgedforaminimumsentence
bysayingthatheisnotatallconcernedwiththiscase.
390. A12PratapGodsehasalsoprayedforminimumsentence
andasetoffinviewoftheperiodundergonebyhimduringtrial. He
furtherurgedforleniencyashismotherissufferingfromcancer. His
younger brother who is prosecuting studies in Engineering college is
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 404
alsodependinguponhim.
391. A13 Ajit Rane has also prayed for leniency being
handicapped.Heisalsoabachelor.
392. A15SureshPatilprayedforhisacquittalbycontendingthat
hisparentsareold.Onbeingaskedtosubmitonthepointofsentence,
heprayedforleniency.
393. A20 Sunil Ghate submits that he is the only earning
memberofthefamilyand,therefore,prayedforleniency.
394. A2 Vijay Giri submits that he has not committed the
offence. He is a poor person and is a bachelor. On the point of
sentence,hedidnotsayanything.
395. A3 Ashokkumar Jaiswar also prayed for leniency by
contendingthatheistheonlyearningmemberofthefamily,havinga
motherandthreeyoungerbrothers.Hetooisabachelor.
396. A4NarendraGiriurgedforleniencyonthegroundthathe
hastolookafterhisparents,brothers,twokids.Heisarikshawdriver
byprofession.
397. A5AnilGirihasalsourgedforleniencyonthegroundthat
he has two marriageable sisters and parents. He is a bachelor. He
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 405
submitsthatheknewnothingaboutthecrime.Sincehismotherisill,
heprayedforaleniency.
398. Lastly,A6SahebraoBhintadeurgedthatheisinnocentand
has been falsely implicated because he had helped the widow of the
deceasedKamlakarJamsandekar.Heisanagriculturist.Thedeceased
waslikehisson.Onthequestionofsentence,hedidnotsayanything.
399. Mr.Thakare,thelearnedSPPwhilearguingonthepointof
sentencehasstronglyadvocatedthecapitalpunishmentinsofarasA1
ArunGawali,A2VijayGiriandA12PratapGodseareconcerned.He
submits that A2 Vijay had executed the murder of the deceased by
using the handgun which was recovered from him and who was
identifiedbyP.W.7(Manali). SofarasA12Pratapisconcerned,itis
submitted that he is the first person who come up with an idea of
procuring a weapon for the use of the members of organized crime
syndicate for settling and extorting money from businessmen and
builders which is evident from the testimony of P.W.11 Ramchandra.
Secondly, he is the person who took A6 Bhintade and the deceased
SurvetoA1ArunGawaliatDagdichawl.Thirdly,heisthepersonwho
paidRs.30lakhstoA1ArunGawalioutofwhich,hegotRs.60,000/.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 406
Fourthly,heaskedcoaccused,A10Shrikrishnawhethersomepersons
wouldbeavailableforkilling.HeisthepersonwhoaskedP.W.4Addu
toshowthehouseofthedeceasedKamlakartotheshooters,especially
A2Vijay,A3AshokkumarandA4Narendra. Next,heistheperson
who arranged for money and weapon. He is associated with Akhil
BhartiyaSena,headedbyA1ArunGawaliwhichisthepoliticalfrontof
theorganizedcrimesyndicateandhewasthefirstpersontowhomthe
killingwasreportedbyA2Vijay.
400. InsofarasA1ArunGawaliisconcerned,itisarguedbyMr.
Thakarethatheisatthehelmoftheorganizedcrimesyndicatewhois
indulgedinillegalactivitiesofextortionandcontractkillings.Thishas
beensurfacedfromtheoralevidenceofP.W.6ArunSinghandP.W.28
Mahesh Shah and from the confessions of A9 Sandip Gangan, A10
Shrikrishna Gurav and A15 Suresh Patil. Thus, according to Mr.
Thakarethesethreeaccusedstandondifferentfootingsthantheothers
and,therefore,deserveadeathpenalty.
401. On the other hand, Mr. Pasbola, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Accused nos. 1 and 2, strongly objected the
awardofdeathpenaltytoaccusednos.1and2bycontendingthatit
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 407
wouldbeviolativeofArticle21oftheConstitution. AccordingtoMr.
Pasbola,Section27(3)oftheArmsActandSection31(A)oftheNDPS
Actaretheonlysectionswhichprovidesonlydeathpenalty.However,
Section3(1)(i)ofMCOCAct,providesdeathorimprisonmentforlife.
According to Mr. Pasbola, since the Legislator had provided both the
sentencesand,therefore,thepresentcaseistobeviewedinviewofthe
ratioslaiddownbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtinvariouscasesmore
particularlyincaseofSantoshKumarsatishbhushanBariyavs.State
ofMaharashtrareportedin(2009)2SCC(Cri)1150.
402. It is the contention of Mr. Thakare that MCOC being a
special statute, the criteria of rarest of rare case need not be made
applicable in this case. He drew my attention to the statements of
objects and reasons. Mr. Thakare has, therefore, placed reliance on
certainauthoritiesoftheHon'bleSupremeCourtwhichIshalldealwith
hereinafter.HearguedthatasittingMLAhatchesaconspiracyandfor
monetarygainexecutesasittingcorporatorwhohasapublicfigureisa
specialreason,inviewofSection354(3)ofCr.P.C.forawardingadeath
penalty.TheactofA1ArunGawaliisaculminationofhispasthistory
and, therefore, it is more serious than Section 302 of the IPC. Mr.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 408
Thakarehas,therefore,tenderedcertaindocumentsinviewofSection
17oftheMCOCAct. HedrewmyattentionthatA1ArunGawaliis
already facing a trial under the provisions of MCOC Act in MCOC
SpecialCaseNo.5/2008,whichisapriorcase,pendinginthiscourt
which itself is an aggravating circumstance against A1 Arun Gawali.
Healsobroughttomynoticethatinthepast,A1Arunwasdetained
undertheMaharashtraPreventionofDangerousActivitiesofSlumlords,
bootleggers,DrugOffendersandDangerousPersonsActbyorderdated
18
th
September 1997, passed by the then Commissioner of Police,
Mumbai.ThesaidorderofpreventivedetentionwaschallengedbyA1
ArunGawalibyfilingaHabeasCorpusPetitionbeforetheHon'bleHigh
CourtthroughhiswifeAshaArunGawali. However,thewritpetition
was dismissed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the said
judgmentisreportedinMANU/MH/0471/1999. Assuch,thisalsoan
aggravatingcircumstanceasperSection17(1)(b)oftheMCOCAct.
403. I have gone through the judgment in Writ Petition No.
1118/1997,decidedbytheHon'bleHighCourton31.8.1998incaseof
Smt.AshaArunGawalivs.StateofMaharashtraandothers.Inthesaid
case,theHon'bleHighCourthadgiventhedetailhistoryofA1Arun
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 409
Gawaliandhisindulgenceindifferentcriminalactivitiesinthepastas
well as registration of offences and the cases of extortion. The said
petitionwasdismissed.
404. ThereisnodoubtabouttheindulgenceofA1ArunGawal
invariouscrimesinthepast.Thequestioniswhetherthepresentcase
fallsintherarestofrarecategoryasenunciatedbytheHon'bleSupreme
CourtincaseofBachanSinghVs.StateofPunjabreportedin(1980)
2SupremeCourtCases684,fortheeffectivecomplianceofsentencing
procedureu/s.354(3)andSection235(2)ofCr.P.C.,whereinsufficient
discretionisaprecondition.Strictchannelingofdiscretionwouldalso
goagainstthefoundingprinciplesofsentencingasitwillpreventthe
sentencing court to identify and weigh various factors relating to the
crimeandthecriminalsuchasculpability,impactonthesociety,gravity
ofoffence,motivebehindthecrimeetc.Thishasalsobeenaratiolaid
downintheBachanSingh'scase. Itappearsthattheprosecutionhas
emphasizedonawardingcapitalpunishmentonlytoA1ArunGawali
for, thelearnedSPPMr. Thakarehasnot much stressed on awarding
capital punishment to A2 Vijay Giri and A12 Pratap in comparison
withA1ArunGawali. TheStatehasnotsubmittedmaterialsofaras
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 410
A2Vijayisconcernedaboutthepastinvolvementinanyofthecriminal
activities other than the present one. He is a young man whose
occupation is a rikshaw driver. It is not the contention of the
prosecutionthatthereisnochanceofhisreformation. Lookingtothe
economic background of A2, Vijay and his young age and the
circumstancesinwhichhehadcommittedtheoffence,Ifeelthathecan
begivenachanceofreformationandhiscasedoesnotfallwithinthe
ambitofrarestofrarecase.
405. AsregardsA12Pratap,itisarguedbyMr.Rasalthatheisa
member of thepolitical party of A1Arun Gawali viz. Akhil Bhartiya
Sena.Heisnotacriminal.Herunsabusinessoftravellingandlooking
tohisyoungage,Mr.Rasalhasprayedforlifeimprisonment.Nodoubt,
A12Pratapalsoisayoungmananditisnotthecaseoftheprosecution
that there is no chance of his reformation. He, therefore, does not
deserve the capitalpunishmentinviewoftheratio laiddownby the
various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which shall be
discussedhereinbelow.
406. Mr.PasbolawhilestrenuouslyarguingforA1ArunGawali
submitsthateverymurderisheinous,butonlybecauseitisamurder,
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 411
deathsentencecannotbegiven. KamlakarJamsandekarwasnotthe
firstelectedrepresentativewhowasshotdeadinhishouse.Thisisnot
the first case wherein the murder has been premeditated. He also
submitsthatdespitedeathsentences,thecrimeratehasnotgonedown.
In the instant case, despite being reformed A1 Arun Gawali being
hauledupforhispastcrimesforwhichhewasneverconvicted. Itis
true that unless a person is proven guilty, he should be presumed
innocent.Nothinghasbeenbroughtonrecordtoshowthatevenafter
alltheseyears thatthe criminal trials whicharepending againstA1
ArunGawalihadresultedinhisconviction. Unlessthesameisshown
by the documents on record, he should be presumed innocent.
Presumptionofinnocenceisanhumanright.Thishasbeenheldbythe
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur and
anothervs.StateofMaharashtrareportedin(2010)14SCC641.
407. Mr.Thakareontheotherhand,hasplacedrelianceonsome
oftheauthoritieswhichIquotehereinbelow:
(1) Mithu v. State of Punjab reported in
(1983)2SupremeCourtCases277.
Inthiscase,Section303ofIPCwasstruckdownbeingunconstitutional.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 412
Itisheldthatimpositionofmandatorysentenceofdeathoncommission
of murder while undergoing life imprisonment in jail or outside jail
when on parole, without giving any scope for application of judicial
discretionconsideringfactsandcircumstances;ofeachcaseheld,harsh
oppressiveandunjust.DeprivationofproceduralsafeguardsofSections
235(2)and354(3),Cr.PCtosuchconvicts,held,unjustandarbitrary.
(3)StateofMaharashtraVs.BharatChaganlal
Raghani&ors.reportedin(2001)9Supreme
CourtCases1.
ThiscaseisundertheprovisionsofTADAinwhichweaponlikeAK47,
revolver, pistol etc. were used and several bullets were fired. Mr.
Thakare, the learned SPP drew my attention to the first three
paragraphsofthejudgmentwhichareasunder:
Under the heaps of voluminous record in
theformofvariouspaperbooksspreadover
thousands of pages, lies the hidden story
relatingtothenewmerchantsofdeathand
destruction.Upondissection,whenpeeped
into, it reflects the woeful situation
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 413
prevalent in the society where writs of the
organized criminal gangs run which affect
the peaceful and innocent citizens of the
country. This world of gangsters, popularly
known as the underworld, comprises
variousgangsheadedbynotoriousdonsfor
whom the only valuable thing in life is
wealthandtheuselessthing,thelifeof
others. Deaths are sold by these dons at
their asking price and purchased by those
who resort to have immediate results for
theirenrichmentwiththedeflationoftheir
otherwise inflated money bags. To this
underworld, the unemployed, thoughtless
and dejected youths are attracted and the
bosses of the gangsters leave no stone
unturned to utilize the services of such
frustrated and misled youth for the
commission of crimes, to further their evil
designs. Contract killings by employing
mercenary killers, after receipt of a
considerationknownassupariaretheorder
oftheday,particularlyincommercialcities
of the country where the race for getting
enrichedovernightisgoingonatjetspeed.
2. Mumbai (with its erstwhile name
Bombay),knownasthecommercialcapital
of the country, is at the top where such
crimes are committed every now and the.
Piling of the cases in the courts of law
without their disposal particularly with
respect to disputes relating to property is
reportedtohavecreatedsatellitecentresof
unusualtradewhereprivatecourtsareheld
by the gangsters and disputes are solved
accordingtothewillofthosewhocanpay
as per demand of the criminal dons. It is
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 414
said that the unaccounted accumulation of
black money in the hands of a few has
encouraged the gangsters to widen the
scope of their activities. Because of the
money and muscle power, they are in a
position of procuring highly sophisticated
weapons. Such gangs collect money from
various businessmen, land developers,
persons carrying on illegal activities in
gambling dens, drug traffickers etc. Such
collected money is termed as protection
money which in Marathi is referred to as
khandani (Khandani is a Marathi word
whichrelatestothelongpasthistorywhere
the rulers used to collect Khandani from
theirsubjects).Afeelingisprevalentinthe
citythatitisnottheStatealonewhichcan
protectthelifeandpropertyoftherichand
influential, but it is the criminals who
render protection to such people for the
consideration of the protection money
receivedbythem.
3.Suchongoingactivitiesoftheunderworld
areproblemsfacednotonlyinMumbaiand
this country but all over the globe.
Generally known abroad as organised
crime,ithasbeenfoundtobeasubejctto
fascination in popular culture and a major
criminal justice concern in the western
world. Such organised crimes pose various
problems to the world community
concernedtocombatandfightitout.
However,itcanbeseenthatthoughgruesomemurderswerecommitted
bytheaccd.whowereawardedwithdeathpenalty,theHon'ble S.C.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 415
bytakingintoconsiderationalltheattendingcircumstancesconvertedit
into life. Paragraph 63 of the said judgment can be reproduced for
advantageasunder:
63.We,therefore,holdthatthetrialcourt
committed a mistake of law in not relying
upontheconfessionalstatementsofA5and
A6 to ascertain their involvement in the
commission of the crime with which they
were charged. Confessional statements
havingbeenprovedtobevoluntarilymade
andlegallyrecorded,whichgenerallystood
corroborated, were sufficient to hold that
the aforesaid persons were guilty of
hatchingtheconspiracywithA7toA13for
commissionofoffencewithwhichtheywere
charged. Setting aside the judgment ofthe
trialcourttothatextentweconvictA5and
A6fortheoffencesunderSections302,307
read with Sections 120B, 23, 114 of the
Indian Penal Code, Section 3 read with
Section25(1B)(a),Section5r/wSec.27of
the Arms Act, Secs. 3, 2(i), 3(2)(ii), 3(3),
3(5),5and6oftheterroristandDisruptive
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. We are,
however, of the opinion that being misled
youth they do not deserve the maximum
penalty impossible underlawandthe case
isnottherarestoftheratecaseswarranting
death sentence. Subhash Bind (A5) and
Sekhar Kadam (A6) are, therefore,
sentenced to life imprisonment for the
majoroffenceofmurder,punishableunder
Sec. 302 r/w Sec. 120B IPC. We do not
award separate sentences to the aforesaid
accused persons for the other offences
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 416
committedbythem.
408. Asamatteroffact,incaseofSantoshKumarSatisbhushan
Bariyar vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2009) 2 SCC (Cri)
1150andincaseofMohd.FarooqAbdulGafurandanr.vs.Stateof
Maharashtrareportedin(2010)14SCC641, theHon'bleSupreme
Courthasindetaildiscussedaboutthesentencingpolicy.Therelevant
paragraphs in Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur and anr. vs. State of
Maharashtraareasfollows:
136. So far as the State appeal as far as
Accused 7 is concerned, it is filed only for
thepurposeofenhancementofhissentence
inasmuch as the State by filing the present
appealhasquestionedtheorderoftheHigh
Court altering the sentence of capital
punishmenttothatofimprisonmentforlife.
However, considering the entire facts and
circumstancesof thecaseand the evidence
placed on record against him, we find that
capitalpunishmentintheinstantcasewould
notbejustifiedand,therefore,theappealof
theStatesofarastheissuewithregardto
alteration of the sentence of imprisonment
of life to that of capital punishment is
dismissed.
147.Sinceinoneoftheappealsrelatingto
a coaccused, life sentence awarded was
upheld by this Court without issuing any
noticeforenhancementofsentence,wefind
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 417
no reason to take a different view in the
cases of the other accused herein,
particularly when in respect of Accused 5
and6therewasanorderofacquittalbyone
Court. Lastly, the order of conviction and
sentence passed by the High Court against
Accused 8 is upheld and the sentence of
imprisonment of life is maintained on the
sameground.
170.Oneoftheaccusedintheinstantcase
wasacquittedinDecember2003bytheHigh
Court. It has been more than 8years since
he was freed in relation to the matter at
hand. At this juncture, this becomes a
relevantfactor.
171. In State of Maharashtra v. Manglya
Dhavu Kongil even though the Supreme
Court reversed the acquittal by the High
Courtandrestoredtheoriginalconvictionof
thetrialcourt,itdidnotawardthesentence
of death observing that the death sentence
hadbeenawardedoverfouryearspreviously
and in the period in between, the accused
hadbeenfreedfromprison.
172. In State of U.P. v. Sughar Singh this
Court awarded life imprisonment stating:
(SCCp.194,para17)
17. ... having regard to the considerable
time that haselapsed since the dateof the
occurrence and having regard to the fact
thattheHighCourt'sdecisionofacquittalin
their favour is being set aside by us, the
extreme penalty of death ought not to be
imposed....
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 418
173.Similarreasoningwasofferedbythis
Court in State of Haryana v. Sher Singh,
StateofU.P.v.HakimSingh,GurnamKaurv.
Bakshish Singh, State of U.P. v. Sahai and
State of U.P. v. Suresh (for a rigorous and
comprehensive review of death penalty
jurisprudence on this issue and otherwise
please see Amnesty International Report
titled Lethal Lottery: The Death Penalty in
India___A study of Supreme Court
judgments in death penalty cases
19502006).
Recentdecisions:
174. Recently the question as to the
imposition ofdeathpenalty againcamefor
consideration before this Court in State of
Punjab v. Manjit Singh. Therein the two
accused had been held responsible for the
murder of four persons which included the
husbandandthesonofthewomenbothof
themwerehavinganillicitrelationshipwith
(sic).Thedeceasedhadobjectedtothesaid
relationshipandevenphysicallyabusedthe
lady. This is what ultimately incited the
accusedtomurderthedeceasedpersonsin
cold blood. The trial court sentenced both
the accused to a death sentence. The High
Court in reference however commuted the
sentencetooneforlife.
175.BrotherSharma,J.whiledecidingthe
questionofsentencinginManjitSinghcase
reiterated the law with respect to the
imposition of a death penalty, observing:
(SCCp.37,para20).
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 419
20. The above discussed legal principles
havebeenfollowedconsistentlyinnumerous
judgmentsofthisCourt.Whetherthecaseis
oneoftherarestofrarecasesisaquestion
whichhastobedeterminedonthefactsof
eachcase.Itneedstobereiteratedthatthe
choiceofthedeathsentencehastobemade
only in the rarest of rare cases and that
where culpability of the accused has
assumed depravity or where the accused is
foundtobeanardentcriminalandmenace
to the society and where the crime is
committed in an organized manner and is
gruesome, coldblooded, heinous and
atrocious; where innocent and unarmed
personsareattackedandmurderedwithout
anyprovocation.
The Court accordingly affirmed the
judgment of the High Court on the ground
that the accused had only acted out in the
gruesome manner after coming to know of
theilltreatmentmetedoutbythedeceased
personstothewomentheyhadfeelingsfor.
176.Wemayalsoplaceontherecordthat
in Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod v. State
ofGujarattwooftheHon'bleJudgesofthis
Courtdifferedonthequestionofimposition
ofdeathpenalty.
177. Inthefactsandcircumstancesofthe
case, and having regard to the wellsettled
principles of law that we have referred to
hereinbefore,wearenotpersuaded,ashas
rightlybeenheldbyBrotherSharma,J.,that
it is not a casewhere the only sentence to
which the accused persons herein were
entitledtowasthatofdeath.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 420
178. In our opinion the trial court had
wrongly rejected the fact that even though
theaccusedhadacriminalhistory,butthere
hadbeennocriminalconvictionagainstthe
saidthreeaccused.Ithadrejected thesaid
argument on the ground that a conviction
might not be possible in each and every
criminaltrial.Inouropinionunlessaperson
is proven guilty, he should be presumed
innocent.Further,nothinghasbeenbrought
on behalf of the State even after all these
years,thatthecriminaltrialsthathadbeen
pendingagainsttheaccusedhadresultedin
their conviction. Unless the same is shown
by the documents on records we would
presume to the contrary. Presumption of
innocence is a human right. The learned
trial Judge should also have presumed the
same against all the three accused. In our
opinion the alleged criminal history of the
accused had a major bearing on the
impositionofthedeathsentencebythetrial
court on the three accused. That is why in
ouropinionhehaderredinthisrespect.
179. It is also to be noted that the trial
court has brought on record various
irrelevantandinvidiousconsiderationswith
respect to sentencing. The trial court
observes that death penalty must be
awarded in this case so as to motivate the
police not to indulge in encounter killings
and catch the accused alive. Role of ISI
Agency of Pakistan, black money
racketeering in the organised crime
syndicate has also been discussed at great
length in the sentencing part of the
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 421
judgment. These aspects are not only
absolutely irrelevant to sentencing in the
instant case but also bears an extremely
subjective and loose articulation and
delineationoffactorsrelevanttosentencing
intheinstantcase.

409. In this case, after hearing the respective counsel and the
accused in person and after considering the background, history
particularly of A1 Arun Gawali, I feel that this is not a case falling
underthecategoryoftherarestofrarecaseinviewoftheratiolaid
down by the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Moreover, the offence against A1 Arun Gawali is proved by
circumstantialevidencewhichattractstheratiooftheHon'bleSupreme
Court in case of Aloke Nath Dutta and others vs. State of West
Bengal reported in MANU/SC/8774/2006 paragraph 87 of the
judgmentreadsthus:
87.InthecaseofRoperv.Simmons543U.S.
551(2005) respondent planned and
committed a capital murder. After he had
turned 18, he was sentenced to death. His
direct appeal and subsequent petitions for
stateandfederalpostconvictionreliefwere
rejected.ThecourtheldthattheEighthand
Fourteenth Amendments forbid imposition
ofthedeathpenaltyonoffenderswhowere
undertheageof18whentheircrimeswere
committed.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 422
410. InSantoshKumar'scase,thevictimwastiedwitharope
roundhisneckandpulleditfromitsbothends.Thedeceasedtried
tostruggle,buthismovementsstoppedaftersometime.Hisdead
bodywasdraggedtothetoilet. A1SantoshKumarseparatedthe
headofthedeceasedwithahacksawbladeandasickleandkept
the head in a polythene bag. Thereafter, he separated both the
hands of the deceased. The handstoowere kept ina polythene
bag. HethenaskedA2SanjeevkumarRoytocutthelegsofthe
deceased which he did. Both the accused packed the legs in two
separatebags.Theyallspentabouttwohoursforcuttingthebody
ofthedeceased. Theydisposedoffthosebagscontainingpartsof
thebodyatdifferentplaced.Inthiscasealso,theHon'bleSupreme
Courtsetasidethedeathpenaltyandawardlifesentence.Iquote
therelevantparagraphsasfollows:
58.Therarestofratedictumbreatheslifein
special reasons under Section 354(3). In
this context, Bachan Singh laid down a
fundamental threshold in the following
terms:(SCCp.751,para209)
209. ...A realandabidingconcernforthe
dignityofhumanlifepostulatesresistanceto
taking a life through law's instrumentality.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 423
Thatoughtnottobedonesaveintherarest
ofrarecaseswhenthealternativeoptionis
unquestionablyforeclosed.
An analytical reading of this formulation
would reveal it to be an authoritative
negativepercept.Therarestofrarecasesis
anexceptionallynarrowopeningprovidedin
the domain of this negative percept. This
opening is also qualified by another
condition in the form of when the
alternative option is unquestionably
foreclosed.
59. Thus, in essence, the rarest of rare
dictumimposesawiderangingembargoon
awardofdeathpunishment,whichcanonly
be revoked if the facts of the case
successfully satisfy double qualification
enumeratedbelow:
1. that the case belongs to the rarest of
rarecategory.
2. and the alternative option of life
imprisonment will just not suffice in
thefactsofthecase.
60. The rarest of rate dictum serves as a
guideline in enforcing Section 354(3) and
entrenchesthepolicythatlifeimprisonment
is the rule and death punishment is an
exception. It is a settled law of the
interpretation that exceptions are to be
construednarrowly.Thatbeingthecase,the
rarestofratedictumplacesanextraordinary
burdenonthecourt,incaseitselectsdeath
punishmentasthefavouredpenalty,tocarry
outanobjectiveassessmentoffactstosatisfy
theexceptionsingrainedintherarestofrare
dictum.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 424
61.Thebackgroundanalysisleadingtothe
conclusionthatthecasebelongstotherarest
of rare category must conform to highest
standardsofjudicialrigorandthoroughness
as the norm under analysis is an
exceptionallynarrowexception.Aconclusion
astotherarestofrateaspectwithrespectto
a matter shall entail identification of
aggravating and mitigating circumstances
relatingbothtothecrimeandthecriminal.It
was in this context noted: (Bachan Singh
case,SCCp.738,para161).
161. ... The expression 'special reasons' in
the context of this provision, obviously
means 'exceptional reasons' founded on the
exceptionally grave circumstances of the
particularcaserelatingtothecrimeaswell
asthecriminal.
64. Another aspect of the rarest of rare
doctrine which needs serious consideration
isinterpretationoflatterpartofthedictum
(SCCp.751,para209)thatoughtnotto
bedonesaveintherarestofrarecaseswhen
the alternative option is unquestionably
foreclosed (emphasis supplied). Bachan
Singh suggested selection of death
punishment as the penalty of last resort
when, alternative punishment of life
imprisonment' will be futile and serves no
purpose.
65.Deathpunishment,aswellbediscussed
indetailalittlelater,qualitativelystandson
a very different footing from other types of
punishments. It is unique in its total
irrevocability. Incarceration, life or
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 425
otherwise,potentiallyservesmorethanone
sentencing aims. Deterrence, incapacitation,
rehabilitationandretribution all endsare
capabletobefurtheredindifferentdegrees,
bycalibratingthispunishmentinlightofthe
overarchingpenalpolicy.Butthesamedoes
not hold true for the death penalty. It is
unique in its absolute rejection of the
potential of convict to rehabilitate and
reform. It extinguishes life and thereby
terminatesthebeing,thereforeputsanend
toanythingtodowiththelife.Thisisthebig
difference between the two punishments.
Before imposing death penalty, therefore, it
isimperativetoconsiderthesame.
66.Therarestofraredictum,asdiscussed
above,hintsatthisdifferencebetweendeath
punishment and the alternative punishment
oflifeimprisonment. Therelevantquestion
here would be to determine whether life
imprisonment as a punishment will be
pointlessandcompletelydevoidofreasonin
the facts and circumstances ofthe case? As
discussed above, life imprisonment can be
saidto becompletelyfutile,onlywhenthe
sentencingaimofreformationcanbesaidto
beunachievable.Therefore,forsatisfyingthe
second exception to the rarest of rare
doctrine,thecourtwillhavetoprovideclear
evidenceastowhytheconvictisnotfitfor
any kind of reformatory and rehabilitation
scheme.Thisanalysiscanonlybedonewith
rigour when the court focuses on the
circumstancesrelatingtothecriminal,along
withothercircumstances.Thisisnotaneasy
conclusion to be deciphered, but Bachan
Singhsetsthebarveryhighbyintroduction
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 426
oftherarestofraredocttine.
67.InPanchhiv.StateofU.P.thisCourtalso
elucidatesonwhenthealternativeoptionis
foreclosed benchmark in the following
terms:(SCCp.182,para16).
16. When the Constitution Bench of this
Court, by a majority, upheld the
constitutional validity of death sentence in
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab this Court
took particular care to say that death
sentence shallnotnormally beawardedfor
the offence of murder and that it must be
confinedtotherarestofratecaseswhenthe
alternative option is foreclosed. In other
words, the Constitution Bench did not find
death sentence valid in all cases except in
the aforesaid freaks wherein the lesser
sentence would be, by any account, wholly
inadequate. In Machhi Singh v. State of
Punjab a threeJudge Bench of this Court
while following the ratio in Bachan Singh
case laid down certain guidelines among
whichthefollowingisrelevantinthepresent
case:(MachhiSingh case, SCC p. 489, para
38).
'(iv) A balance sheet of aggravating and
mitigatingcircumstanceshastobedrawnup
andindoingsothemitigatingcircumstances
havetobeaccordedfullweightageandajust
balance has to be struck between the
aggravating and the mitigating
circumstances before the option is
exercised.'(emphasissupplied)
68. In Bachan Singh it was stated (SCC p.
750,paras20607).
206. Dr. Chitale has suggested these
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 427
mitigatingfactors:
'Mitigatingcircumstances.__Intheexercise
ofitsdiscretionintheabovecases,thecourt
shall take into account the following
circumstances:
(1)Thattheoffencewascommittedunder
the influence of extreme mental or
emotionaldisturbance.
(2)Theageoftheaccused.Iftheaccused
is young or old, he shall not be
sentencedtodeath.
(3)Theprobabilitythattheaccusedwould
notcommitcriminalactsofviolenceas
wouldconstituteacontinuingthreatto
society.
(4)Theprobabilitythattheaccusedcanbe
reformed and rehabilitated. The State
shall by evidence prove that the
accuseddoesnotsatisfyConditions(3)
and(4)above.
(5)Thatinthefactsandcircumstancesof
the case the accused believed that he
wasmorallyjustifiedincommittingthe
offence.
(6)That the accused acted under the
duress or domination of another
person.
(7)That the condition of the accused
showedthathewasmentallydefective
and that the said defect impaired his
capacitytoappreciatethecriminalityof
hisconduct.
80.Itis alsotobepointedoutthat public
opinionisdifficulttofitintherarestofrare
matrix. People's perception of crime is
neitheranobjectivecircumstancerelatingto
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 428
crime nor to the criminal. Perception of
public is extraneous to conviction as also
sentencing, at least in capital sentencing
accordingtothemandateofBachanSingh.
81.Therarestofratepolicyandlegislative
policy on death punishment may not be
essentiallyturnedtopublicopinion.Evenif
we presume that the general populace
favours a liberal death punishment policy,
althoughthereisnoevidencetothiseffect,
wecannottakenoteofit.Wearegoverned
bythedictumofBachanSinghaccordingto
which life imprisonment is the rule and
deathpunishmentisanexception.
93. Bachan Singh elaborated on well
recognised principles in the following
terms:(SCCp.748,para197)
197.InJagmohan,thisCourthadheldthat
thissentencing discretionisto beexercised
judiciallyonwellrecognisedprinciples,after
balancingalltheaggravatingandmitigating
circumstances of the crime. By 'well
recognised principles' the Court obviously
meant the principles crystallised by judicial
decisions illustrating as to what were
regarded as aggravating or mitigating
circumstances in those cases. (emphasis
supplied). The legislative changes since
Jagmohan aswehavediscussedalready
do not have the effect of abrogating or
nullifyingthoseprinciples.Theonlyeffectis
that the application of those principles is
nowtobeguidedbytheparamountbeacons
oflegislativepolicydiscerniblefromSections
354(3)and235(2),namely:(1)Theextreme
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 429
penalty can be inflicted only (emphasis in
original) in gravest cases of extreme
culpability; (2) In making choice of the
sentence,inadditiontothecircumstances,of
theoffence,dueregardmustbepaidtothe
circumstancesoftheoffender,also.
102.InBishuPrasadSinhav.StateofAssam
this Court commuted the death penalty of
the accused on the ground that the
prosecution case was entirely based on
circumstantialevidence.
103. In State of Maharashtra v. Prakash
Sakha Vasave the accused had brutally
attacked with axes the husband of their
sister,whowashavinganillicitrelationship
with another woman. The trial court had
found two of the accused guilty and
sentencedthemtodeath.InappealtheHigh
Courtacquittedtheaccusedbecauseoflack
of evidence. This Court in appeal set aside
thejudgmentofacquittalpassedbytheHigh
Courtbutnoticedthatthecasebeforeitdid
not fall in the rarest of rare category and
deservedonlylifeimprisonment.
411. Since this is not a case falling under the rarest of rare
category,thereisnonecessityforgivingspecialreasonsand,therefore,I
amnotagreedwiththepropositionputforthbythelearnedSPPthat
thecriteriaofrarestofrarecaseneednotbemadeapplicabletothe
special statute, for the reason that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
considered the said aspect in case of Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur vs.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 430
State of Maharashtra. In the said case, there was a rampant use of
weaponslikeAK56rifle,9mmpistoletc.bytheassailantswhichhad
resultedindeathofsomeofthevictims.Ihumblyfeelthatthisisnota
case where A1 Arun Gawali, A2 Vijay Giri and A12 Pratap Godse
deservedeathpenalty.
Now,totheorder:
ORDER
1. A1 Arun Gulab Gawali, A9 Sandip alias Sandy Baliram
Gangan, A10 Shrikrishna alias Babu Tukaram Gurav, A12 Pratap
TukaramGodse,A13AjitChandrakantRane,A15SureshRaghunath
PatilandA20SunilSadashivGhateareconvictedu/s.235(2)ofthe
CodeofCriminalProcedureoftheoffencepunishableu/s.3(4)ofthe
MCOCAct,1999.
Each of the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonmentfortenyearsandshallpayafineofRs.5lakhseach.
Indefaultofpaymentoffine,eachshallundergorigorous
imprisonmentforthreeyears.
2. A1 Arun Gawali, A9 Sandip Gangan, A10 Shrikrishna
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 431
Gurav,A12PratapGodse,A13AjitRane,A15SureshPatilandA20
Sunil Ghate are convicted u/s. 235(2) of the Cr.P.C. of the offence
punishableu/s.3(1)(ii)oftheMCOCAct,1999.
EachoftheaccusedissentencedtoundergoRIfortenyears
andshallpayafineofRs.5lakhseach.
Indefaultofpaymentoffine,eachshallundergorigorous
imprisonmentforthreeyears.
3. A2 Vijaykumar Harihar Giri, A3 Ashokkumar Shivakant
Jaiswar, A4 Narendra alias Kandi Lalmani Giri and A5 Anil
ShebahadurGiriareconvictedu/s.235(2)oftheCr.P.C.oftheoffence
punishableu/s.3(2)ofMCOCAct,1999.
EachoftheaccusedissentencedtoundergoRIforlifeand
shallpayafineofRs.5lakhseach.
In default of payment of fine, each shall undergo RI for
threeyears.
4. A2VijayGiri,A3AshokkumarJaiswarandA4Narendra
Giriareconvictedu/s.235(2)oftheCr.P.C.oftheoffencepunishable
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 432
u/s.452r/w34ofIPC.
Each of the accused is sentenced to undergo RI for seven
yearsandshallpayafineofRs.5,000/each.
Indefaultofpaymentoffine,eachshallundergoRIforone
year.
5. A2VijayGiri,A3AshokkumarJaiswar,A4NarendraGiri
and A5 Anil Giri are convicted u/s. 235(2) of Cr.P.C. of the offences
punishableu/s.302r/w34r/w120BoftheIPCr/wSec.3(1)(i)ofthe
MCOCAct,1999.
EachoftheaccusedissentencedtoundergoRIforlifeand
shallpayafineofRs.1lakheach.
In default of payment of fine, each shall undergo RI for
threeyears.
6. A1 Arun Gawali, A6 Sahebrao Bhintade, A9 Sandip
Gangan, A10 Shrikrishna Gurav, A12 Pratap Godse, A13 Ajit Rane
and A15 Suresh Patil are convicted u/s. 235(2) of the Cr.P.C. of the
offencepunishableu/s.3(2)oftheMCOCAct,1999.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 433
EachoftheaccusedissentencedtoundergoRIforlifeand
shallpayafineofRs.7lakhseach.
In default of payment of fine, each shall undergo RI for
threeyears.
7. A1 Arun Gawali, A6 Sahebrao Bhintade, A9 Sandip
Gangan, A10 Shrikrishna Gurav, A12 Pratap Godse, A13 Ajit Rane
and A15 Suresh Patil are convicted u/s. 235(2) of the Cr.P.C. of the
offencepunishableu/s.3(1)(i)oftheMCOCAct,1999.
EachoftheaccusedissentencedtoundergoRIforlifeand
shallpayafineofRs.1lakheach.
In default of payment of fine, each shall undergo RI for
threeyears.
8. A2VijayGiriisconvictedoftheoffencepunishableu/s.3
r/w25(1B)oftheArmsAct,1959.HeissentencedtoundergoRIfor
threeyearsandshallpayafineofRs.5,000/.
In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo RI for six
months.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 434
9. A8 Surendra Vasudeo Panchal, A10 Shrikrishna Gurav,
A11 Dinesh alias Dinya Laxman Narkar and A12 Pratap Godse are
acquittedoftheoffencepunishableu/s.3r/wSec.25(1B)oftheArms
Act.
10. A8SurendraPanchal,A11DineshNarkarandA21Ganesh
KrishnaSalviareacquittedoftheoffencespunishableu/s.3(2),ofthe
MCOCAct,1999andu/s.3r/w25(1B)ofArmsActandSec.120Bof
IPC.
A11DineshNarkarbesetatliberty,ifnotrequiredinany
othercase.
11. A5AnilGiriandA20SunilGhateshallsurrendertotheir
bailbonds.
12. Thebail bonds ofA8 SurendraPanchalandA21 Ganesh
Salvi shall stand cancelled. However,each ofthemandA11 Dinesh
NarkarshallfurnishafreshbailinthesumofRs.25,000/eachwith
onesuretyinthelikeamountinviewofSec.437AofCr.P.C.,withina
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 435
weekfromtoday.
13. 40% of the fine amount be paid to the widow of the
deceasedKomalJamsandekarfromthetotalfineamount,ifrecovered
from the accused in view of Sec. 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., subject to the
decisionofappeal.
14. Thesubstantivesentencesshallrunconcurrently.
15. AsetoffbegiventoA20SunilGhateinviewofSec.428of
Cr.P.C. for the period of detention undergone by him during
investigationandtrial.
16. AcopyoffindingsandsentencebeforwardedtotheDistrict
MagistrateinviewofSec.365oftheCr.P.C.
17. A copy of judgment be given to each of the convicted
accused.
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 436
18. Themuddemalproperty/articlesbedisposedoffasfollows:
ThefollowingmuddemalwhichcametobeseizedinS.C.No.482/2008
hasbeenproducedinthepresentcase.
Art.no.1AwrapperofArt.no.1woodenpiece,Art.no.2A
(colly.)brownenvelopes,Art.no.5firearm(shotgunwithoutscarbutt),
Art.no.9(colly.)onepacketcontaininganemptycartridgeof12bore
anditspellets(markedinSCNo.482/2008asArt.no.6&Art.no.7),
Art.no.10(colly.)threeknives(alreadymarkedinMCOCSpl.CaseNo.
7/08@16/08&3/09),Art.no.11redcolouredempty(PartofArt.9
colly.),Art.no.11APlasticwrapper,Art.no.12,Mobile(markedasArt.2
in SC No. 482/08), Art. no.12A wrapper (marked as Art. in SC No.
482/08),Art.no.13cellphone(markedasArt.4inSCNo.482/08),Art.
no.13Awrapper,Art.no.14twocurrencynotesofRs.20/each,Art.no.
14A wrapper, Art. no.15(colly). motor driving licence, Rs.70/ (one
noteofRs.50andtwonotesofRs.20each),Art.no.15Awrapper,Art.
no.16Redcolourbag(Art.no.12colly.inS.C.No.482/08),Art.no.16
Awrapperofredcolourbag,Art.no.17(colly.)walletalongwithother
articles(alreadymarkedasArt.no.12colly.inS.C.No.482/08), Art.
no.18 the sealed wrapper of the key (returned to IO), Art. no.18A
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 437
wrapper,Art.no.19sutal,Art.no.20chillypowder,Art.no.21(colly.)
walletalongwithMisc.papers,Rs.30(Art.11colly.inSCNo.482/08)
andArt.21Awrapper.
TheaforesaidmuddemalpropertybekeptbackinS.C.No.
482/2008andshallnotbedisposedoffforoneyearafterthedisposal
ofthesaidcase. Ifinthemeanwhile,intimationofanappealhaving
beenfiledintheHon'bleHighCourt,inthepresentmatterisreceived,
thesaidmuddemalshallnotbedisposedoffuntilaperiodofoneyear
expires from the date of the decision of appeal to the Hon'ble High
Court(ChapterVIparagraph73(1)(d)ofCriminalManual).
19. Muddemal property seized in MCOC Special Case No.
7/2008@16/2008@3/2009@S.C.No.529/2007bedisposedoffas
follows:
Art.no.1woodenpiece(Scarbutt),beingapartofacountry
madehandgunArt.no.5,Art.no.7(colly.)Aircushionand71pellets,
Art.no.8container,beconfiscatedtotheStateinviewofSec.32ofthe
Arms Act subject to the decision of appeal. Art. no. 2 (colly.) two
mobilephones(Nokiacompany),Art.no.3(colly.)11smalldiaries,1
register/account book, 9 documents in the nature of affidavits, 1
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 438
telephone diary @ some pinned loose sheets, Art. no.4 bag suitcase
VibsolandArt.no.6wrapper,Art.no.22(colly.)threeidentitycards
and onemobile phone ofNokia company be returned to the persons
fromwhomthesearticleshavebeenseized.
20. ThewhiteSantroCarbearingregistrationNo.MH01AM
3482bedeliveredtoA15SureshPatilonhisexecutingabondinthe
sumofRs.2lakhsandshallrestorethesaidpropertytotheCourt,ifthis
orderismodifiedorsetasideinappeal.
21. Theeffectoftheorderasregardsthedisposalofmuddemal
propertyshalltakeplaceinviewofChapterVIParagraph73(1)(d)of
theCriminalManual.
22. The original station diaries as shown hereinbelow be
returned to the concerned police stations after retaining legible true
copiesoftherelevantexhibitedportionsinthecase.
ExhibitNo. Description
276,277&278 OriginalStationDiaryofSakinakaPS
449 OriginalStationDiaryofChemburPS
450 OriginalStationDiaryofGaodeviPS
451 OriginalStationDiaryofLTMargPS
452 OriginalStationDiaryofMahimPS
453 OriginalStationDiaryofYellowgatePS
JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 439
454 OriginalStationDiaryofColabaPS
455 OriginalStationDiaryofBandraPS
31
st
August,2012. (PRITHVIRAJK.CHAVAN)
SpecialJudge.
Dictatedon:17.7.12,19.7.12,21.7.12,23.7.12,
24.7.12,27.7.12,30.7.12,1.8.12,2.8.12,3.8.12,6.8.12,7.8.12,
8.8.12,9.8.12,10.8.12,13.8.12,16.8.12,17.8.12,22.8.12,30.8.&31.8.12.
Transcriptioncompletedon:01.09.2012.
Signedon:
C.C.issuedon:

JUDG.MCOCSPC.7/08@16/08@3/09@SC529/07 440