MOHD.SAMIR MOHD. JUBER SHAIKH Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2017-1-32
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on January 10,2017

Mohd.Samir Mohd. Juber Shaikh Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.M. Badar, J. - (1.) By these appeals, appellants/original accused are challenging the judgment and order dated 24th October 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No.680 of 2006, thereby convicting them of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 377, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, all appellants/accused are sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. For the offence punishable under Section 377 read with Section 34 of the IPC, they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. For the offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC, appellants/accused are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.300/- each, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. For the offence punishable under Section 366 read with Section 34 of the IPC, appellants/accused are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. For the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC, they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.300/- each, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed that all substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
(2.) At the outset, it would be appropriate to set out the prosecution case : Informant/PW5 Raju Shikare is a resident of Plot No.9, Bainganwadi, Govandi, Mumbai. He was having medical shop at Chita Camp, Trombay, Mumbai. His family was comprising of his parents, wife, two sons and a daughter i.e. the victim of the crime, who was aged about 3½ years, at the time of the incident. It is the case of the prosecution that this toddler of the informant/father was kidnapped by appellants/accused person on 7th April 2006 for subjecting her to illicit intercourse and then she was subjected to gang rape by them, apart from sodoming her. Thereafter, according to the prosecution case, she was murdered by them and in order to conceal evidence of this crime, the dead body of the minor female victim was dumped in the water tank of a public toilet at Plot No.10 of Bainganwadi. According to the prosecutor case, the offence was committed by appellants/accused in furtherance of their common intention.
(3.) According to prosecution case, appellants/accused persons were wielding reign of terror in the locality. Few days prior to the incident, appellants/accused persons accosted informant PW5 Raju Shikare near Plot No.9 of Bainganwadi and demanded tablets of Restyl from him. PW5 Raju Shikare in turn replied that they should come to his shop with a prescription from the doctor. Appellants/accused insisted him to deliver those tablets immediately without prescription from the doctor. PW5 Raju Shikare refused to accede to the demand of appellants/accused persons. This infuriated appellant/accused no.4 Parvej Ahmed @ Guddu. He extended threat to informant PW5 Raju Shikare by uttering that this refusal will prove costly. Thus, according to the prosecution case, constituted motive for commission of the crime.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.