LexMOHD. FAROOQ ABDUL GAFUR AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009) 12 S.C.R. 1093 MOHD. FAROOQ ABDUL GAFUR AND ANOTHER A 1' A v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal Nos. 85-86 of 2006) AUGUST 6, 2009 B [S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860/Maharashtra Control of Organized i>' t Crime Act, 1999/Arms Act, 1959 - ss. 302, 307, 120-8134, 109, 201134, 411134, 212, 520A, 424, 414 Is. 3 (1), (2) and c (4) Is. 25 rlw ss. 3 and 7 - Prosecution under- Eye-witnesses and injured witnesses to the incident - Confessional statements made by the accused persons - Identification of the accused in TIP as well as in the court by eye-witness - Recovery of weapons of offence - Trial court acquitting D • -+ accused Nos. 2 and 3 and conviction of the rest of the accused - Accused Nos. 5, 6 and 7 sentenced to death - High Court convicting accused No. 1 u/s. 3 (2) MCOCA rlw s. 120-8 /PC and acquitted him u/s. 52A and 120-8 /PC - Conviction of accused 4, 7 and 8 confirmed - Death sentence E of accused No. 7 altered to life imprisonment - Accused Nos. 5 and 6 acquitted of all the charges - On appeal, held: -"! Conviction of accused Nos. 1, 4, 7 and 8 confirmed - Accused Nos. 5 and 6 also liable to be convicted - Prosecution case proved - Confessional statements F corroborated by the evidence of witnesses, recoveries and confessional statements of co-accused - Confessional statements recorded in compliance with the MCOC Act and Rules - Conviction under MCOC Act can be based solely on the basis of confessional statement of accused as also on the F basis of confessional statement of the co-accused - All the -f "' accused sentenced to life imprisonment - In the facts of the case, capital punishment to accused No. 7 not justified - Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 - s. 18 - 1093 H 1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R. A Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Rules - r. 36 - Sentence/sentencing - Death sentence. Sentence/Sentencing - Death sentence - 'Rarest of rare' rule - Application and nature of - Need to give an objective 8 value to the term 'rarest of rare' - Application of article 14 to award of death sentence - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14. Appellants-accused were prosecuted under various provisions of IPC, Maharashtra Control of Organized C Crime Act, 1999 and also under provisions of Arms Act, 1950. They were alleged to have hatched a conspiracy to eliminate 'M' and with that common object, they aided each other for causing the murder. Appellants were said to be belonging to the gang of fugitive criminal who D allegedly operated his organized crime activities from Karachi, Pakistan. He was also aided by another gang leader. The appellants had been provided with arms and ammunitions and money by the fugitive criminals. E Special court acquitted accused Nos. 2 and 3 while convicting the six appellants-accused. Accused Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were sentenced to death. Convicted accused filed appeal before High Court. Death sentence was also referred to High Court. High F Court confirmed the conviction of accused No. 1 uls. 3 (2) of MCOCA rlw s. 120-B IPC and acquitted him uls. 212 rlw ss. 52A and 120-B IPC. Conviction of accused Nos. 4, 7 and 8 was confirmed. However, death sentence of accused No. 7 was substituted to life imprisonment. G Accused Nos. 5 and 6 were acquitted of all the charges. t • Hence the present appeals by the convicted accused and ... t H by State against acquittal of accused No. 1 and acquittal of accused Nos. 5 and 6 and against substitution of death sentence to life imprisonment of accused No. 7. MOHD. FAROOQ ABDUL GAFUR v. STATE OF 1095 MAHARASHTRA Dismissing the appeal filed by accused Nos. 1, 4 and A ' !' J-4 8; dismissing State's appeal against accused Nos. 1 and 7; and partly allowing State's appeal against accused Nos. 5 and 6, the Court HELD: B Per Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ: 1.1. Accused No. 1 is guilty of all the charges which ~· +- were already found to be proved and established by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court. The sentence c passed by the High Court is confirmed and the punishment awarded by the trial court u/s. 212 rlw Section 52(A) rlw. Section 120-8 IPC is also restored. [Para 58] [1148-B] 1.2. Conviction under Maharashtra Control of D .... Organized Crime Act, 1999 could be based solely on the basis of the confessional statement and such conviction is also permissible on the basis of the confessi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.