MUSTAK @ KANIO AHMED SHAIKH versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2020] 5 S.C.R. 360 · Decided: 18-06-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
360
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
MUSTAK @ KANIO AHMED SHAIKH
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 488-489 of 2017)
JUNE 18, 2020
[R. BANUMATHI AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.307 r/w. s.114 – Arms Act – s.25(1)(B)(a)
– Bombay Police Act – s.135(1) – Attempt to murder – Prosecution
case that victim, who was going to his laboratory was shot on face
in his car from a motorbike driven by the appellant – The first
accused was the pillion rider – The bullet was operated and removed
– Thereafter, the statement of victim was recorded by the investigating
officer – Both appellant and the first accused were arrested – The
Trial court convicted the appellant and the first accused of the
offence punishable u/s.307 r/w. s.114 IPC and s.25(1)(B)(a) of the
Arms Act r/w. s.135(1) of the Bombay Police Act – Both the
complainant -driver of victim and the victim had identified the
appellant – The Trial court sentenced the appellant and the first
accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years – The High
Court enhanced the sentence of imprisonment for offence u/s.307
r/w s.114 IPC to seven years instead of six – Before the Supreme
Court, the appellant contended that identity of the appellant was
not established – Held: The appellant was identified by both the
victim and the complainant apart from pancha witness – Be that as
it may, the testimony of an injured victim is sufficient for conviction
– The complainant had identified the appellant as the driver of the
motor cycle – The Judicial Magistrate had corroborated
identification of the appellant by the complainant in the Test
Identification Parade – It is also clear that the appellant as well as
the dummies were brought before the Judicial Magistrate before
the witness arrived – The defence was not able to show any infirmity
in the identification parade of the appellant which vitiates the
identification – Further, the pancha witness testified to the recovery
of the weapon in his presence, at the instance of the appellant and
identified appellant in Court – Also, the prosecution had established
from the ballistic report and the evidence of FSL experts that the
[2020] 5 S.C.R. 360
360
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
361
bullet that was extracted from the body of the victim, was fired from
the weapon recovered on the confession of the appellant – The
Trial court had successfully established the chain of events, linking
the crime to inter alia the appellant – Thus, the conviction and
enhancement of sentence imposed on appellant by the High Court
affirmed.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The Trial Court, in effect, found:
(i) It had been established beyond any iota of doubt that
the victim had sustained bullet injuries. It had also been proved
that the incident had taken place and in the manner alleged.
(ii) The contention of the defence that the injuries were
not so life threatening or grave or serious as to attract Section
307 of the Indian Penal code was not acceptable, considering the
testimony of three Medical experts who deposed with regard to
the gravity and seriousness of the injury.
(iii) The evidence of the FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory)
Expert, coupled with Exhibit 92 established that an offence
attracting the provisions of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code
had taken place.
(iv) The recovery of the weapon in terms of Panchnama
(Exhibit 88) was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
(v) Minor irregularities on the part of the investigation and,
in particular, the casual manner in which the Investigating Officer
(PW-14) testified would not vitiate the case of the Prosecution.
(vi) The Appellant as also first accused were duly identified
both by the complainant (PW-8) and the victim (PW-12) in course
of identification parade held on 1st and 3rd January 2003 and
they were also identified in Court. The mere fact that the
Identification Parades were held on different dates would not
render the identification unreliable.
(vii) Both the eye-witnesses had identified the Appellant
and the  first accused as being the persons who were on the
motorcycle. The motor cycle was driven by the Appellant and the
first accused was the pillion rider. Both the eye-witnesses had
MUSTAK @ KANIO AHMED SHAIKH v. STATE OF GUJARAT
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
362
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 5 S.C.R.
seen the pillion rider, that is, the first accused handling the weapon.
The victim clearly deposed that the first accused had fired at the
victim at point blank range. The said w

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.