LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus SIRAZ AHMED NISAR AHMED AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA r v. SIRAZ AHMED NISAR AHMED AND ORS. MAY 7, 2007 B [S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: Sections 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 370, 392, 397, 468 & 471-Arms Act, 1959-Sections 3, 7, 25, & 27 read with ~. c Arms Rules, 1962-Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987- Rule 15-Criminal conspiracy and murder of deceased by firing upon them with firearms-Firearms ceased from certain accused-Confession made by one of the accused before police officer under TADA Rules-Charge-sheet filed against the accused for various offences before Designated Court- Designated Courts acquitted the accused of all the charges except some of D them under the Arms Act for possession of arms-Correctness of-Held, on evidence on record, the prosecution failed to connect the accused with criminal conspiracy and commission of murder of the deceased-Safeguards provided for recording the confession under the TADA Rules has not been ,;.. followed and hence, confession statement of the accused, is inadmissible in E evidence-Conviction of some accused under the Arms Act for possession of arms upheld. According to the prosecution, respondents and five others hatched a criminal conspiracy to murder the deceased, a politician, under the instructions of their leader residing outside the country. The accused persons F arranged vehicles, firearms, ammunitions etc. to execute the plan. On the day of the incident, the accused waited outside the house of the deceased with their weapons in their car. As soon as the deceased came out of his house in his car with his bodyguard, the accused fired at the car of the deceased ,. resulting in death of the deceased along with his bodyguard. Two passersby also got injured in the incident. All the accused were arrested by the police. G The vehicles and weapons used in the crime were seized. According to the prosecution, arms were seized from the possession of respondents 1, 2 and 3 which were brought for the commission of the crime; respondent no. 4 was alleged to have harboured one of the assailants after the commission of the murder of the deceased; respondent no. 5 was alleged to have been present at H 40 STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SIRAZ AHMED NISAR AHMED 41 l the spot with the car to help the assailants to commit the crime; respondent A no. 6 was alleged to have driven the car carrying the assailants and weapons to the palce of murder; and respondent no. 7 helped to purchase the car for the crime. A Test Identification Parade was conducted and six prosecution witnesses identified two accused who were present at the scene of the crime. The prosecution filed a charge-sheet for commission of the offences B punishable under Sections 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 302 r/w 120-B, 302 r/w 149, 307 r/w 120-B, 307 r/w 149, 392, 392 r/w 120-B, 392 r/w 149, ,l 397 r/w 120-B, 397 r/w 149, 379, 379 r/w 149, 379 r/w 120-B, 468, 468 r/w 120-B, 468 r/w 149, 471, 471 r/w 120-B, 471 r/w 149 IPC and under Section 3 r/w 25, 7 r/w 27 (2 and 3) of the Arms Act, 1959 and under Sections c 3 (2) (i) (ii), 3(3), 3(5), 5 and 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (f ADA Act) before a Designated Court. The Designated Court acquitted all the accused including the respondents from all the charges. The Designated Court convicted respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 for possession of arms specified in Schedule 1 to the Arms Rules, 1962 in a notified area under section 5 of the TADA Act and under section 3 r/w section 25 and section 7 D r/w section 27 of the Arms Act. ......... Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Apart from the evidence ofrespondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 having been in possession of the firearms, there is no other evidence on record to E connect these accused with the conspiracy of committing the murder of the deceased. There is no evidence brought on record by the prosecution to prove that these very arms had been brought from outside the city. There is no evidence to show that any of the arms found in possession of these accused was used in commission of the crime. (Para 251 (51-E-Fl F -~ 1.2. Identification of respondent no. 6 by PW 7 in a test identification parade would not carry the prosecution case any further because at the time of the incident, the witness had not seen the respondent at the place of the incident. Neither any firearm was recovered from the respond
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.