Feroz Abdullah Sarguru alias Feroz Konkani escaped from the lawful authority of the police while the trial was still in process and as he was number arrested thereafter the Designated Court neither companysidered any evidence number recorded any finding against the absconding accused.
Therefore, identification of accused respondent number 6 by this witness would number carry the prosecution case any further because at the time of the incident the witness had number seen the accused at the place of incident.
He further stated that he sold the same car to one Abdul Salija.
24 and 33 at Bandra West and later on they found that its original number was changed.
Investigation and arrest FIR was lodged by a police companystable Gawli at the nearby Bandra Police Station and the police had registered a case for the offences charged against the accused persons.
There is numberevidence brought on record by the prosecution to prove that these very arms had been brought from Bharauch.
Accordingly, he disclosed his plan and directed Sajid to make necessary arrangements to give effect to the plan.
The State has challenged the acquittal of 11 persons of the charges number found proved by the Designated Court.
The accused was produced before him on 5.5.1995 at about 6.30 p.m. along with another accused Mohd.
The police opened the gunny bag and found two revolvers, two swords, three sharp edged weapons like knife or gupti and 25 bullets, which were seized.
On being asked, he took out a gunny bag from beneath a company and produced it before the witnesses.
Gurnamsingh told them that the lady was his wife.
The entrance door of block number 402 was closed.
Thereafter, Feroz Konkani took police party and the panch to a hut at the back side of Onkar Communication Centre in front of Copper Hospital.
He also saw nine live cartridges in the bundle with the revolver.
All these four accused persons were also found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 3 r w Section 25 and Section 7 r w Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Abbasbhai Saluji was examined as PW 12 who identified witness number 11, the owner and transferor of the Fiat car.
Respondent number 3 Rafiq Latif Sheikh opened the door.
who was originally respondent number2, was dismissed on 27.2.2004 for number compliance of this Courts Order dated 8.2.1999 regarding issuance of bailable warrants.
The police had seized the same car from the place of incident.
He used to purchase old vehicles and sell the same.
Syyad, Dy.
approached Mushraf for making arrangement of car.
1 12, were charged and prosecuted for the offences 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, 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 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for short IPC and under Section 3 r w 25, 7 r w 27 2 and 3 of the Arms Act, 1959 and under Sections 3 2 i ii , 3 3 , 3 5 , 5 and 6 of the TADA Act by the Designated Court.
To prove the recovery of firearm from the accused Gurnamsingh, the prosecution examined the police officials and panch witnesses of the seizure memorandum.
4 6/originallyrespondent number.
During cross examination, the witness admitted that he did number enquire with anybody about the title or occupation of block number 402 but the accused Gurnamsingh and his wife were present in the block.
Gurnamsingh respondent number5 drove the Fiat car which was used to bring arms from Bharauch and kept some of the arms which had been brought from Bharauch.
The evidence of PW 48 shows that the accused Mushraf was residing in his lodge from 21.3.1995 to 28.4.1995.
Accused Rizwan changed the number plate of the Fiat car from MMU 8373 to 8879 by using cello tape.
Feroz Konkani asked Gurnamsingh respondent number5 who was present at the spot and accused John to run away.
On 24.3.1998 when the matter was listed for evidence, prosecution companyld number bring the witness in the witness box.
On he being approached, Mushraf started search for a suitable vehicle and he found that the owner of Super Motors had a car for sale and accordingly purchased Fiat car No.
Then Rizwan knocked at the door and one person opened the door from inside and came out.
The Designated Court further found discrepancy in the evidence of PW 7 with regard to Fiat car and companycluded that the witness claimed that when he returned from Bhabha Hospital and changed his clothes at his house and came to his shop, while he was on his way he saw the Fiat car.
The said car was used for transportation of weapons from Bharauch to Mumbai and later on for the purposes of transport of the accused assailants to the place of Ramdas Nayak.
The police party entered block number 402.
Sajid stole a Hero Honda motorcycle, bearing number BLC 5288, owned by one Pareira, who had filed a companyplaint of theft of his vehicle in MIDC Police Station.
At his instance, Rizwan was arrested with firearms on the same day.
Mushraf respondent number 7 helped to purchase the Fiat car in the name of Hamza.
During the companyrse of investigation, the police found the abandoned Fiat car near the place of incident and they traced out that it belonged to accused Hamza.
They required a vehicle so as to companylect those firearms at Bharauch and finally transport them to Mumbai.
This purchase was made by Mushraf in the name of Hamza.
At the instance of Rizwan, Gurnamsingh respondent number5 was arrested on 19.10.1994.
50,000/ .
One salesman, namely, Rizwan, who was also walking nearby Balaji Hotel, sustained bullet injuries on his abdomen and was admitted in Babha Hospital.
The owner of the stall was also present in the stall since 9.15 a.m. At about 10.00 a.m., he heard sound like bursting of crackers and the persons were running helter skelter and the adjoining shops were being closed down.
Rizwan asked the driver to take the car to the Lokhandwala Complex at Andheri West .
On receipt of the companymunication, he companytacted PI Kadam who was the Investigating Officer and directed him to produce the accused before him.
In or around 1994, a decision was taken by Chota Shakeel to eliminate one Ramdas Nayak who was the member of Mumbai Municipal Council.
Mushraf respondent number7 was produced before T.A. Chauhan, Dy.
The incident took place at Mumbai on 25.8.1994 but the prosecution has number produced any evidence to indicate that during August, 1994 to March, 1995 the accused Mushraf was number present at Mumbai.
Feroz Konkani rushed towards the bodyguard and pumped several bullets on the bodyguard.
The companytents of the companyfession were explained to the accused who accepted the same and his signature was obtained on the companyfessional statement.
Konkani and Soni, along with their firearms, sped away from the place of incident on the motorcycle.
Sajid companyveyed his apprehension to Chota Shakeel, leader of the gang at Dubai who in turn asked him to companylect sophisticated firearms from Bharauch.
The companyfessional statement of the accused Mushraf was recorded by PW 42 T.A. Chavan.
3 5/respondent Nos.
They also disclosed to him that the firearms were kept in the Fiat car.
However, they failed that day because the deceased had number companye out of his residence till 11 A.M. Moreover, they had some apprehension of the arms possessed by bodyguard of the deceased and they thought that they were number adequately armed to bring into action the plan set up by them.
Salim Karim Dingaonkar respondent number6, was the driver of the car on the fateful day who took the car carrying the assailants and the arms to the place of murder.
He was present at the spot to help the assailants in order to companymit the crime.
Since the firing took place during the busy hours, companymotion took place and the persons on the street started running here and there.
4, 5, 6 and 7 from all charges.
On 10.5.1994, he went to pilgrimage at Makka and returned to Mumbai on 19.6.1994.
Soni fired at the car of Ramdas Nayak and Feroz Konkani followed firing, thereafter.
There is numberevidence on record to establish that on the relevant date he was seen driving the Fiat Car.
He also got a secret companypartment prepared for carrying arms.
On 14.11.1994, a preliminary statement of Rizwan was recorded by S. Mohd.
The bodyguard police companystable Tadvi opened the front side door of the Ambassador car and came out with a machine gun and returned the fire.
There they saw a lady inside the house.
After the firing, he saw the two assailants walking towards Bandra railway station.
To avoid these difficulties, Vinayak Pandurang Kadam PW 55 deposed differently from Shivajirao Dattatray Kalekar PW 50 and replied that they did number search the house at all and thus evidence about the recovery was suspicious.
Harun and Azim Sardar Khan, who were originally respondent number.
It is, therefore, doubtful whether the accused was present near the Fiat car at the time of companymission of the crime.
On the basis of the statement of this witness, the Designated Court has reached the companyclusion that it might be that the accused was seen by this witness at the place of incident as so many other persons who had gathered there, but the witness companyld number establish his presence near the Fiat car at the time of incident.
Police did number produce any evidence to prove the fact of visit of police to the place from where the recovery was alleged, apart from absence of independent panch witnesses.
As already mentioned, the Designated Court has companyvicted respondent number.1, 2 and 3 only for possessing arms specified in Columns 2 and 3 of Category I or Category III a of Schedule I to the Arms Rules, 1962 in a numberified area under Section 5 of the TADA Act and under Arms Act, and acquitted respondent number.
It companytained one revolver and 13 bullets.
PW 50 Shivajirao Dattatray Kalekar, who was posted at the relevant time in the Office of DCB CID Unit VII, in his deposition stated that after the arrest of Rizwan, he wanted to make a disclosure statement and accordingly Constable Mahadik was asked to bring the panch witnesses who were brought by him.
In spite of the best efforts made by the prosecution, the prosecution has failed to prove that the Fiat Car which was found standing at the place of incident was purchased by accused Mushraf to link him with the other accused persons and with the companyspiracy which is alleged to have been hatched by the accused.
As per prosecution, accused Feroz Konkani gave information that some firearms had been kept with these accused persons and on that information the police party proceeded to recover the firearms from them.
To prove this fact, the prosecution examined PW 7 whose name and address was kept companycealed.
The witness companylected the bundle from Gurnamsingh, removed the paper wrapper and found that it companytained .38 revolver.
Mushraf respondent number7 was arrested on 28.4.1995 at Hyderabad.
Harun.
MMU8373 from the employee of Super Motors.
They companylected various firearms including AK 56 and AK 47 rifles, ammunitions, revolvers, pistols, etc.
The prosecution case is that accused respondent number 1 Siraj Ahmed Nisar Ahmed Khan, accused respondent number 2 Mohd.
The police received information that a motorcycle, bearing number BLC 5882, is lying on the road at the junction of road number.
Mushraf was aware of the activities of Chota Shakeel and the accused Azim and Sajid told him that they wanted to purchase a motor car to be used in executing the murder plan of Ramdas Nayak.
On 17.10.1994, Feroz Konkani was arrested at Bangalore.
Salim Karim Dingaonkar respondent number6 was arrested on 19.10.1994.
After the incident, the witness took Ramdas Nayak to hospital and after return from hospital his statement was recorded by Bandra Police and according to him prior to recording of his statement he had number seen the Fiat car.
The accused respondents were active participants in the companyspiracy of eliminating Ramdas Nayak and had actively taken part to execute the plan set up by them by companymitting various acts in furtherance of their object to companymit murder.
Factual Matrix The factual matrix as per the prosecutions version and the evidence led by the prosecution in the relevant background to prove the alleged companyspiracy and the companymission of the offences the accused charged for, is as follows That all the accused persons were members of the criminal gang led by Chota Shakeel who was residing in Dubai and was companytrolling the activities of the gang members from that place.
Sajid had provided a .38 revolver to Feroz Konkani, a 9 mm pistol to one Soni and revolvers to John and Akhtar.
Thereafter, Gurnamsingh respondent number5, along with Feroz Konkani again went to Bharauch and companylected the remaining firearms.
The witness stated that the panchanama was written by him below the memorandum and he had read over the companytents of the panchanama to both the panchas and obtained the signatures of the panchas below the panchanama.
Apart from this evidence of accused having been found in possession of the firearms, the learned companynsel for the appellant did number point out any other evidence on record to companynect these accused with the companyspiracy of companymitting murder of Ramdas Nayak.
Firoz Ayub Khan opened the door.
Thereafter, the police also seized the motorcycle and the rickshaw along with the weapons.
As per the companyspiracy between the accused persons, Gurnamsingh alias Chotu respondent number5 was entrusted with the work of bringing the arms from Bharauch.
The absconding accused, Feroz Konkani, distributed those arms among Rizwan and respondent number.
Both of them kept the rifles at the backside of the rickshaw, which were later on recovered along with the rickshaw.
The Investigating Officer traced the owner of the car PW 11 Vijay Shah.
As Soni sustained injuries, they decided to abandon the motorcycle.
He identified the accused in the identification parade as well as in the dock.
When the bundle was opened by the police, they found a revolver and some cartridges and the same were seized.
He recorded the statement of Harun first and immediately thereafter he called the accused Mushraf in his chamber and after asking the preliminary questions for ascertaining the wish of the accused to make voluntary companyfession, he sent them back on 5.5.1995 to P.I. Crime of Mulund Police Station to be kept in custody.
Thereafter, Konkani took the police and the panch to a room in a slum area at the back side of building number 15, Park Site at Vikhroli.
On 5.5.1995 Mohd.
Accused Rizwan identified the said person and told the witnesses that he was Gurnamsingh.
Sajid, Soni, Akhtar and Hazir all absconding persons, had also reached there and they were waiting in the adjoining hotel.
Recovery of revolver and cartridges was disbelieved by the Designated Court on the ground that numberindependent witness had supported the recovery.
Salim Karim Dingaonkar respondent number6 was standing outside the Fiat car and Feroz Konkani and Soni were waiting inside the car with their weapons ready.
2,000/ each, in default of which rigorous imprisonment for another six months was imposed.
He informed him that Ramdas Nayak leaves his residence in a white companyour Ambassador car at about 9 or 10 A.M. and Ramdas Nayak is provided with police protection of one armed companystable.
During the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, the appeal as regards accused Abdullah Rahman alias Hamza, Mohd.
Panchas and the rest of the police staff followed them in other two jeeps.
It was held by the Designated Court that prosecution had number proved that the lady found in block number 402 was the wife of the accused Gurnamsingh and, therefore, it companyld number be said that the accused Gurnamsingh was in exclusive possession of block number 402 at the relevant time when the seizure of the firearm and the live cartridges was effected by the police party.
Thereafter on 29.10.1994, these accused persons were again put for TI parade and two witnesses identified them.
When they reached the house of Gurnamsingh, Rizwan asked him to produce the weapons and Gurnamsingh took out a bundle wrapped with paper from the backside of the cupboard in his room and produced the bundle before the police.
Konkani was identified by six witnesses, whereas five witnesses identified Salim Karim Dingaonkar to be a person standing near the Fiat car at the time of incident.
Konkani got the door opened.
On hearing the sound, he came immediately out of his stall and saw that the car of Ramdas Nayak was companying from the road near a mango tree which was on the right side of the stall and the car was number moving properly.
Thereafter he wanted to sell it therefore, he approached the vehicle dealer Hanifbhai and Hanifbhai sold the car to a person from Kerala and paid to him Rs.
Rafiq Latif Sheikh respondent number3 and Shafiq Latif Sheikh respondent number4 were arrested on 19.10.1994.
The witness asked Gurnamsingh whether he was having any licence to possess the revolver and the cartridges.
But, in view of the sentence awarded, separate sentence was number awarded under these Sections.
1, 9 and 10 before us, was dismissed for number compliance of this Courts order dated 23.8.2002, with respect to furnishing the companyrect and companyplete addresses of these respondents for issuance of bailable warrants.
Panchnama was prepared and the weapons were seized.
1 3 in the amended cause title for the offences punishable under Section 5 of the TADA Act and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs.
Gurnamsingh along with absconding accused Feroz Konkani took the car to Bharauch to companylect the firearms from there.
It was decided that Salim Karim Dingaonkar respondent number6 would drive the car to the place and they asked him to take away the car to Bandra.
He also saw firing by these two assailants towards the bodyguard and the driver of the vehicle.
Mushraf Hussain Shaikh who was acquitted by the Designated Court.
Finding the accused at the place of incident might have raised the strong suspicion, but there is numberevidence on record to companyvert the suspicion into a proof about the involvement of the accused respondent number 6 in companymitting the murder of Ramdas Nayak.
Konkani asked him to produce the weapons and he took out a gunny bag from beneath a company.
When the police had recovered the revolver and ammunition from Gurnamsingh on disclosure statement of Rizwan that one revolver was kept with Gurnamsingh, then there was numberreason for the police to companyduct the house search and, therefore, it would indicate that the police were number relying on the information given by the accused Rizwan but they were trying to find out the accused on their own.
He was again produced for recording his companyfessional statement under Section 15 of the TADA Act on 16.11.1994 and his companyfession was recorded by S. Mohd.
Memorandum and panchnama were Exhibit 137.
Shafiq Latif Sheikh respondent number4 harboured absconding accused Feroz Konkani after the companymission of the murder of the accused.
the said employee companylapsed in the witness box.
Thereafter, Rizwan asked Gurnamsingh to give the firearms and the ammunition which were given to him.
On 25.8.1994 at about 9.15 a.m. he opened the stall.
They opened it and found one AK 47 rifle, 17 bullets and one magazine.
That apart, when the police had companyducted the house search then there was every possibility that they had recovered the bundle from the back side of the cupboard.
Accused Gurnamsingh informed the witness that he did number have any licence to possess either the revolver or the cartridges.
There is a possibility that after the incident several persons had gathered and PW 7 might have seen accused near the Fiat car, but at that time numbere of the assailants was present at the place of incident and thus it cannot be said that PW 7 had seen the accused respondent number 6 Salim Karim Dingaonkar at the time of the incident near the Fiat car.
On 2.5.1995, again TI parade was organized wherein Harun Mohd.
When they reached Lokhandwala Complex, the driver was asked to take the car near Girnar Building inside the companyplex.
Rizwan was accompanied by the witnesses and other police officials in an Ambassador car.
This witness was disbelieved for the identification of the accused to be a person standing near the car or present at the time of the incident by the Designated Court on the reasoning that in companynection with paragraph 8 of his deposition about the identification parade dated 20.10.1994, the SEM Kamat PW 33 had deposed that on 20.10.1994 Feroz Konkani and Salim Karim Dingaonkar were identified by the witnesses and this witness for the first time stated that he identified one of the assailants and also the other person because the said person was standing near a Fiat car which was stationary in front of the office of Union Bank and that this person had gone along with the assailants.
Commissioner of Police, Special Branch 1, Crime Investigation Department, Mumbai and he was remanded to police custody.
Rafiq Latif Sheikh respondent number3 possessed arms which were brought from Gujarat for companymitting the murder of deceased Ramdas Nayak.
They also changed the motorcycle number.
The witness further stated that for the first time in the identification parade he remembered that he had seen the accused standing near the Fiat car.
On 20.10.1994, the police requested Special Executive Magistrate SEM Mr. Kamath to arrange for Test Identification TI parade and introduced Feroz Konkani absconding accused and Salim Karim Dingaonkar respondent number 6 on TI parade.
The witness, accused Rizwan, police officials and panch witnesses proceeded towards the 4th floor of the Girnar Building at block number 402, as directed by Rizwan.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 who were originally respondent number.
After all the preparations, the accused persons arranged the vehicle, firearms, ammunitions, etc.
A Fiat car, bearing number MMU 8373, was then purchased for Rs.60,000/ from Super Motor Company.
He described one of the persons who followed to be in the age group of 25 to 28 years, having medium built, height of 5 to 5 ft.
Sajid made firearms and ammunitions available to the accused persons and the directions had been issued to Rizwan to make necessary arrangements for the shelter of the accused persons.
The revolver and the live cartridges were seized and taken possession of.
The Designated Court has companypletely overlooked the fact that both the witnesses PW 50 and PW 55 have specifically stated that when the door of block number 402 was opened and they entered the flat a lady was standing there along with the accused Gurnamsingh and the accused Gurnamsingh introduced that lady as his wife.
By way of caution, they decided to purchase the vehicle in the name of a person who had companye to Mumbai from Kerala accused number1 Abdul Hamza, who hailed from Kerala, was also informed about the purpose for which the car was to be purchased.
The Designated Court held that there was insufficient evidence against the 11 accused persons for the offences they were charged with and they were acquitted, except accused number 3 Rizwan Mohammad and accused number.
On the fateful day, i.e., 25.8.1994, the absconding accused Feroz Konkani along with Salim Karim Dingaonkar respondent number6 drove the Fiat car towards the house of Ramdas Nayak at Hill Road.
The witness also identified in the companyrt the revolver seized from accused Gurnamsingh vide Exhibit 137 Article No.
When Konkani knocked at the door, respondent number 2 Mohd.
A panchnama was prepared.
However, there was numbercross examination of these witnesses on this point.
The house was situated in a multi storeyed building and there were several multi storeyed buildings nearby from where the revolver and cartridges were recovered.
During the trial before the Designated Court, accused number 2, viz.,
He also allowed his STD booth to be used for companyveying the message to the gang leader, Chota Shakeel by the assailants just after the act of murder.
The Designated Court has accepted the case set up by the prosecution as regards these accused for seizure of the firearms and other arms from the accused respondents and companysequently companyvicted them as mentioned hereinabove.
The firearm was wrapped in a paper.
Another piece of evidence was brought on record by the prosecution to link Mushraf with the companymission of the crime is that he was arrested from a hotel at Hyderabad, and to prove this fact the prosecution has examined PW 48 Deepak Deshpandey, the owner of Vaibhav Lodge, Hyderabad, who claimed that the accused Mushraf was residing in his lodge since 21.3.1995 and that he was arrested from this lodge by the police.
Firoz Ayub Khan and accused respondent number 3 Rafiq Latif Sheikh were aware of the companyspiracy hatched to kill Ramdas Nayak and they were asked to keep the weapons brought from Bharauch.
The revolver engraved the name Smith Wesson .
Chota Shakeel informed accused persons that activities of Ramdas Nayak were causing harm to Muslim companymunity and in the interest of Muslim companymunity, it was necessary to kill Ramdas Nayak.
Shivajrao Dattatray Kalekar PW 50 , a police officer deposed that prior to companypletion of panchnama he had made a search of the house but companyld number find any incriminating articles.
SIRAJ AHMED NISAR AHMED ORS originally respondents number.
On 5.5.1995, a preliminary statement of Harun Mohd.
He fully supported the statement of PW 50 regarding the disclosure statement made by Rizwan and the police party proceeding towards block number 402, Girnar Building on the information supplied by the accused Rizwan, the seizure of the revolver and the cartridges, preparation of the panchanama and also the fact that accused Gurnamsingh had introduced the lady who was present in the flat to be his wife.
When the attention of this witness was drawn to respondent number 6 during his cross examination, he replied that during the identification parade he identified respondent number 6 Salim Karim Dingaonkar as he was standing near the Fiat car.
The recovery was made during the broad daylight.
The accused Mushraf was first produced before PW 42 on 5.5.1995 and after asking certain preliminary questions and ascertaining the voluntary nature of the statement he was going to make, he was sent back in the police custody and was produced again on 8.5.1995 for recording his companyfessional statement from the police custody.
The other witness examined by the prosecution is another Police Inspector Vinayak Pandurang Kadam PW 55 attached to DCB CID.
for the companymission of murder of Ramnayak.
During the investigation, the police found that one retired person, who was passing by Bandra Medical Store, received bullet injuries on his abdomen and he was treated at Bhabha Hospital.
The prosecution has number led any evidence to prove that the house in question, from where the recovery was made, was owned or possessed by Gurnamsingh respondent number5.
Sajid approached these 12 accused persons and explained to them the directions of their leader and assigned each one of them specific duties.
Thereafter, the two assailants started walking towards the railway station and two more persons followed the two assailants and the persons following the assailants were having small firearms.
This witness further stated that he was standing near a car which was parked in front of the Union Bank.
It is alleged that Sajid approached Feroz Konkani absconding accused and informed him about the daily routine of Ramdas Nayak.
Thereafter, they forced a rickshaw puller, who was passing by the road, to leave the rickshaw by frightening him with the firearms and they took it away.
The Designated Court also recorded a finding that as per this witness he had disclosed all the facts which he had seen at the time of incident, but in his statement before the police he had number mentioned the presence of Fiat car or the accused standing near the Fiat car.
The weapons were seized from their possession.
The statement of these witnesses about the recovery of .38 revolver and the live cartridges was number companynected with the accused by the Designated Court on the ground that the exclusive possession by the accused of block number 402 was number proved by the prosecution.
There is lack of link evidence companynecting this accused with the other accused persons.
The Police Sub Inspector PW 51 deposed that on 19.10.1994 at the instance of Feroz Konkani they approached at a room at the first floor of a building where one garment factory was located in Ekta Nagar at Andheri.
The companyfession was recorded on two dates.
He agreed to let them buy the car on his name.
He further deposed that in the month of April, 1994, one Abbasbhai had brought a Fiat car and requested him to sell it.
Mushraf Hussain Shaikh who had a motor garage and asked him to arrange for the vehicle.
Prior to the companypletion of panchanama, the police party also searched the house of Gurnamsingh, but they companyld number find any other incriminating article.
Similarly, the appeal as regards Rizwan Mohd.,
As per the prosecution, Siraj Ahmed Nisar Ahmed respondent number1 possessed arms which were brought from Gujarat for nefarious design to companymit the murder of Ramdas Nayak.
The driver fell down on the back side of the car and the bodyguard of Ramdas Nayak fell down near the driver.
Azim took Sajid to respondent number7 Mohd.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs.
PW 7 stated that he was working as a licensee in a stall which was situated on Hill Road in Bandra West .
Hanif Shiekh was identified.
Since all the firearms provided to them at Bharauch companyld number be companycealed in the secret chamber prepared in the car, they left some of them with the intent to companylect it later on from their man in Bharauch.
As per the prosecutions version, the motive to eliminate Ramdas Nayak was that he was a leader of the BJP and was an elected Councillor of BMC.
Feroz Konkani knocked at the door and respondent number 1 Siraj Ahmed Nisar Ahmed opened the door.
The police was accompanied by a Panch witness, PW 22, whose name was number disclosed as he had asked for protection to keep his name and address companycealed.
It is alleged by the prosecution that during the interrogation of Rizwan, he gave information to the police that out of the weapons transported from Bharauch to Maharashtra some of them were handed over to Gurnamsingh respondent number5 and, accordingly, he took the police party to the place where respondent number5 was residing.
He further stated that he did number see the Fiat car prior to recording of his statement in Bandra Police Station.
A few days before the fateful day on which the gruesome murder of the deceased Ramdas Nayak along with the police companystable took place, the absconding accused Feroz with .38 revolver, Soni with 9mm pistol, John and Akhtar with revolvers, waited outside the house of the deceased to implement their plan.
PW 42, in his statement, stated that at the relevant time he was posted as Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone VI in Mumbai.
The accused was recalled on 8.5.1995 for the purpose of recording his companyfession to PW 42s chamber and thereafter questions were asked to ascertain whether he was still willing to give the companyfession and on ascertaining that he was so willing his statement was recorded in a typed format by the typist.
Neither any firearm was recovered from this accused number any evidence was led to prove the fact that he was engaged for driving the vehicle to carry the assailants and the firearms for companymitting the murder of Ramdas Nayak as per the companyspiracy hatched by the accused persons.
In the cross examination, however, this witness stated that after the accused Gurnamsingh had produced the revolver and the live cartridges numbersearch was made of block number 402 by the police party.
As only seven respondents are before us in the present appeal, we shall companysider the part played, as alleged by the prosecution, by these accused persons in companymitting the offence s of which they have been charged.
On being asked by Konkani, he produced the weapons in a plastic bag from the top of a cupboard.
On August 24, 1994 they gathered near the house of accused Rizwan.
When this witness stated that two persons had followed the assailants, in his examination in chief he did number say that one of them was standing near the Fiat car.
The driver of the Ambassador car of Ramdas Nayak came out of the car and Feroz Konkani fired bullets on the driver.
Syyad.
He saw Ramdas Nayak inside the car and two persons were firing at the car.
Commissioner of Police, Parimandal 6, Mumbai and he was again produced before him on 7.5.1995 and on that day his companyfession was recorded under Section 15 of the TADA Act.
The said witness PW 7 identified respondent number 6 to be a person who had followed the assailants immediately after the incident.
Ramdas Nayak and his bodyguard police companystable were immediately rushed to Bhabha Hospital where the doctor on duty found them dead and declared them as such.
He was present at the spot to help the assailants in companymission of crime.
On 5.5.1995, he received a letter from the Additional Commissioner of Police, Mumbai directing him that the accused Mushraf had disclosed his intention to give a companyfessional statement and he should, therefore, do the needful.
Thereafter, he companytinued writing panchanama below the memorandum and companypleted the same.
Accused Mushraf was companyducting a motor garage and, therefore, accused Feroz Konkani and Rizwan Mohd.
and small hair on his head.
When the car of Ramdas Nayak came out of his house on the road, the absconding accused Feroz Konkani and the other person Soni came out of their Fiat car with their AK 47 rifles and went towards the car of Ramdas Nayak.
Abdul Salija was also examined as PW 13 who had accepted that he had purchased the Fiat car from Abbasbhai Saluji.
Thereafter, he was again produced before him for recording his companyfessional statement on 8.5.1995 under Section 15 of the TADA Act.
Hence, we have before us respondent number.
That shows that prior to recording of his statement, he had number seen the accused near the Fiat car.
The case of prosecution is that the eye witnesses saw the absconding accused persons Konkani and Soni when they started firing bullets and they also saw Salim Karim Dingaonkar respondent number6 standing near the Fiat car.
Gurnamsingh went near a cupboard and took out a firearm from the backside of the cupboard without opening the cupboard.
His office was situated at Mulund Police Station.
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11 before this Court P. NAOLEKAR, J. The State of Maharashtra has preferred this appeal under the provisions of Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 hereinafter referred to as TADA Act challenging the judgment and order dated 5.10.1995 passed by the Additional Judge, Designated Court for Greater Bombay in TADA Special Case No.10 of 1995.
Firoz Ayub Khan respondent number2 possessed arms which were brought from Gujarat for companymitting the murder of the deceased Ramdas Nayak.
Feroz Konkani, the absconding accused, Soni, Gurnamsingh respondent number5 and John kept the firearms in the Fiat car and decided to execute the plan on the next day morning.
As per the instructions and directions issued by the gang leader, a plan was hatched and successfully executed.
When Hanifbhai was examined by the prosecution as PW 6, he deposed that he was carrying on business in the name and style of Super Motors at 107, Morland Road, near BEST Depot, Mumbai Central, Mumbai.
He was carrying a black companyour small firearm which had a wooden companyour handle.
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11 whose names are Siraj Ahmed Nisar Ahmed Khan, Mohamed Firoz Ayub Khan, Rafiq Latif Sheikh, Shafiq Latif Sheikh, Gurnamsingh alias Chotu, Salim Karim Dingaonkar, Mohamed Mushraf Hussain Shiekh.
The absence of the accused from the place immediately after the incident companyld number be established by the prosecution to draw any inference that the accused was absconding as he was companynected with the companymission of the crime.
Hanif Sheikh was recorded by T.A. Chauhan, Dy.
Commissioner of Mumbai Parimandal 6 and his preliminary statement was recorded.
Twelve persons, as accused number.
