Bhendi Bazaar double murder: Bombay HC confirms life terms for 2, says guilt proved ‘beyond reasonable doubt’

They were convicted under Indian Penal Code sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons), 120B (criminal conspiracy) and provisions of the Arms Act on April 25, 2022, by Special Judge A T Wankhede.

The special court was constituted to deal with cases booked against Chhota Rajan under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act/Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act/Prevention of Terrorism Act and sessions cases. Rajan is now lodged at Tihar Jail in New Delhi.

The CBI had claimed that one of the accused had been in constant touch with Rajan. The special court, however, acquitted him along with two others.

Special Public Prosecutor Pradip Gharat, for the CBI, submitted in the high court that the prosecution had examined 37 witnesses as its case rested on direct evidence of an injured eyewitness, Mohamed Asif Khan, who had informed police and filed the complaint in the case.

However, the two convicts’ advocate argued that Khan had been semi-conscious while giving his statement, given a description of only one of the assailants, and had not seen the assailants’ faces as he had immediately left the spot.

The high court noted that there was another eyewitness, Shahabaz Abdul Rehman, who had suffered no injuries and identified the two convicts, who had fired at the deceased. Another witness, Shaikil Ismail Qureshi, had seen three-four men firing at unknown people. Gangubai Sonawane, who was injured in the incident, had also deposed as a witness in the case.

“The present case, thus, primarily hinges on the testimony of four eyewitnesses,” the high court said.

The high court added that although the prosecution had “fairly succeeded in establishing guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of recovery of weapon, evidence of Doctor, panchas and the Investigating Officer”, the testimony of a single eyewitness passing the “test of reliability” is sufficient for conviction.

The high court thus held that the special court’s decision was “well reasoned” and “legally sound”. “The evidence on record, when assessed in its entirety, establishes the guilt of the Appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The observations of the trial Court regarding reliability of the eyewitnesses testimony, the corroborative evidence, etc are compelling and do not warrant any interference. Prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellants herein based on legal, admissible and cogent evidence,” it said while confirming the convictions.