Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shaquib Ali @ Danger vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 16 February, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
Cr.A No.567/2017
(Shaquib Ali @ Danger Vs. CBI)
Indore: Dated:-16.02.2018
Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri
Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Assistant Solicitor General for
respondents.
Perused the PUD Nos.228 and 229 dated 03.02.2018 which is received from Central Jail and prayer has been made for restraining exhibition of film "Murder at Koh-A-Fija".
This court has gone through the PUDs under reference and is of the opinion that in case the appellant is aggrieved in the matter, he certainly free to file a writ petition or to take appropriate action in accordance with law. In a criminal appeal such type of order as prayed for cannot be passed.
With the aforesaid, the PUDs stands closed.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties on IA No.7700/2017, an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C on behalf of Shaquib Ali @ Danger for suspension of sentence.
Appellant Shaquib Ali @ Danger along with three other accused persons namely, Tabish Khan, Jahida Pervez and Saba Farooqui, has been convicted under Section 302/120-B of IPC for committing murder of one Shehla Mahsood and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Apart this, he has also been sentenced to undergo two years RI for each offence and to pay fine.
Prayer for suspension has been made on the ground that though conviction has primarily been recorded on the basis of solitary testimony of Irfan (PW No.46), an approver witness, however, he has changed his version many times, therefore, he cannot be held to be a truthful witness. It is further submitted that though the case was based on circumstantial evidence, however, the prosecution was not able to establish chain of circumstances unerring pointing out towards the guilt of the appellant and that learned trial Court has committed grave error of law and facts in recording conviction against appellant. The contention is that no legal evidence is available on record against appellant Shaquib Ali @ Danger and his involvement in the alleged offence has not been proved by cogent admissible evidence. It is further contended that bullet found in the body of the deceased, as per expert witness N.B Vardhan (PW No.73), was not fired from the gun-Article-A said to have been recovered from appellant Shaquib Ali@ Danger, therefore, finding of guilt is erroneous. Lastly, it is submitted that prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the sentence imposed against the appellant deserves to be suspended.
Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the CBI that the testimony of approver witness Irfan (PW No.46) eloquently speaks about involvement of the appellant in the murder of Shehla Masood. It is further submitted that the testimony of Irfan (PW No.46) stands corroborated by other circumstantial evidence including call details, therefore, considering seriousness of the offence, the prayer for suspension deserves to be rejected.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
As per the prosecution, conspiracy to commit murder of Shehla Masood was hatched by Jahida Perves. Allegedly, she engaged appellant Shaquib Ali @ Danger as a contract killer. As per prosecution, Shaquib Ali @ Danger further engaged two person namely, Tabish Khan and Irfan Ali (PW No.46). Tabish Khan is said to have committed murder of Shehla Masood by gunshot injury at the instance of Shaquib Ali@ Danger. In this regard, Irfan Ali (PW No.46), who was granted pardon, has deposed with regard to complicity of the appellant. Here, it is apt to mention that expression of any final opinion at this stage with regard to the merits of the case is not desirable because it may prejudice the case of either party. Suffice to say, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence. Accordingly, IA No.7700/2017 is hereby rejected.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(S.C Sharma) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
Sourabh
Digitally signed by
SOURABH YADAV
Date: 2018.02.22
15:38:42 +05'30'