MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Tuesday upheld the conviction and life sentence of two members of the Chhota Rajan gang in a 2010 double murder case near JJ hospital. The court held that the delay in informing the police of the crime was not so long as to disbelieve the informant’s testimony.
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale, however, dismissed an appeal filed by gang members Mohd Ali Shaikh and Pranay Rane.
In 2022, a special trial court had acquitted Chhota Rajan and three others in the case. Against Rajan charges were framed separately. He is at present in Tihar jail in new Delhi following his conviction in the J Dey murder case.
The duo killed were Irfan Qureshi and Shakil Modak. Modak was sitting on a chair at Phool Galli near JJ Hospital at 8.15 pm on February 13, 2010, next to the informant when a man came and fired bullets at him. The informant was injured when three more men arrived and fired at Modak and Qureshi while the informant ran towards Bhendi Bazar.
The duo succumbed to injuries. In the shootout, one woman walking on Dharmshi Street was also injured and taken to JJ Hospital.
The informant narrated the crime to the police while in hospital. The Motor Vehicle Anti-Theft Department arrested the duo in October 2010 in another crime. Special Public Prosecutor Pradeep Gharat for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), said the special trial court verdict was cogent and well-reasoned and merited no interference. The HC agreed, saying, the prosecution established its case beyond all reasonable doubt, based on legal, admissible, and cogent evidence.
The HC observed that the evidence to nail the shooters rests on the deposition of the informant, who was the eyewitness, the weapon recovery, and the identification of the accused. Advocate Nitin Sejpal, for the two convicts who appealed against their conviction, argued the conviction be set aside as the informant delayed informing the police and his evidence contained omissions, hence was fatal to the case.
It is “quite believable that a person witnessing an incident such as firing on the streets by three-four persons is likely to be shocked and rattled enough that he does not go to the police station immediately, especially with an earlier background of selling stolen articles. There is also a fear in an ordinary person to go to the police and record his statement lest the police involve him in a long-drawn investigation,” the HC ruled.
The HC pointed out that conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eyewitness and there is no rule of law to the contrary, provided that the witness is reliable. The HC said that the observations of the trial court regarding the reliability of the eyewitness testimony, the corroborative evidence, and others are compelling and do not warrant any interference.