SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.

211 OF 2014

(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)

(WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF)

(Arising out of the impugned judgment and final order dated 21st August,
2014 passed by the Honourable High Court of Judicature at Mumbai in
Misc. Crl. C No. 3014 of 2014)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mr. X, ...Petitioner

Son of Mr. B,

RH-39, Rohan Mithila, Viman Nagar,

Pune-411014

VERSUS

State of Maharashtra and Ors. Respondent

To,

THE HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE

HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF

THE PETITIONER ABOVENAMED

pg. 1
THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER MOST RESPECTFULLY
SHOWETH:-

1. By this Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India Special

Leave to Appeal is sought against the final judgment and order
dated 21st August, 2014 passed by the Honble Court of Judicature at
Mumbai in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 3014 of 2014 in Criminal
Appeal No. 211 of 2014 wherein the appeal filed by the applicant was
dismissed and the accused was convicted for the murder of one Mr.
Rahil Lakhani, under S.300 and 302 of IPC and causing grievous hurt
to one Mr. Lohit Bata, under S. 326 of IPC. A true copy of the said impugned
order dated 21st August, 2014 is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE A.

1. Brief Facts for filling of the present Petition are as under:

1. The petitioner Mr. X is a resident of Mumbai, who runs a small
enterprise in Dadar.
2. The petitioner, Accused No.3, is an old friend of Mr. Y, the
Accused No.2, and an acquaintance of Mr. Z, Accused No. 1.
3. The petitioner comes from a dignified middle class family and has
made a decent name for himself in the locality where he works.
Mr. Z, however, is the son of a local political leader who has
considerable influence in the city. Mr. Y is Mr. Zs cousin brother
who became friends with the petitioner in school.
4. The deceased Mr. Ram Lakhani and Mr. Lohit Bata were partners
in a flourishing textile business and had sought to attract revenue
by offering Mr. Z partnership. Mr. Z being inexperienced struck a
bargain without any due diligence on his part.
5. The partners having exploited Mr. Z, did not hold their end of the
bargain.
6. The petitioner on the night of the alleged incident received a
phone call from Mr. Y requesting the former to meet him at Mr. Zs
house.

pg. 2
 7. The petitioner, having so obliged, reached Mr. Zs residence,
whereupon, he found the dead body of Mr. Ram Lakhani and saw
Mr. Y gaging Mr. Lohit Bata and an enraged Mr. Z stabbing him in
his stomach and shoulder.
8. In the belief that Mr. Lohit had died, the two siblings handed the
peritioner the knife used for the murder and stabbing the other
and asked him to help burn the bodies and other evidences.
9. At the same time, police learnt about the events from a local
informant.
10. While the petitioner was stunned by the events and all of a
sudden he heard the police barge in through the door. Having
panicked the petitioner ran with the knife in his hands.
11. The police apprehended all the accused and trial was initiated and
evidence framing the petitioner were brought forward.
12. Accused No. 1 and 2, with the help of the formers fathers
influence were able to manipulate evidence and create alibi.
13. The police investigation was conducted in a faulty manner
14. That the Ld. Trial Court framed charges, inter alia, against the Petitioner,
under sections 149, 300, 302, 325 and 326 of Indian Penal Code,
1860. During the course of the trial the prosecution has examined three
witnesses. The prosecution tendered various documents in support of its
case. The statements of the accused including the Petitioner were recorded
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, 1973 and two witnesses were produced in
defence and Exhibit 1 to Exhibit 3 were also produced in defense.
15. That the Ld. Trial Court has vide its judgment and order dated 12th June,
2014 convicted the accused persons including the Petitioner. A true copy of
the said judgment and order dated 12th June, 2014 passed by the Ld. Trial
Court is annexed hereto as ANNEXURE A.
16. It was argued by the petitioner that the witness that testified in
favour of Accused 1 & 2 acquittal are parties that are highly
interested in the present case and their testimony should not be
relied upon.
17. That the accused persons including the Petitioner have preferred an Appeal
against their said conviction before the Honble High Court of Bombay in
Criminal Appeal No. 3014 OF 2014. A true copy of the said Appeal filed by
the Petitioner is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE B.
18. The Appellants before the Honble High Court including the Petitioner herein
had, inter alia, also filed applications seeking the suspension of sentences
handed over to them by the Ld. Trial Court in the pendency of the said
Appeal.

pg. 3
 19. That the Honble High Court has vide their order dated 21st August, 2014
been pleased on the basis of insufficient evidence acquitted the two
accused and convicted the petitioner on circumstantial
grounds.The Petitioner craves leave to refer to and rely upon a copy of the
said order dated 21st August, 2014 when produced.

GROUNDS

A. Because the impugned order dated 21st August, 2014 passed by the Honble
High Court is patently illegal and erroneous and the same deserves to be set-
aside.
B. Because the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated.
The police and others have been systematically harassing him and
his family.
C. Because the entire case is misrepresented and is based on
circumstantial evidence, of the petitioner holding the knife, the
petitioner should be acquitted as there was no motive in the
present instance. Even though motive is not important, however,
it has been held in Wakkar v. State of U.P (2011) 3 SCC 306, that
in cases based on circumstantial evidence motive is important.
D. Because the Honble High Court has failed to appreciate that the conviction of
the Petitioner is based solely on the basis of the testimony of highly
interested and partisan witness and the conviction of the Petitioner is wholly
unfounded. Accordingly the conviction of the Petitioner under sections 149,
300, 302, 325 and 326 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the sentence awarded
thereunder is wholly illegal and thus void.
E. Because the testimonies that secured the acquittal of the Accused
1 and 2 were given by parties that have a vested interest in the
case as their concerns shall be affected if the said accused were
convicted. One of the witness being the father of Mr. Z, who is a
political leader, his reputation will be severely affected if his son
were to be convicted.
F. Because grant of the petition is the privilege of the Honble Court,
it is asserted that there exists substantial question of law in the
above case.
G. Because there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the version
of prosecution witnesses despite which the Ld. Trial Court has erred in
placing reliance on the same and has wrongly convicted the Petitioner.

pg. 4
 H. Because the Honble High Court has failed to appreciate that the Petitioner
has an extremely good prima facie case and there is every likelihood of the
Appeal filed by the Petitioner against his conviction being allowed.
I. Because the Honble High Court ought to have considered the fact that the
Criminal Appeal No. 3014 of 2014 filed by the Petitioner and pending hearing
is not likely to reach hearing in the near future. The weekly board released
by the High Court lends credence to this fact. The Petitioner ought to have
been given the benefit in this regard of the matter and especially in view of
the facts that there are several contradictions in the case of the prosecution.

PRAYER

In the premises the Petitioner humbly prays that this Honble Court may be graciously pleased to:

(a) grant special leave to the Petitioner to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India
against the final impugned order dated 21st August 2014 passed by the Honble High Court of
Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 3014 of 2014;

(b) pass such other or further order(s) as this Honble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER
PRAY.

Drawn by:

Advocate

Drawn on:

Filed on:

Place Mumbai

FILED BY

pg. 5
 ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER

pg. 6