19 Mar 2024
Order issued
ConcludedThe Bombay High Court entered convictions against police personnel in this judgment.
Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 151
Not yet re-checked.
CW-2024-0034Mumbai, MaharashtraJudgment 19 March 2024
The State of Maharashtra vs Mumbai Police Senior Police Inspector
The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. A Mumbai man, 33, was abducted with friend [name withheld] on 11 November 2006 and killed the same day in a staged shooting near Nana Nani Park, Versova, in an encounter the SIT said was led by Senior Inspector in conspiracy with the victim's business rival. The trial court convicted 21 accused but acquitted Sharma; the Division Bench reversed Sharma's acquittal on circumstantial evidence and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The court upheld 13 other life sentences including 12 police personnel, acquitted six civilians, and called the unsolved murder of eyewitness [name withheld] a travesty of justice. Sharma's Supreme Court appeal was admitted with interim exemption from surrender, and suspension of his conviction was later refused.
Externally reportedV2
What this record means
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →Detailed record
Report card
By judgment dated 19 March 2024 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 854 of 2013, 350 of 2015 and connected appeals, the Bombay High Court (Coram: Revati Mohite Dere, Gauri Godse, JJ.) recorded the conviction of 5 police personnel, namely: Senior Police Inspector, Mumbai Police; Police Inspector, Mumbai Police; Police Inspector, Mumbai Police; Police Constable, Mumbai Police; Various, Mumbai Police (names in 867-page judgment).
- Register number
- MH 01 CW 0041
- Case reference
- Criminal Appeal Nos. 854 of 2013, 350 of 2015 and connected appeals / 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 151
- Court and date
- Bombay High Court (Coram: Revati Mohite Dere, Gauri Godse, JJ.), 19 March 2024
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Senior Police Inspector, Mumbai Police; Police Inspector, Mumbai Police; Police Inspector, Mumbai Police; Police Constable, Mumbai Police; Various, Mumbai Police (names in 867-page judgment)
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “It is extremely unfortunate, that a prime eye-witness in this case, [name withheld], lost his life before his evidence could be recorded and till date, the perpetrators of [name withheld], have not been booked and are obviously looming large.” (at para 420)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Conviction entered by High Court. Sentence: imprisonment.
- Present status of the proceedings
- Supreme Court of India, 8 April 2024: appeal pending.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Current position
The Bombay High Court judgment dated 19 March 2024 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
Evidence position
Recorded allegations
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Attributed to the court
What the court found
Holding not recorded separately.
“It is extremely unfortunate, that a prime eye-witness in this case, [name withheld], lost his life before his evidence could be recorded and till date, the perpetrators of [name withheld], have not been booked and are obviously looming large.” (para 420)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
8 Apr 2024
Appeal pending
PendingAs of 8 April 2024, an appeal arising from this judgment was pending before the Supreme Court of India (officers: [name withheld], [name withheld], [name withheld], [name withheld], [name withheld], [name withheld], [name withheld], [name withheld], [name withheld], [name withheld], [name withheld], [name withheld], [name withheld], [name withheld], [name withheld]); the judgment's findings had not been set aside on that date.
Source: LiveLaw
Not yet re-checked.
Continuing record
Follow-up history
19 Sep 2026
(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.