Court acquits 11 people in case of firing at film producer's house for getting promotional work of movie 'happy new year'

A MCOC Special Court in Mumbai has recently acquitted 11 persons accused of committing unlawful activities by use of violence for gaining pecuniary benefits for the promotion of the movie "Happy New Year" produced by Red Chilly Entertainment owned by Actor Shah Rukh Khan in the USA and Canada.

The informant and his brothers were the owner of Cineyug Entertainment Private Limited which had undertaken the work of film production and event management of the movie “Happy New Year” produced by Red Chilly Entertainment owned by the Actor Shah Rukh Khan.

The promotional events were going on in USA and Canada. The work of the USA event was given to Shree Balaji Entertainment. The informant’s company was helping the production house of Shah Rukh Khan for promotion and coordination with Shree Balaji Entertainment.

In July 2014, the informant and his family received international calls threatening them to allot the promotional work of the movie Happy New Year to one of the accused i.e., Ravi Sulya Pujari. Subsequently, another accused named Sarver Inder Singh contacted the informant and told him to allot the promotional work within 48 hours and threatened that if the same is not done then he would make a call to Shah Rukh Khan which would also put him and his family in danger.

On 24 August, 2014 a firing took place outside the house of the informant wherein three people came on a bike due to which the window of the bathroom on the first floor was broken and the car of the informant was also damaged.

Subsequently, the informant's daughter received an SMS stating “ye trailer tha, film abhi baaki hai, agala firing Shah Rukh - Don Ravi Pujari”. On the same day, a call was received at the office of the informant and a message was given that the informant and his brother should contact Pujari in 2-3 days or else he would make a firing at the office and also kill the Actor Shah Rukh Khan.

An FIR was registered by the Juhu Police and 11 people came to be arrested while 3 absconded. The accused were booked under Section 120-B, 302, 511, 115, 427, 465, 468, 471, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. Further Sections 3, 25, 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 were also added in the FIR.

A chargesheet came to be filed in February 2015. After testifying 66 witnesses in the case and 67 evidences, the court acquitted the 11 accused in the case after 8 years.

While acquitting the accused the court noted that one of the accused who had made a confessional statement was not informed that he was not bound to make the confession.

“PW 62 had not informed to the accused no. 9 that he is not bound to make such confession and if his confession is so recorded, it could be used against him in evidence. Thus, there is serious lapse in recording the confession as it is directly contrary to clause-(3) of Rule-3 of MCOC Rules, 1999. It is therefore, difficult to rely on confession of accused no.9 recorded by PW-62” the order stated.

Though the court said that there were lapses during the Test Identification of Parade (TIP). "...even if the TIP is considered to be proper there was no substantive evidence," court added.

“Though, for the sake of argument it is considered that he has followed legal procedure and accused were identified by the prosecution witnesses during T.I.P. These corroborative evidence has no much value in absence of substantial evidence in respect of happening of alleged incidents of firing at Shagun bungalow, in absence of incident of theft, in absence of evidence about conspiracy hatched by the accused and in absence of evidence regarding alleged offences committed by accused. Therefore, this evidence not suffice to gather that the prosecution has established the guilts of accused” the order read.

Court acquitted all the accused while noting that the prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused and therefore they were entitled to be acquitted.

“In short, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts for the offences punishable u/Ss. 120-B r/w. 302 r/w. 511, 115, 427, 465, 468, 471, 307 of IPC r/w. Ss.3, 25, 27 of Arms Act r/w. Ss.3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the MCOC Act. It is cardinal principle of criminal justice system that the prosecution must established the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts otherwise benefit of doubt goes to the accused. In present case at hand, the upshot of all the evidence discussed above is that, in present case the prosecution has failed to prove the guilts of accused beyond reasonable doubts, therefore they are entitled for acquittal” Judge BD Shelke noted.

Court also directed the investigating officer to file a separate chargesheet against the three accused who are absconding and wanted.

Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Mohammad Anis Abdul Rashid Merchant @ Radiowala & Ors.