Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ
Shahid Ali - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Uttar Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1479 OF 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No(s). 9454 of 2021]
Decided On : 11-03-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Arms Act, 1959 – Sections 25/27 – Murder – Life sentence – Eyewitnesses have turned hostile – Deceased died on account of a single bullet injury – Appellant’s act of engaging in celebratory firing during a marriage ceremony took life of deceased – In absence of any evidence on record to suggest that either Appellant aimed at and / or pointed at large crowd whilst engaging in such celebratory firing or there existed any prior enmity between deceased and appellant, Court cannot accept Prosecution’s version of events as were accepted by Trial Court and confirmed by High Court – Appellant opened fire in a crowded place without taking reasonable measures for safety, which led to unfortunate demise of deceased – Appellant is guilty of commission of culpable homicide within meaning of Section 299 IPC i.e., punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC – Conviction and sentence of Appellant under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant convicted for offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC – Conviction and sentence awarded to Appellant under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act left unaltered – Sentence reduced to period already undergone(8 year). (Paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo (i) rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 302 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment; and (ii) 5 years rigorous imprisonment under Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, 1959 with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Judgment of conviction and sentence was unsuccessfully assailed by appellant before High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Findings of Court:
Act of celebratory firing during marriage ceremonies is an unfortunate yet prevalent practice in our nation. Present case is a direct example of disastrous consequences of such uncontrolled and unwarranted celebratory firing.
Result : Appeal allowed in part.
JUDGMENT :
Satish Chandra Sharma, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is arising out of a judgment of conviction and order dated 23.02.2018, passed by Sessons Judge, Firozabad in S.T. No. 290 of 2016 titled ‘State of U.P. v. Shahid Ali’ whereunder, the Appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo (i) rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 302 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment; and (ii) 5 years rigorous imprisonment under Sections 25/ 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (the “Arms Act”) with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
3. The judgment of conviction and sentence was unsuccessfully assailed by the appellant before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (the “High Court”) vide Criminal Appeal No. 1462 of 2018, titled ‘Shahid Ali v. State of U.P.’ which came to be dismissed by the High Court vide an order dated 04.04.2019 (the “Impugned Order”).
4. On 03.12.2021, this Court issued notice limited to the question of nature of offence, that is, as to whether the Appellant could be held guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC as against Section 302 IPC.
5. The facts of the case reveal that an FIR was lodged by PW1 - Gulab Ali i.e., the chowkidar of village Katena Sikeriya, District Firozabad, at Police Station Jasrana, by stating that on 17.03.2016, the marriage ceremony of the daughter of Nizamuddin was being celebrated. Pertinently (i) Ishfaq Ali (the “Deceased”); (ii) other co-accused person i.e., Shahid Ali; and (iii) other relatives were also invited to the said marriage. It was further stated in the FIR that on 17.03.2016 at about 3:30PM i.e., amidst the marriage ceremony, the Appellant shot at Ishfaq Ali which resulted in an injury on his neck and ultimately led to his demise on the spot itself. In the FIR, previous enmity between the Deceased and the accused came to be revealed. Furthermore, it was stated that a large number of person(s) saw the alleged incident as there were many people at the marriage ceremony. Accordingly, an FIR came to be registered as Crime Case No. 108 of 2016 under Section 302 IPC at PS Jasrana, District Firozabad. The said FIR has been proved as Ex. Ka-13. Thereafter an entry regarding FIR was made in the G.D. Rapat No. 34 Ex. Ka-4 on 17.03.2016 at 1705 hrs. Thereafter, PW 10 i.e., Lokendra Pal Singh, Station House Officer at Police Station Jasrana, investigated the matter, conducted inquest on the dead body of the Deceased and prepared an inquest report (Ex.Ka-7). The site plan (Ex.Ka-5) was also prepared. The dead body of the Deceased was brought to the hospital and a post-mortem was carried out by a Medical Officer i.e., Dr. Nitin Jaggi, on 18.03.2016. The statement of accused who was arrested was recorded in jail by the investigating officer and accused confessed to his guilt in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Another FIR was also registered against the Appellant for an offence punishable under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act on 08.04.2016 which came to be registered as Case Crime No. 147 of 2016, at PS Jasrana. An investigation was carried out in pursuant to the FIR(s) and a charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed to the court of Sessions by the Magistrate and charges were framed for inter alia an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and for offences punishable under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act.
6. The prosecution in support of its case has examined 12 witnesses, namely, PW1 Gulab Ali, PW2 Idrish Ali, PW3 Nizamuddin, PW 4 Raju Ali, PW5 Mohd. Shakeel, PW6 Shamsher Ali, PW7 Chaman Babu, PW8 Dr. Nitin Jaggi, PW9 HCP Kshetrapal Singh, PW10 SO/IO Lokendrapal Singh, PW11 SI Yashpal Singh and PW 12 Constable Clerk, Bhupendra Singh.
7. The prosecution also placed on record documentary evidence viz., written report Ext.Ka-1, post-mortem report Ext.Ka-2, chik FIR Ext.Ka-3, c
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 304 I.P.C. for culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on the evidence and circumstances of the case.
The court modified the conviction of Subhash from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the need for evidence of common intention in joint criminal acts.
The distinction between intention and motive is crucial in determining the nature of the offence, and the duty to separate evidence for each accused is essential in criminal cases.
The court determined that the appellant's actions constituted culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II due to lack of intent, modifying the conviction from murder under Section 302.
Under such backdrop the conviction of the appellant under section 27 of Arms Act is maintained.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
