Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PANKAJ MITHAL, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Abdul Wahid and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 722 of 2012
WITH
Abdul Shakur – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1266 of 2012
Decided On : 28-02-2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/149 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 103(1)/190] – Murder – Common object – Life sentence – There is complete consistency between ocular evidence of sole eyewitness and medical evidence – Though a number of other witnesses including seizure witnesses testified before court, many of them were declared as hostile – Otherwise also nothing tangible is discernible from their evidence – It is not necessary to advert to and make analysis of evidence of all witnesses – No blood stains on handle and edge of knife were found – All seizure witnesses turned hostile – Section 27 of Evidence Act cannot come to aid of prosecution – Clothes of accused were not seized and sent for forensic examination to find out whether there were any bloodstains – According to prosecution, it is accused who had committed murder of deceased – It is for prosecution to connect accused to murder of deceased by producing credible and legally admissible evidence – However, there is no credible evidence at all to connect accused persons with homicidal death of deceased – In such circumstances, appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt – Conviction and sentence of appellants set aside. (Paras 8.2, 14, 16.3, 21, 24 and 25)
Facts of the case:
Police carried out investigation and on completion of same, filed chargesheet against eight accused persons under Sections 147/148/149/302 IPC. Since it was sessions triable, case was committed to Court of Sessions whereafter charges were framed against accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. High Court vide judgment and order dated 26.08.2011 (impugned judgment) affirmed judgment and order dated 10.03.2003 of trial court with modification that the conviction was under Sections 302/149 IPC. Sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon the appellants was maintained. Appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Findings of Court:
If there were indeed 100 to 150 people present, they would not have remained a mute spectator to such a gruesome assault. But this narrative of there being a crowd at the crime scene has been proved false through evidence of PW-17 and PW-20 who deposed that when they reached crime scene minutes after incident after lodging of FIR, they did not find anybody there and that there was all pervading silence
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
1. This judgment and order will dispose of Criminal Appeal Nos. 722 and 1266 of 2012.
2. Criminal Appeal No. 722 of 2012 arises out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1764 of 2012 filed by Abdul Wahid and Babu (appellants herein). In this appeal, challenge has been made to the judgment and order dated 26.08.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench (for short ‘High Court’ hereinafter) in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 639 of 2003 whereby the High Court has upheld the judgment and order dated 10.03.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Kota (‘trial court’ for short) in Sessions Case No. 13/1996 convicting the appellants under Sections 302/148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). However, the High Court modified the conviction by holding the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 with the aid of Section 149 IPC while maintaining the sentence of life imprisonment.
2.1. Criminal Appeal No. 1266 of 2012 has been filed by Abdul Shakur (appellant herein) against the aforesaid judgment and order of the High Court dated 26.08.2011 affirming the judgment and order of the trial court and convicting the appellant under Sections 302/149 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.
2.2. So the 3 appellants are Abdul Wahid, Babu and Abdul Shakur.
3. Since Criminal Appeal No. 722 of 2012 was argued as the lead appeal, facts narrated therein are referred to hereunder, though both the appeals arise out of the same incident and the same judgment of the High Court.
4. Faeem Ahmed lodged first information before the Maqbara police station, Kota, Rajasthan on 25.06.1988 at about 12:35 AM. He stated therein that Ahsan Ali and himself were on way to the residence of the in-laws of Ahsan Ali in Nayapura around 10:40 PM. While Ahsan Ali was talking to his relatives in the shop of his brother-in-law, he was seen by accused Abdul Sattar and Abdul Wahid. This was noticed by Faeem Ahmed who knew them and also about the strained relationship between Ahsan Ali on the one hand and Abdul Sattar and Abdul Wahid on the other hand. He suggested to Ahsan Ali that while returning home, they should change the route. However, Ahsan Ali insisted on going through the same route by which they had come. While returning, when they reached the place called Ghantaghar at around 12 midnight, suddenly accused Babu, Abdul Wahid, Abdul Sattar, Aziz @ Patti, Abdul Shakur, Bundu and Latur Ali accosted them and attacked Ahsan Ali and himself with knives etc. The first knife injury was inflicted by Babu on the stomach of Ahsan Ali whereafter he fell down from the motorcycle; the second injury was inflicted by Abdul Wahid on the chest of Ahsan Ali, also by knife; Abdul Sattar inflicted injury by a katar (sword) on the backside of Ahsan Ali. Abdul Shakur and Aziz @ Patti who were also trying to inflict injuries on Ahsan Ali, chased the informant Faeem Ahmed. He ran into the Gauri Hotel lane. When the said two accused persons did not find Faeem Ahmed, they returned back and started assaulting Ahsan Ali.
4.1. Informant somehow managed to escape and went to the police station to lodge the first information. He stated that Ahsan Ali was lying at the place of occurrence in an injured condition. The incident was witnessed by Wahid (brother-in- law of Ahsan Ali) and Jameel. He alleged that due to previous enmity, the above named 7 accused persons i.e. Babu, Abdul Sattar, Abdul Wahid, Abdul Shakur, Aziz @ Patti, Bundu and Latur Ali alongwith Jaffar Mohammad formed an unlawful assembly whereafter they assaulted Ahsan Ali with a murderous intent.
4.2. On the basis of the first information, FIR No. 48/1988 was registered on 25.06.1988 under Sections 147/148/149/307 IPC. Injured Ahsan Ali was taken to the hospital for treatment but he succumbed to his injuries whereafter Section 302 IPC was added to the FIR.
4.3. Police carried out the investigation and on completion of the same, filed chargesheet against the 8 acc
Murder – It is for prosecution to connect accused to murder of deceased by producing credible and legally admissible evidence.
Presence in an unlawful assembly suffices for liability, affirming that minor discrepancies in testimonies do not negate the prosecution's case.
Witness reliability is crucial in criminal cases; if a witness is deemed unreliable, their testimony cannot support a conviction without corroboration.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible eyewitness testimony, which was corroborated by medical evidence and surrounding circumstances, to prove the guilt of the ....
1. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. 2. The acquittal re-enforces and reaffirms the....
Murder case - Conviction - murder of deceased which is proved beyond any reasonable doubt against A1 - But at the same time the Prosecution could not prove any overt act or active involvement of any ....
The court affirmed the conviction of the accused for murder, finding sufficient evidence of an unlawful assembly and individual culpability amid claims of inconsistencies in prosecution testimony.
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
