Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. Anand and MK. Mukherjee, JJ
Chand Khan and Anr. - Appellants
versus
State of Uttar Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 716 of 1991
Decided on 11.7.1995
Held :By frequent recourse to and re1iatlce upon the words "might be" and "might have" in the above quoted passage the trial Court, instead Of finding out which of the contending versions was correct and acceptable, gave out a version of its own relying solely on presumption, surmise and conjecture. The trial Court would have been, on a proper discussion and appraisal of the evidence, fully justified to hold that the prosecution case was unreliable and record an order of acquittal in favour of accused without going into the question as to whether the defence case was true, for burden of proof was upon the prosecution. Equally justified the trial Court would have been
21. Ibid.
in recording such an order if it found the defence case probable. But it was not at all justified to make out a third case entering into the domain of speculation. The High Court was, therefore, right in basing its decision on a fresh and proper appraisal of the evidence leaving aside the obstinate findings of the trial Court. Having gone through the record we do not find any reason to differ from the decision so arrived at by the High Court. (para 19)
Further held: The nature of injuries sustained by some of them and Chand Khan and the fact that in the F.I.R. it has clearly been stated that one of the miscreants had been assaulted by a vegetable cutting knife do not persuade us to answer the question in the affirmative. (Para 21)
(ii) Criminal Jurisprudence – Maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus - Not applicable to Criminal trial - Duty of Court to disengage truth from falsehood.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
M.K. Mukherjee, J. - Chand Khan and Shabbu, the two appellants before us, and seven others were placed on trial before an Additional Sessions Judge of Rampur to answer common charges under Sections 452, 302/149, 325/149, 324/149 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short). Against five of them, including the two appellants, a charge under Section 148 IPC and against the other four a charge under Section 147 IPC were also framed. Besides, a separate charge under Section 302 IPC- was framed against appellant Shabbu. The trial ended in an order of acquittal recorded in favour of and the persons araigned. Aggrieved thereby the State of Uttar Pradesh preferred an appeal which was partly allowed by the High Court by setting aside the acquittal of the two appellants and three otheRs. After setting aside their acquittal the High Court convicted the two appellants for the offence under Section 302 IPC as also for the other offences for which they were charged and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life for the former conviction and for the period already undergone. for the other convictions. The other three were convicted of all the charges levelled against them except the one under Section 302/149 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone. Assailing the above order of conviction and sentence only the two appellants have filed this appeal invoking their statutory right under Section 379 Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Facts which are not in dispute are that Shah Alam (the deceased), his cousin Faheem Khan (P.W. 6) and appellant Chand Kh.an were carrying on business of Karchobi from two separate workshops in Mohalla Gher Pipalwala within the police station of Ganj. Aslam(P.W. 7), a boy aged about 7/8 years, had been working for the appellants Chand Khan in his business but a few days before the incident out of which the present appeal arises he left his services and joined the set up of Faheem Khan. On May 26, 1977 at or about 1 P.M. the two appellants and accused Ishtiaq Khan went to the workshop of Faheem Khan and asked him to releases Aslam so that he could work with Chand Khan again. When Faheem Khan refused to oblige they assaulted him. For that incident, he lodged complaint with the police the same afternoon. However, according to the prosecution Shah Alam and Faheem Khan used to carry on their above business jointly but as adequate accommodation was not available at one and the same place they were maintaining two workshops, one in the house of one Allah Rakha Khan arid the other in the terrace of Md. Jama Khan.
3. The prosecution version of the incident is that on the same night (on May 26, 1977) the two appellants along with the other accused persons went to the house of Shah Alam to teach him a lesson for the report his business partner Faheem Khan had lodged against some of them earlier in the afternoon for assaulting him. For that purpose the two appellants went armed with knives and the rest with other weapons including danda. Shah Alam was then sitting on a cot in the open space in front of his house along with lrshad Khan, Babar Khan and Kaisher (P.W.2). Immediately after entering the premises the accused persons started assaulting them. Chand Khan gave two knife blows to Shan Alam and some other hit Irshad Khan, Babar Khan and Kaisher Khan with dandas. When the victims cried aloud, Keramat Ali Khan (P.W. 1), father of the deceased Shah Alam, who was inside the house came out and some people ftom the mohalla including KaHan Mian @ Mardan Mian (P. W. 4) arrived there. In the meantime some of the miscreants including Chand Khan entered into the house of Keramat and assaulted his daughter Sm. Naeema PaIVeen (P.W. 5) and his sister-in-law Sm. Raees Begum. When Sm. Naeema PaIVeen found that Chand Khan was about to beat her mother she picked up a knife used for cutting vegetables which was lying nearby and assaulted him. While coming out of the house Shabbu thrust his knife on t
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
