SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000(1) Crimes 80 (SC)
Supreme Court of India
(From Designated Court-II, Delhi)
G.B. Pattanaik & M.B. Shah, JJ.
Mohd. Anwar —Appellant
versus
State of Delhi —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1045 of 1999
With
Criminal Appeal No. 1175 of 1999
Decided on 17-12-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant(s) in Crl.A. 1045/99 : Jaspal Singh, Sr. Advocate, Shakeel Ahmed, Advocate.
In Crl.A. 1175/99 : Sushil Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Sanjay M. Tirpath, Parvez A. Siddiqui, Varinder Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : K.N. Shukla, Sr. Advocate, Tufail A. Khan, Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302 and 307 r/w Section 5, TADA Act, 1987—Murder—Appeal against conviction for—Appellant fired shot from his revolver, during police encounter, and caused death of de­ceased a police informer—Incident took place in broad day light—P.W. 1 through his evidence proved incident and identified revolver seized—Evidence of P.W. 1 corroborated by other eyewitnesses who were all police personnel chasing accused—Chemical examiner’s report re­vealed revolver was in working condition and lead deformed bullet found from body of deceased was fired from revolver in question—Non-exami­nation of person collected at spot immaterial as none agreed to be a witness—Non-examination of investigating officer also not fatal as he was not available in India—User of vehicle, where deceased was made to sit after receiving injuries, to take him to hospital also could not come in way of conviction—Guilt of accused proved—Conviction sustained. (Paras 7 & 8)

       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302 and 307 r/w Section 34—TADA Act, 1987—Section 5—Murder—Appeal against conviction for—Accused allegedly exhorted co-accused to fire at deceased—Accused allegedly shouted ‘Maro Salon Ko’—Co-accused fired shot from his revolver and caused death of victim—Accused in question held a coun­try made pistol—No specific evidence to the effect that accused in question exhorted co-accused—Accused persons were chased allegedly when they had gone for committing dacoity—Common intention to commit murder not proved—Conviction u/s 302 IPC set aside—Conviction u/s 307 and Section 5 of TADA affirmed. (Paras 10 to 12)

       Result : Criminal Appeal No. 1175 of 1999 partly allowed and Criminal Appeal No. 1045 of 1999 dismissed.

       

Judgment

Shah, J.—Appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 5 TADA Act, 1987 by the Designated Court, Delhi vide its judgment and order dated 6.8.1999/13.8.1999 in Sessions Case No. 7/97 and FIR No. 279/92. It is alleged that in the broad day light, in the presence of police party, Khalil Ahmad-informer of the police, was murdered by Mohd. Anwar by firing of shot from the revolver. It is the prosecution version that there was information about activities of dacoits in Delhi, which was conveyed to SI Pankaj Singh. On 19.9.1992, SI Pankaj Singh along with the deceased-informer Khalil, SI Shiv Lal (PW 3), ASI Raghbir Singh (PW 1), Constable Devender (PW 16), Constable Ramesh, Constable Satbir Singh (PW 13) and Constable Jagpal (PW 10) went for patrolling near Naulakha Niwas, Model Basti, Delhi. At about 1.50 p.m., three boys were seen coming to Model Basti from Rani Jhansi Road. On seeing the police party, they turned back and started running. At that time, informer Khalil pointed out towards them. The police party chased those three boys in their vehicles by taking the same to the wrong side of the road. When the police party reached quite near those boys near police quarters at Ahata Kedara, the third boy succeeded in running away while the present appellants took out their weapons i.e. Anwar took out his revolver and Tasleem took out his pistol. As soon as, SI Pankaj alighted from the vehicle in order to apprehend the accused, Tasleem asked his companion “Maro Salon Ko”. At this, accused Anwar who was holding revolver in his hand fired therefrom. The bullet hit at the left side chest of Khalil, who was just alighting from the police vehicle. SI Shiv Lal immediately made Khalil to sit in the vehicle. At that stage, SI Pankaj Singh and ASI Raghbir Singh fired two rounds each in reply. Both the accused also continued to fire and retreat. They were apprehended at the main gate of police colony, Ahata Kedara. ASI Raghbir Singh apprehended accused Tasleem and SI Pankaj Singh apprehended accused Anwar with the help of constable Satbir and other staff. At that time, because of commotion, crowd collected and some persons out of the crowd also started beating the accused persons due to anger but the police rescued them. Injured Khalil was sent to the hospital alongwith SI Shiv Lal. From accused Anwar, English made revolver of .32 bore, which was in his hands, was seized and on checking its chamber four cartridges cases and two live cartridges were found. On further search, six more live cartridges were recovered from the right side pocket of his pants. It is also contended that from accused Tasleem a country made .315 pistol, which was in his hands, was seized. On checking the said pistol, one car­tridge case was found in chamber and on further search five more live cartridges were recovered from the right side pocket of pants of the accused. On interrogation, the accused disclosed the name of their third accomplice as Salim alias Pinny, who was also arrested.

2. It has been contended that at the initial stage, police registered a case under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 5 TADA Act. However, after receipt of information from SI Shiv Lal, who had gone to the hospital alongwith the injured Khalil, that Khalil was declared brought dead to the hospital, offence under Section 302 IPC was added. After completion of the inquiry, charge sheet was submitted against the appellants, Salim and other three persons. As there was no evidence against Salim and other three persons, they were discharged. It is the defence of the accused that the entire police version is false and that they were lifted from their houses and were roped in this case. After considering the evidence, which was led by the prosecution, the appellants have been convicted by the designated court.

3. Against the said judgment and order both the accused have filed separate appeals. Mohd. Anwa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top