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

2009 Supreme(Pat) 993

PATNA HIGH COURT
Navin Sinha and Dharnidhar Jha JJ.
State Of Bihar
Versus
Shaukat Mian
Death Reference Case No. 8 of 2008
Criminal Appeal No. 665 of 2008
Decided On : JULY 29, 2009

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302/149, 307 and 148 read with Section 3(b) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908-Murder-Death sentence-Place of occurrence established by evidence of witnesses and findings of I.O.-Failure to mention blood spots or seizure of blood-stained clothes or earth is inconsequential-Evidence of witnesses cannot be disbelieved simply on the ground of their being interested witnesses when it is otherwise cogent, convincing and credible-Allegation against respondent under Section 302 proved-However, his case does not qualify as rarest of the rare case befitting death penalty-In the absence of a proper charge, statement of accusation under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and absence of any forensic materials with regard to nature of explosives conviction and sentence of appellant respondent under Section 3(b) and sentence of death awarded thereunder is also not sustainable-Sentence of death altered to life imprisonment-Conviction and sentence of appellant, under Section 307 set aside.

       (Paras 14, 19, 20, 21, 36, 40, 41, 42 and 43)

       AIR 1983 SC 957 -Relied upon.

       Criminal Law-Appreciation of evidence-Evidence of an interested witness shall have to be tested with caution for its credibility and shall be accepted if it was otherwise cogent, consistent and convincing-Credibility of an interested witness can-not be doubted merely because he was an interested witnesses-Many times no independent witness may be available or be willing to depose-An interested witness, expecially a relative of victim, would be the person most keen to ensure that justice is done to victim vis-a-vis perpetrator of crime-Similarly, weightage has to be given to evidence of one who is injured in same occurrence-It lends credibility to allegations as he is an eye-witness and was injured in same transaction. (Paras 16 and 17)

       AIR 2004 SC 313-Relied upon.

       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 161 and 162 read with Section 145 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Emphasis is on statements duly proved and contradiction on such statements after inviting his attention to part of his statement intended to be contradicted-But, every contradiction cannot affect case of prosecution or impeach credit of witness-Contradiction must be germane to controversy hitting at vitals as distinct from peripheral issues. (Paras 23, 24, 26, 27, 29 and 32)

       AIR 1952 SC 214; AIR 1959 SC 1012; (1999)4 SCC 621-Referred to.

       Explosive Substances Act, 1908-Sections 3(a) and 3(b)-Section 3(a) deals with special category of explosives warranting death sentence while under Sections 3(a) rigorous imprisonment is warranted for use of an explosive-However, if the bigger charge were to fail, it shall not affect lesser charge as accused in that event cannot be stated to have been prejudiced in any manner. (Para 35)

       AIR 1952 SC 214; (2002)1 SCC 487; (2002) SCC (Cri.) 175; (2003) SC (Cri.) 1543-Referred to.

       Criminal Law-FIR-FIR-lodged and investigation started promptly-Mere delay in dispatch or in receipt of same by Magistrate does not make FIR suspect. (Para 37)

       (2002) SCC (Cri.) 175-Relied upon.

       

JUDGEMENT

Navin Sinha, J.

1. These three criminal appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.4.2008 by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-IV, Banka, in Sessions Trial No. 897 of 2002.

2. Death Reference No. 8 of 2008 arises out of Criminal Appeal No. 665 of 2008 alone. Seventeen persons were put on trial. Nine have been acquitted, and eight convicted.

3. Shaukat Mian has been convicted under Section 302, 148 of I.P.C., Section 3(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, and sentenced to death, in addition to rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act. Rahim Mian has been convicted under Sections 307, 302/148/149 and 3/4 of Explosive Substances Act, and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 3/4 (each) of Explosive Substances Act, three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 of I.P.C., ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine under Section 307 of I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302, 149 of I.P.C. Hasib Mian and Latif Mian have been convicted under Sections 323, 325, 307, 302/147, 149 of I.P.C. and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 of I.P.C., five years R.I. under Section 325 of I.P.C., two years R.I. under Section 147 of I.P.C., ten years R.I. with fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 307 of I.P.C. and R.I. for life under Section 302, 149 of I.P.C. The rest have been convicted under Section 302/147/149 of I.P.C. Buddhu Mian has further been convicted under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. They have been sentenced to R.I. for two years under Section 147 of I.P.C. and R.I. for life under Section 302/149 of I.P.C. and Buddhu Mian has further been sentenced to R.I. for ten years under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. and fine imposed.

4. Md. Himmat Ali, P.W.3, in his fardbayan recorded, at the Referral hospital, Bousi, on 8.7.2002 at 6.45 a.m., marked as Ext. 1, stated that on the previous night he and his family members were asleep at their Basa. About 4.00 a.m. in the morning his co-villagers, Buddhu Mian, his sons, Hasib Mian and Latif Mian came to his Basa. Buddhu Mian ordered when Hasib Mian and Latif Mian assaulted his son Md. Shamshad Ansari, P.W.4, the informants wife Bibi Mazida Khatoon, P.W.2, on the head with a Khanti, causing injuries to them. Abul Basher and Israel came on hearing the commotion. The informant along with his wife and sons proceeded to the Bousi hospital for their treatment. When they reached near the Imambara at about 6.00 a.m., Hasib Mian, Latif Mian with a Khanti, Rahim Mian with bomb, Shaukat Ali with bomb, Nawab Mian with bomb, Pasib Mian with Lathi, Tudu Mian with Lathi, Kamrul Mian, Buddhu Mian, Kabir Mian, Jannu Mian, Firdous Mian, Minhaz Mian, Nazrul Mian, Khurshid Mian, Islam Mian and Siddique Mian with Lathis in their hand lay in wait and surrounded the informant and his family members. Shaukat Mian threw a bomb which hit the informants son, Fida Hussain, on his left shoulder Pakhura and he was seriously injured. Nawab Mian threw another bomb at his son Md. Hasnain, P.W. 1, Rahim Mian threw a bomb from his terrace which hit Abul Basher causing injuries. The accused ran away when they saw the villagers coming.

5. Fida Hussain died at the hospital. The motive for the occurrence was the on-going land-dispute between the informant and Nawab Mian, Buddhu Mian.

6. The police investigated the matter and submitted charge-sheet against all the accused under Section 302/149 and under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. against Buddhu Mian. Both the prosecution and accused are descendents of a common ancestor. P.W.3, Himmat Ali were three brothers, Samtulli and Mahboob Ali. Samtulli had four sons- Kabir, Nawab, Junno and Noor Nabi (deceased). The surviving three brothers are accused along with Khurshid, son of Kabir and Minhaz, Mirbous and Nazrul, sons of late Noor Nabi. Kabir, Nawab, Junno, Firdous sold cer














































































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