IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH and HARISH KUMAR, JJ.
(17.8.2022)
Death Reference No.6 of 2021 with Cr. App. (DB) No. 470, 534, 538, 542 of 2021
State of Bihar (in 6)
Ahmad Miyan @ Ahmad
@ Ahmad Hussain (in 470)
Raju Khan @ Raju Kha (in 534)
Babli Miyan (in 538)
Taushif Miyan @ Taushif Alam
@ Md Taushif Alam
@ Tausif Ahmad (in 542) : Petitioners
Vs.
Babli Miyan (in 6)
State of Bihar & Ors.
(in all except 6) : Respondents
Indian Penal Code, 1860–Sections 302 read with 34, 307 read with 34, 387 read with 34 and 120B–Arms Act, 1959–Section 27–Double murder, attempt to murder, extortion and conspiracy–Common intention–Death sentence–Evidence of injured witnesses do not incriminate appellants in any manner–Prosecution could not establish even place of occurrence by leading cogent evidence–Medical evidence is definitely not in alignment with ocular evidence relating to time of incident and death of deceased–Non-examination of material witnesses without any reasonable explanation from side of prosecution has caused serious prejudice to case of defence–There is no explanation as to why FIR was not promptly registered–Belated institution of FIR after major part of investigation was over and that too on the basis of a written statement, which was not the first information regarding a cognizable offence rather same was collected by Police during investigation creates a serious dent in prosecution case–Impugned judgment of conviction and consequent Order of sentence set aside and Death Reference rejected. (Paras 43, 44, 55, 57, 58, 62, 67, 69 to 72)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973–Section 154–Delay in lodging FIR quite often results in embellishment–On account of delay, report not only gets bereft of advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation–It is essential that delay in lodging of first information report should be satisfactorily explained–Many a time, faulty investigation leads to collapse of prosecution case and criminal justice system. (Paras 63 and 64)
Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684; Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1983 SCR (3) 413–Referred.
Thulia Kali Vs. State of T.N., (1972) 3 SCC 393; State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Punati Ramulu, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 590; Mukesh vs. NCT of Delhi, (2017) 6 SCC 1–Relied.
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.:–The appellants Ahmad Miyan @ Ahmad @ Ahmad Hussain, Raju Khan @ Raju Kha, Babli Miyan, Abdullah Qureshi, Khurshid Qurashi, Anwar Quraishi @ Sarla Miyan, and Taushif Miyan @ Taushif Alam @ Md. Taushif Alam @ Tausif Ahmad have been held guilty vide order dated 09.03.2021 passed in Sessions Trial No.117 of 2019 arising out of Ara Town P.S. Case No.739 of 2018 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IXth, Bhojpur at Ara to the charges under Sections 302 read with 34, 307 read with 34, 387 read with 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
2. Consequent upon the conviction, vide order dated 14.06.2021, the aforesaid convicts have been sentenced to death and to pay a fine of Rs.one lakh each for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.50,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.50,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 387 read with 34 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.50,000/- each for the offence under Section 120B of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. The Trial Court has directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
3. Reference made by the Trial Court under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘CrPC’) for confirmation of death sentence awarded to the convicts in the aforesaid sessions trial has been registered as Death Reference No.06 of 2021.
4. The appellant Ahmad Miyan @ Ahmad @ Ahmad Hussain has challenged his conviction and sentence awarded in the aforesaid sessions trial by filing Criminal Appeal (DB) No.470 of 2021. The appellant Raju Khan @ Raju Kha has challenged his conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court by filing Criminal Appeal (DB) No.534 of 2021.The appellants Babli Miyan, Abdullah Qureshi, Khurshid Qurashi and Anwar Quraishi @ Sarla Miyan have challenged their conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court by filing Criminal Appeal (DB) No.538 of 2021. The appellant Taushif Miyan @ Taushif Alam @ Md. Taushif Alam @ Tausif Ahmad has challenged his conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court by filing Criminal Appeal (DB) No.542 of 2021.
5. These appeals preferred by the appellants as well as the reference made by the Trial Court under Section 366 of the CrPC have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.
6. The sessions trial in which the impugned judgment and order were passed relates to the first information report (for short ‘FIR’) that had been registered at 6:30 pm on 06.12.2018 in Bhojpur Town Police Station in respect of an incident that had occurred at Shobha Market, Dharman Chowk situated at a distance of 0.5 kilometre in the eastern direction from the Ara Town Police Station on the basis of the written report submitted by Akil Ahmad (P.W.1).
7. In his written report, Akil Ahmad stated that on 06.12.2018, at around 12:48 pm, when he, his brother and other family members were running the shop in Shobha Market, suddenly, Khurshid Qurashi, Md. Naiyer, Raju Khan, Babli Miyan, Abdullah Qureshi, Sarla Miyan, Ahmad Miyan, Shamsher Miyan and Taushif Miyan, all residents of Mohalla- Milki and Kasai Tola, P.S.- Ara Town, District- Bhojpur and 4-5 unknown persons came to the shop and demanded Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lakh) as extortion money. When his brother denied to pay the said amount, all the accused persons took out pistol from their lower back and started hurling abuses. When his brother Imran opposed, Khurshid Qurashi and Naiyer Miyan opened indiscriminate firing upon Imran because of which he died on the spot. At the same time, Babli Miyan and Shamsher
Conviction set aside - FIR is ante-timed and there are no independent witness of the incident. Prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellants-accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.