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

2023 Supreme(Pat) 303

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SUDHIR SINGH and CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos.76, 124 of 1996
(14.7.2023)
Ishtiaq Khan (in 76)
Md. Hafiz Khan (in 124) ... Appellants
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent (in both)

Advocates:
For the Appellant : M/s Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Adv., Anukriti Jaipuriyar, Amicus Curiae, Surya Nilambari, Pratyush Pratap Singh(in 76); Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv., Anukriti Jaipuriyar, Amicus Curiae, Meena Singh, Mohit Raj, Shantanu Kumar (in 124).
For the Respondent: Mr. Bipin Kumar, A.P.P. (in both).

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 and 120B – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27 – Murder and conspiracy – Common intention – Life sentence – In criminal law, loose and contradictory statements cannot be relied upon, much less than forming basis of conviction – Conviction on the basis of conjectures and surmises is unreasonable, unwanted, undesirable, not sought for, arbitrary, whimsical and alien to concept of our criminal jurisprudence – Testimony of an eye witness must not be dangling and their testimony must be free from blemish and devoid of any ambiguity, uncertainty and loopholes – Informant's assertion about using a scooter to reach place of occurrence is a made up story, narrated as a cementing material, so to facilitate prosecution's attempt of filling in wide gaps that remain present in case of prosecution – Not only presence of informant at place of occurrence becomes doubtful, but also his credibility as a witness gets deeply shaken – Investigating Officer of case has not made any statement about any tea stall in case diary – There is absence of any cogent legal evidence to prove guilt of appellants beyond all reasonable doubts – Every trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is ultimate quest – Prosecution has utterly failed to adduce sufficient evidences so as to prove guilt of appellants – There is complete absence of any material to establish missing causative link to hold appellants guilty – Holding appellants hostage to uncorroborated allegations and laches on part of prosecution is against justice, fairness and reasonableness – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside. (Paras 12 to 15)

Sudhir Singh, J.—Heard the learned counsels for the appellants and learned counsel for the State.

2. Both the criminal appeals arise out of common judgment of conviction and order of sentence, hence they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. When the present appeals were taken up on 24.11.2021, none had appeared on behalf of the appellants and by order dated 24.11.2021, Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriyar, Amicus Curiae, was appointed by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to assist the Court at the costs of the State. Subsequently, when the appeals are being taken up today on 27.06.2023, learned counsels for the appellants have appeared.

4. Considering the same, with the consent of the parties, Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriyar, Amicus Curiae, is permitted to lead the argument.

5. Both the criminal appeals have been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 31.01.1996 and the order of sentence dated 01.02.1996 passed by Shri Gopal Jee, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Sessions Trial No.113 of 1994 arising out of Gardanibagh P.S. case No.1002 of 1992, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (referred to ‘I.P.C.’) and Section 27 of the Arms Act and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for five years. The appellants have further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for one year. No separate sentence has been awarded to the appellants under Section 120B of the I.P.C. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

6. The prosecution case, as per the fard beyan of informant Aslam Khan (P.W.6) recorded by S.I. of Gardanibagh P.S. on 26.12.1992 at 10:00 a.m. is that the informant alongwith his father Zaffruddin Khan and uncle Munnu Khan took tea near Jang Bahadur Market. After having tea, informant’s father proceeded towards east from his Rajdoot motorcycle bearing registration No.BH-1-9259 in order to meet doctor and also to meet the Director, P.R.D.A. at Yarpur. Thereafter informant’s uncle, namely, Munnu Khan saw that one white colour Ambassador car bearing registration No.W.B.C.1008, which was being driven by Hafij Khan, and Babban Khan and Ishtiyaque Khan were sitting on front seat by the side of the driver and three persons were sitting on rear seat, went towards east. On seeing this, informant’s uncle suspected and he asked him to follow them. The informant took the scooter of his Fufa (husband of father’s sister) and followed them. When he reached near Aerodrome, he saw that the motorcycle of informant’s father was dashed by the said car from behind, as a result his father fell down. Thereafter, the persons seated in the car also came out of the car and started firing. The informant saw that Babban Khan and Ishtiyaque Khan having pistols in their hand were firing shots from the same. They fired five-six rounds of shots. His father became injured and also cried. The way was an isolated place and on account of that they were firing on his father without any hesitation. When they became satisfied that his father was dead, then they again came in the car and proceeded towards east. When they went away, the informant immediately rushed to the father and saw his father dead. The informant informed the Police Officer, who came to record his fardbeyan and also sent information to his family members, who also came at the place of occurrence. The cause of occurrence is said to be that about a year ago, there was a quarrel in between Babban Khan, Ishtiyaque Khan and his family members on one side and the family members of the informant on other side. Both parties had lodged cases in Shastrinagar Police

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