Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, C.J., BIBHU DATTA GURU, J.
Mohd. Yasin S/o Shri Mohd. Farukh – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 1054 of 2022
Decided on : 20-08-2024
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 374(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 341, 302, 302/34 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27 – Appeal against conviction – The trial court convicted the appellants for murder and related offences based on eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence. The court found the identification of the accused unreliable due to inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellants. (Paras 1, 10, 16, 40)
(B) Criminal Jurisprudence – Burden of Proof – The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction. (Paras 37, 39)
Facts of the case: The appellants were convicted for the murder of Bablu alias Irfan, who was shot during an altercation. The prosecution's case relied on eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence, but inconsistencies in identification and lack of motive were highlighted.
Findings of Court: The trial court's conviction was based on unreliable identification and insufficient evidence. The court affirmed that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof required for conviction.
Issues: The main issues included the reliability of eyewitness identification and whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the accused and did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
Result: The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT :
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
1. The appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’) questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.03.2022 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 211/2017, whereby the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently in the following manner :
For Appellant No.1 Mohd. Yasin :
| CONVICTION | SENTENCE |
| U/s 341 of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for 01 month and fine of Rs. 500/- and in defaults of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 07 days |
| U/s 302 of IPC | Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 03 months |
| U/s 27 of the Arms Act | Rigorous imprisonment for 07 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in defaults of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 03 months |
For Appellant No.2 Shekh Gufran Ahmad :
| CONVICTION | SENTENCE
|
| U/s 341 of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for 01 month and fine of Rs. 500/- and in defaults of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 07 days |
| U/s 302/34 of IPC | Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 03 months |
CONVICTION SENTENCE
| CONVICTION | SENTENCE |
| U/s 341 of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for 01 month and fine of Rs. 500/- and in defaults of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 07 days |
| U/s 302/34 of IPC | Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 03 months |
| U/s 25(1-1A) of the Arms Act | Rigorous imprisonment for 05 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in defaults of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 03 months |
For Appellant No.4 Shekh Samir Ahmad :
| CONVICTION | SENTENCE |
| U/s 341 of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for 01 month and fine of Rs. 500/- and in defaults of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 07 days |
| U/s 302/34 of IPC | Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 03 months |
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Rajeev Bhosale (PW-1) does property dealing business, who has business relations with Bablu alias Irfan. On 15.06.2017, at around 9.30 pm, complainant Rajeev Bhosale met with Bablu alias Irfan at Pachpedhi Naka, Raipur, thereafter he came to his home with Bablu and from there at around 10.00 pm, he took Bablu alias Irfan along with his son Chaitanya Bhosle, aged 03 years to his father's house in Sejbahar in Innova car bearing registration No. MP 28-BD-4488 to wish his sister a happy birthday, from where after wishing her happy birthday and having food, while returning to his home with Bablu alias Irfan and his son, he was sitting in driving seat of his Innova car and Bablu alias Irfan was sitting on the seat next to him with his son Chaitanya in his lap. After that, as soon as the complainant started moving his car, two people came from the front in a Pulsar bike and parked the said motor-cycle in front of his car and they stopped the car by giving a signal. At the same time, from behind two other persons came in other motor-cycle and stood on the side seat of the car, out of which, seeing the boy sitting behind in the motor cycle, Bablu alias Irfan said, Hey Asif, where, then, the person named Asif took out his pistol from his waist and fired a shot at Bablu's head, due to which Bablu alias Irfan got injured on his head and started bleeding, seeing the situation complainant Rajeev Bhosle got extremely scared and immediately took his car to his father's house and informed his brother Rahul about the incident and along with Rahul, he took injured Bablu to the District Hospital, Raipur for treatment. On the way
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
(1) Murder – Mere recovery of weapon from appellants cannot become basis of conviction when there is no established motive for commission of offence.(2) Test identification – Identification in Court ....
(1) Conviction in a criminal trial is required to be certain and not doubtful. Burden of proof of guilt of accused is upon prosecution. It must stand by itself. (2) Cr.P.C does not oblige investigati....
Point of law: Conviction set aside - Real and reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the appellants - Conviction in a criminal trial is required to be certain and not doubtful
Murder – Conviction set aside - Conviction in a criminal trial is required to be certain and not doubtful - Burden of proof of- guilt of an accused is upon prosecution
Appellate interference in acquittal justified only if perverse or unreasonable; unexplained FIR delay, absent test identification parade, omnibus allegations, and dubious night identification uphold ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on eyewitness testimonies, recovery of murder weapons, and identification of the accused to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a m....
A conviction under Section 396 IPC requires proof of participation by five or more individuals, which was not established in this case, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Point of Law : Test identification report do not constitute substantive evidence and its corroboration from the surrounding circumstance is required.
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
