Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(Raj) 1034

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Sandeep Mehta, Vinit Kumar Mathur, JJ.
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Shahabudeen – Respondent
Criminal Death Reference No. 1 of 2016, Criminal Appeal No. 966 of 2016
Decided On : 24-10-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mahesh Bora, Nishant Bora, Arpit Mehta, Farzand Ali, Anil Joshi, Vineet Jain.

A death penalty may be justified in cases of extreme brutality, but rigorous assessment of evidence and circumstances is crucial for affirming such sentences.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 147, 148, 302/149 - Arms Act - Sections 3/25 - Murder and conspiracy - This judgment confirms the death penalty for accused based on a brutal attack involving firearms and acid on victims due to a land dispute; the court found the evidence compelling and eyewitness accounts credible, indicating a premeditated act of violence. (Paras 1-4, 60-68)

(B) Evidence - Admissibility - The court allowed parts of hostile witness testimonies that supported the prosecution while emphasizing that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to conclude guilt. (Paras 88-91)

(C) Sentencing - The court highlighted the necessity of considering the harshness of the crime and the possibility of reform before awarding death penalty, ultimately converting it to life imprisonment without parole. (Paras 67-72)

Facts of the case:
The accused, involved in a land dispute, killed four victims using swords, firearms, and acid, leading to the serious injury and death of others with premeditated intent. (Paras 3-4)

Findings of Court:
The evidence was coherent and strong enough to confirm the death sentence, with all sentences running concurrently. (Paras 61-68)

Issues: The key issues were the propriety of the death penalty and the reliability of eyewitness testimonies amid claims of false implication. (Paras 11, 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the brutal nature of the crime warranted the death penalty despite challenges regarding the evidence presented, reaffirming the concept of collective public abhorrence towards such crimes. (Paras 43, 60-62)

Result: The appeal was allowed in part; death sentences commuted to life imprisonment and conviction upheld. (Paras 67-68)

Table of Content
1. murder reference for confirmation of death sentence. (Para 1 , 2)
2. details of the incidents leading to fir registration. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. investigation details and charge-sheet filing. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. defense arguments against prosecution's case. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. court's review of prosecution and defense arguments. (Para 13 , 16)
6. witness testimonies and their credibility. (Para 14 , 15 , 17 , 18 , 19)
7. medical evidence and post-mortem findings. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
8. assessment of the timeline and sequence of events. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
9. reflections on the arguments presented by defense counsel. (Para 30 , 31 , 32)
10. court's observations on witness credibility. (Para 33 , 34 , 35)
11. investigation details and evidence collection. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
12. evidence of forensic analysis and collection of bodily fluids. (Para 41 , 42 , 43)
13. discussion on witness validation and case integrity. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
14. concluding remarks about the trial and evidentiary strength. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56)
15. underlying principles for awarding death penalty. (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60)
16. final ruling on sentencing and implications. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64)
17. affirmation of conviction and life sentence awarded. (Para 68)

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Mehta, J.

1. The instant murder reference for confirmation of death sentence has been instituted before this court upon being forwarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pali, District Pali, who convicted and sentenced the accused Shahabuddin, Shakoor Khan, Kalu Khan, Usman Khan and Rahim Bux vide judgment dated 05.10.2016 passed in Sessions Case No. 50/2015 (02/2010) as below:-

Name of the accused	Offence for which convicted	Sentence awarded
Shahabuddeen Shakoor Khan Kalu Khan Usman Khan Rahim Bux	147 IPC	Rigorous imprisonment of one year along with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional simple imprisonment of 10 days
148 IPC	Rigorous imprisonment of one year alongwith a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional simple imprisonment of 10 days
302/149 IPC	Death penalty alongwith a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional simple imprisonment of six months
Shahabuddin Usman Khan	4/25 of the Arms Act	Rigorous imprisonment of one year alongwith a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional simple imprisonment of 10 days

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The accused have preferred the Appeal No. 966/2016 for assailing the impugned judgment, whereby they were convicted and sentenced as above.

3. Brief facts, relevant and essential for disposal of the reference as well as the appeal are noted hereinbelow. Smt. Samiya W/o Shareef Khan and Smt. Timiya W/o Babu Khan submitted a written report (Ex.P/34) to Mr. Binjraj Singh, ASI, Police Station Sadar Pali, Camp Sarhad Bhangesar on 19.07.2009 at 6.36 p.m. alleging inter alia that on the same day at around 3 to 4 p.m. a villager named Ranjeet Bhat approached them and blurted out that while they were sitting idle at home, all had been killed. At around the same time, Samiya's son Iqbal came on a bicycle and told that Shakoor Khan, Usman, Rahim, Kalu Khan and Shahabuddin were assaulting his father (Shareef), elder uncle (Babu Khan), Lal Mohammad and Sabir. On hearing this news, the informant Samiya alongwith her Jethani Timiya rushed to their field in the Bhangesar Sarhad and saw the dead bodies of Shareef Khan and Babu Khan lying there. They were told that Lal Mohammad and Sabir Mohammad had been taken to the hospital for treatment. It was alleged in the report that the accused Shakoor and his companions were having country-made guns, swords and lathis, with which

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(Raj) 1034

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHANSandeep Mehta, Vinit Kumar Mathur, JJ.State of Rajasthan – AppellantVersusShahabudeen – RespondentCriminal Death Reference No. 1 of 2016, Criminal Appeal No. 966 of 2016Decided On : 24-10-2019

A death penalty may be justified in cases of extreme brutality, but rigorous assessment of evidence and circumstances is crucial for affirming such sentences.

Cases Referred (75)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Sandeep Mehta, Vinit Kumar Mathur, JJ.
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Shahabudeen – Respondent
Criminal Death Reference No. 1 of 2016, Criminal Appeal No. 966 of 2016
Decided On : 24-10-2019