IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), UMESH KUMAR, JJ.
Rafique & Another – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2837 & 3447 of 2011
Decided on : 20-09-2019
Criminal Appeal - Murder - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 364, 302, 201, 120-B - Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 - [Summary of Acts and Sections discussed by the court]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the murder of a woman and the abduction of her daughter. The accused were convicted based on circumstantial evidence, but the court found discrepancies in the evidence and acquitted the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was not conclusive and did not fully establish the guilt of the accused. The identification of the dead body and the recovery of the daughter were not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The main issue was the reliability of the circumstantial evidence and the identification of the dead body and the recovery of the daughter.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for circumstantial evidence to be fully established, conclusive in nature, and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. It also highlighted the importance of reliable and probable circumstances to connect the accused with the crime.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellants from the charges and set them free on their liberty, citing the lack of conclusive evidence.
JUDGMENT :
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
1. Heard Sri Mohd. Sabbir, for the appellants in both the appeals and Sri Anil Kumar Kushwaha, A.G.A., for State of U.P.
2. Rafique has filed Criminal Appeal No. 2837 of 2011 and Abdul Salam Ansari @ Salman Khan has filed Criminal Appeal No. 3447 of 2011 from the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 19, Aligarh, dated 18.04.2011, passed in S.T. No. 82 of 2005, State vs. Abdul Salam Ansari @ Salman Khan and another [arising out of Case Crime No. 413 of 2004, under Section 364, 302, 201, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC')] and S.T. No. 385 of 2005, State vs. Abdul Salam Ansari @ Salman Khan, (arising out of Case Crime No. 414 of of 2004, under Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959, police station Civil Lines, district Aligarh, convicting and sentencing for ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 364 IPC to Abdul Salam Ansari @ Salman Khan, imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10000/- each under Section 302 IPC and five years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- each under Section 201 IPC to Abdul Salam Ansari @ Salman Khan and Rafique, both, with default stipulations.
3. On the written complaint (Ex-Ka-6) of Bholu (PW-2), FIR (Ex-Ka-1) of Case Crime No. 413 of 2004 was registered under Section 364 IPC, at P.S. Civil Lines, district Aligarh on 25.09.2004 at 18:30 hours, by Constable Clerk Bharat Singh (PW-1), against Abdul Salam Ansari @ Salman Khan. It has been stated in the FIR that the informant Bholu son of Damodar Prasad, by caste Kumhar, was resident of Chherat, district Aligarh. His sister Smt. Yasoda was married to Ram Singh, resident of village Jataula, PS Pahasu, district Buland Shahar. Ram Singh, his brother-in-law, died after 7-8 years after his marriage. One daughter namely Radha, aged about 7 years, was born to his sister. After becoming widow, Smt. Yasoda was living at his house. From about 7-8 months, she was working as a labourer at Al-Barkat School. Salman, resident of Bihar was a contractor of the labourers at that place. A building of Shahnawaj was being constructed at friends colony, Sir Syed Nagar. His sister was working as a labourer in that building and she was living in the house of Shahabuddin at Dodpur along with her daughter. Salman, the contractor was also living in that building. The informant, his mother Smt. Kela Devi and his brother Ganga Ram came to two-four times to know the whereabouts of Yasoda and inquired from Salman, then he used to make some pretext. Salman, the contractor, was not giving any satisfactory reply. He has full belief that Salman, the contractor has vanished Yashoda and her daughter somewhere. After lodging report, legal action be taken.
4. After lodging of FIR, investigation was handed over to SI Arsad Ali Tomar. But Superintendent of Police (City) Aligarh, directed Inspector Hari Ram Verma (PW-5), who was In-charge of Special Operation Group, to investigate the matter. Inspector Hari Ram Verma (PW-5) along with his team and SI Arsad Ali Tomar, Constable Ved Prakash, informant Bholu and a witness Chandra Pal Singh started to search of the accused Salman, who was arrested at Matis road on 25.09.2004 at 20:15 hours. On search of his body, a country made pistol of 315 bore, along with a live cartridge in its barrel was recovered, of which recovery memo (Ex-Ka-8) was prepared. On interrogation, he confessed his guilt and informed that he had kept Yasoda as his wife. But she had developed bad character due to which he had left her and she was living with her daughter Radha, separately. On 14.08.2004, several hot talks took place between them. Then he took her daughter Radha and went to Green Apartment, Sir Syed Nagar. Thereafter, he called Yashoda at that place, sending his friend Rafique. He asked Abdulla and Imtiyaz, who were working with him, to get 10 K.G. salt. Rafique along with Yasoda came to Green Apartment at about 10:00 PM. By that time, he got Radha to sleep at third fl
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.