Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 3163
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
A.B. Chaudhari, Inderjit Singh, JJ.
Ikram - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
Murder Reference Case No. 1 of 2016 and Criminal Appeal (D) No. 1702 of 2015
Decided On : 27-02-2018
R.S. Rai, Adv., Deepinder Brar, Adv., Vivek Saini, Adv.
The prosecution must prove the motive for murder and discharge the initial burden of proof in a criminal case.
Headnote:
MURDER - Indian Penal Code - Section 302, Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 - [302] - The judgment discusses the prosecution's reliance on extra judicial confession, the vagueness of the Investigating Officer's evidence, the delay in arrest, and the failure to prove the motive for murder. The court found the evidence of the prosecution to be unconvincing and raised doubts about the recovery of incriminating evidence. The court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its initial burden of proof and acquitted the accused. The court also disagreed on the death penalty and modified the sentence to life imprisonment.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused murdered his daughter and falsely implicated others. The defense argued that the accused was falsely implicated and that the investigation was defective. The court found that the accused's version in the FIR was false and that the motive for murder was proven by the prosecution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence unconvincing and raised doubts about the recovery of incriminating evidence. The court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its initial burden of proof and acquitted the accused. The court also disagreed on the death penalty and modified the sentence to life imprisonment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the evidence, the motive for murder, and the recovery of incriminating evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving the motive for murder and the reliability of the evidence. It also highlighted the need to discharge the initial burden of proof in a criminal case.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court also modified the sentence to life imprisonment.
JUDGMENT
A.B. Chaudhari, J —The present reference as well as CRA-D-1702-DB-2015, arise out of the judgment and order dated 10.12.2015, passed by M.M. Dhonchak, Sessions Judge, Mewat, by which he held the accused/convict Ikram son of Isab, resident of Village Manota, Police Station Punhana, District Mewat, guilty of murder of his daughter-Sahiba under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to death.
Facts :
2. The prosecution case is that on 15.02.2014, a telephonic information was received in Police Station, Punhana that there was a quarrel in Village Manota. On receipt of the said information, Inspector Allah Bux, Station House Officer, along with other police officials reached Village Manoha. Ikram-convict submitted an application, Ex.PW12/A to the Station House Officer. He stated in that application that on that day i.e. 15.02.2014 at about 8 a.m., he along with his brother Imran was present at the house and, later on, his father also came there. Nasru son of Imrat, co-villager, had slaughtered a cow for serving his relatives. Over the quality of beef, there was exchange of abuses and Nasru son of Imrat, Hakmuddin son of Imrat, Khurshid son of Nijjar and Irshad son of Imrat came there armed with lathis, farsas and knives. They encircled the convict Ikram. They climbed the roof of his house by breaking the wall of East side. Nasru was holding a knife in his hand, which either belonged to him or the convict. Nasru, thereafter, gave a blow in the neck of Sahiba, the deceased, who was seven years old daughter of the convict. She died on the spot. Before that, Nasru had given a lathi blow on the right hand and with a brick on the finger of the left hand of the convict. At that time, Hakmuddin and Irshad caught hold of the convict and later on they fled away. The dead body of Sahiba was sent for post mortem and investigation was handed over to Inspector Sanjay Kumar, the then Station House Officer and as per para No.16 of Daily Dairy No.2 dated 16.02.2014, Nasru, Hakmuddin, Irshad, Khurshid, Sehju and Halima were found innocent during investigation made by Inspector Sanjay Kumar and it was revealed that, in fact, Sahiba, daughter of the convict, had been done to death by the convict himself.
3. The convict was arrested on 20.03.2014 in a case arising out of FIR No.47 dated 15.02.2014 for commission of offence punishable under the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'), of Police Station Punhana. On his interrogation, he suffered a disclosure statement confessing about the present crime and his disclosure statement was obtained from Assistant Sub Inspector Hadi Khan and the convict was joined in the investigation in the murder case. On 21.03.2014, the convict got demarcated the place of occurrence and the knife used in the commission of the offence and the clothes worn by the convict at the time of the occurrence, were duly recovered. After completion of investigation, the challan was filed in the Court. The trial started and the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses whereas the defence examined one witness. The trial Court, after recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the defence witness, found the convict guilty of the offence of murder and convicted him as such and awarded death sentence. Hence the appeal by him and the reference made by the trial Court since it awarded the death sentence.
Arguments:
(i)In support of the appeal, Mr. R.S. Rai, learned Senior Advocate, for the appellant, submitted that the prosecution had firstly relied on the alleged extra judicial confession to Aziz, who was not examined by the prosecution but he was examined by the defence as DW-1. Therefore, the prosecution did not prove the evidence regarding the alleged extra judicial confession, though according to PW-6, the convict was produced before him by Aziz on 20.03.2014.
(ii)The Investigating Officer, who first made the investigation on 16.02.2014; namely, PW-11 Inspector Sanjay Kuma
