Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Palok Basu, P. P. Gupta
MUSTAFA KHAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Criminal Appeal 2161 Of 1982
Decided On : 03/05/1991
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - SECTION 302, IPC - EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNT - CREDIBILITY - MOTIVE - PLACE AND TIME OF OCCURRENCE - POST-MORTEM REPORT - CORROBORATION - ADMISSION OF ACCUSED - SECTION 313, CR. P. C. - NO ANIMOSITY BETWEEN PROSECUTION WITNESSES AND ACCUSED - SUFFICIENT MOTIVE FOR ACCUSED TO COMMIT MURDER - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Mustafa Khan, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Taj Mohammad. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had stabbed Taj Mohammad to death in a room on the upper storey of a mosque. The appellant denied the charge and pleaded not guilty.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had successfully proved the case beyond any shadow of doubt against the appellant. The court held that the eye-witness account of the murder was credible and that the post-mortem report corroborated the account. The court also found that the appellant had admitted to having a motive to kill Taj Mohammad.
Issues: 1. Whether the eye-witness account of the murder was credible. 2. Whether the post-mortem report corroborated the eye-witness account. 3. Whether the appellant had a motive to kill Taj Mohammad.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court found that the eye-witness account of the murder was credible because the witnesses were natural witnesses whose presence at the time of the occurrence could not be disbelieved. The witnesses had also given consistent statements and there was no reason to believe that they had a motive to falsely implicate the appellant. 2. The court found that the post-mortem report corroborated the eye-witness account because it showed that Taj Mohammad had died from stab wounds to the neck, which was consistent with the account given by the witnesses. 3. The court found that the appellant had a motive to kill Taj Mohammad because the appellant had admitted that he had been annoyed with Taj Mohammad for disturbing his classes and for refusing to sweep the floors of the mosque.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
( 1 ) THE above appeal is preferred by the accused Mustafa Khan against the judgment dated 3. 4. 1982 convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC and order dated 5. 4. 1982 sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment passed by the Sessions judge, Bulandshahr, in Sessions Trial No. 439 of 1981.
( 2 ) THE appellant was charged under section 302, IPC for having committed the murder of one Taj Mohammad on 18. 3. 1981, at about 1 P. M. , in a room on the upper storey of the Mosque of Nanhu Khan situate in Gulaothi Town. District Bulandshahr.
( 3 ) THE appeal had been forwarded by the appellant from Jail. Shri Sanjeev Ratan who was appointed Amicus Curiae has argued the case with ability on behalf of the appellant. Sri A. K. Dwivedi, Addi. Government Advocate has been heard for the State and after perusing the entire record on 5. 3. 199 1, the appeal was dismissed. We now proceed to give the reasons therefore.
( 4 ) THE material facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal, in brief, are given below.
( 5 ) DECEASED Taj Mohammad had earlier worked as Imam at the Mosque of Nanhu Khan situate in Gulaothi Town. District Bulandshahr. About 3 years prior to his murder he left Gulaothi and had sought employment in a Madarsa at Agra. The accused Mustafa Khan was working as Imam at the said Mosque at the time of occurrence and was occupying a room in the first floor of the said Mosque.
( 6 ) THREE days prior to the occurrence the deceased Taj Mohammad had come to Gulaothi for raising subscription for charity purposes and was staying along with the deceased in his room on the first floor of the Mosque.
( 7 ) AT about 1 p. m. on 18. 3. 1981 cries of Taj Mohammad coming from the said room attracted the attention of the prosecution witnesses and others who immediately went up stairs and noticed the accused inflicting injuries with a dagger on the neck of Taj Mohammad who was lying on the floor with his face downwards. His legs were tied with a rope. The appellant was caught red handed with the dagger by the witnesses Hashmat Ali. P. W. 2 Abdul Rauf. P. W. 3. The witness Haji Imamuddin P. W. 1. got a report written and immediately rushed to the police station where the same was lodged at 1. 30 p. m. The S. 0. Ram Pal Singh. P. W. 6 accompanied by police personnel immediately reached the spot. The appellant. who was held by the witnesses was arrested by him. The dagger was taken into possession from the accused and was scaled vide a Memo. The witnesses present there were interrogated. Other necessary legal formalities were done by the S. I. Rajendra Singh Chowdhary who was deputed by the S. 0. The dead body of Taj Mohammad was sealed and sent for post-mortem examination. The appellant in custody was also sent to the police station. The blood stained pieces of rope were taken into possession by S. I. Rajendra Singh Chaudhary and their memos were prepared. Samples of blood stained and plain earth were also taken and sealed in different containers as per rules. After completing the investigation the S. 0. forwarded charge sheet. Ex. ka-16. against the appellant.
( 8 ) THE autopsy on the body of the deceased was performed by Dr. R. K. Mittal. P. W. 4. on the following day i. e. on 19. 3. 1981 at 3 p. m.
( 9 ) THE appellant denied the charge and pleaded not guilty. He did not produce any evidence in defence.
( 10 ) IN support of the charge the prosecution examined P. W. 1. Haji Imamuddin the informant P. W. 2 Hashmat Ali and P. W. 3 Abdul Rauf as eye-witnesses of the commission of crime besides. Dr. R. K. Mittal who had performed the autopsy of the deceased and P. W. 6 S. T. Ram Pal Singh. 1. 0. the other formal witnesses. On the totality of the eye-witness account and other material available on record the learned Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty of the offence under section 302. 1pc and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as above.
( 11 ) IT is a case of spot arrest. It has been deposed by the eye-witnesses examined by
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
