1978 Supreme(All) 590

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M.M. HUSAIN, S.C. MATHUR, JJ.
Jamal Ahmad - Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. - Respondent
Cr. As. Nos. 664 and 796 of 1977
Decided on : Oct 03, 1978

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, sentence of imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is the exception. The imposition of sentence is a matter of discretion with the trial court, and the appellate court would not be justified in interfering with the exercise of that discretion unless exceptional grounds exist.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER - CONVICTION - EVIDENCE - WITNESSES - CREDIBILITY - INVESTIGATION - FAIRNESS - SENTENCE - DEATH PENALTY - LIFE IMPRISONMENT - DISCRETION OF TRIAL COURT - RELEVANCE OF PREVIOUS CONVICTION AND CHARACTER - OBJECTS OF PUNISHMENT - EMOTIONAL STRESS - SPECIAL REASONS FOR DEATH SENTENCE - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, SECTION 354(3).

Fact of the Case:

The appellants were convicted of the murder of Fakhrul Hasan. The prosecution case was that the deceased was murdered by the appellants in a brutal manner, with his head being severed from his body. The appellants claimed that they were falsely implicated in the case due to a love affair between the deceased and the daughter of one of the appellants, which was resented by the appellants' family.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution case was not believable and that there were inherent infirmities in the evidence. The court also found that the investigation was not fair and that there was a delay in recording the statements of the witnesses. The court further found that the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses was not reliable and that their disappearance from the scene of occurrence before the arrival of the Investigating Officer was suspicious. The court also noted that the fact that the crops in all other fields in the vicinity of the place of occurrence had been harvested, while the crop in the field of one of the eyewitnesses had not been harvested, was a strange circumstance that created doubt in the court's mind regarding the authenticity of the prosecution case.

Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution case was believable and whether there were inherent infirmities in the evidence. 2. Whether the investigation was fair and whether there was a delay in recording the statements of the witnesses. 3. Whether the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses was reliable and whether their disappearance from the scene of occurrence before the arrival of the Investigating Officer was suspicious. 4. Whether the fact that the crops in all other fields in the vicinity of the place of occurrence had been harvested, while the crop in the field of one of the eyewitnesses had not been harvested, was a strange circumstance that created doubt in the court's mind regarding the authenticity of the prosecution case.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution case was not believable and that there were inherent infirmities in the evidence. The court found that it was impossible to believe that the deceased would accompany one of the appellants to the place of occurrence without even asking him where he was going, given the strained relations between the two families. The court also found that the lodging of the first information report at the time it was alleged to have been lodged was extremely doubtful. 2. The court held that the investigation was not fair and that there was a delay in recording the statements of the witnesses. The court found that the Investigating Officer did not record the statements of the informant and the alleged eyewitnesses at the Police Station itself, even though he had met them there. The court also found that the Investigating Officer did not record the statements of the witnesses until the next day, even though he had met them on several occasions before that. 3. The court held that the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses was not reliable and that their disappearance from the scene of occurrence before the arrival of the Investigating Officer was suspicious. The court found that the witnesses made statements that were not believable, such as claiming that they did not hear the sound of the first gunshot, and that one of the appellants put his hand in the deceased's pocket before running away. The court also found that the witnesses' disappearance from the scene of occurrence before the arrival of the Investigating Officer was suspicious, as they had been present at the scene for a long time before that. 4. The court held that the fact that the crops in all other fields in the vicinity of the place of occurrence had been harvested, while the crop in the field of one of the eyewitnesses had not been harvested, was a strange circumstance that created doubt in the court's mind regarding the authenticity of the prosecution case. The court found that it was strange that the crops in all other fields had been harvested before the festival of Holi, which was only two days after the occurrence, while the crop in the field of one of the eyewitnesses had not been harvested.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court. The appellants were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.