Back
2014 Supreme(All) 2944
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Rakesh Tiwari, Kalimullah Khan, JJ.
State of U.P. - Appellant
Versus
Badar - Respondent
Government Appeal No. - 2019 of 1983 With Cr. A. Nos. 1156 and 1157 of 1983
Decided On : 30-05-2014
For the Appellant : A.G.A.
For the Respondent: Sri Nazrul Islam Jafri and Sri S.I.Jafri
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and consistent evidence to support a conviction, and the reversal of an acquittal based on unreliable evidence.
Headnote:
Acquittal - Criminal Law - Section 302, Section 34 IPC - [Section 302, Section 34 IPC] - The court discussed the evidence and reasoning behind the acquittal of the accused Badar under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The court found that the notice sent by the first informant to the accused was not reliable, and the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused. The court reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the appeal against the acquittal of the accused Badar under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, while the other accused were found guilty and convicted. The prosecution's case was based on eyewitness testimony and medical evidence regarding the fatal injuries inflicted on the victim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the acquittal of the accused Badar was based on unreliable evidence and lack of proof by the prosecution. The court reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the evidence, the motive for the crime, and the discrepancies in the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of reliable evidence supporting the acquittal of the accused Badar and the discrepancies in the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The court reversed the acquittal of the accused Badar and convicted him under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The other accused were also found guilty and convicted.
Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Heard Sri D.I. Faridi, learned AGA appearing for the State of U.P.-appellant, Sri N.I. Jafri, learned counsel for the respondent-accused in the aforesaid Government Appeal, Mohd. Irfan, Advocate & Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior counsel for the appellant and the learned AGA for the respondent-State in Criminal Appeal No. 1157 of 1983. Perused the record.
2. The aforesaid government appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the State of U.P.-appellant challenging the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 11.5.1983 passed by the Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Rampur in S.T. No. 100 of 1982 (State Versus Badar and others).
3. By the impugned order respondent-accused Badar was not found guilty of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. framed against him and had been acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. Appellants-accused Tahir and Mikki Mian were found guilty by the same judgment and order impugned for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and each of them had been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
4. Connected Criminal Appeal No.1156 of 1983 has been preferred by appellant Tahir son of Munna Mian against the same judgment and order dated 11.5.1983 impugned in Government Appeal No. 2019 of 1983 whereby he was convicted and sentenced under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life on the ground that the conviction and sentence of the appellant is against the weight of evidence on record, is too severe and is bad in law. In this appeal accused-appellant Tahir has prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the conviction and sentence awarded against him.
5. Criminal Appeal No. 1156 of 1983 and Criminal Appeal No. 1157 of 1983 have been connected along with Government Appeal No. 2019 of 1983 vide order dated 11.11.1983. Criminal Appeal No. 1157 of 1983 has been preferred by appellant Mikki Mian son of Munnu Mian challenging the validity and correctness of the same judgment and order dated 11.5.1983 impugned in Government Appeal No. 2019 of 1983 whereby he was convicted and sentenced under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life.
6. Since aforesaid Government Appeal and Criminal Appeals emanate from the common judgment and are entwined by same facts and law, therefore, they have been heard together and are being decided by this judgment.
7. The government appeal has been preferred on the ground that three eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution have been believed by the learned trial Court who have specifically deposed that respondent-accused Badar had his perpetration into the incident of crime along with two convicted accused persons. Incident had taken place in broad day light; that the three accused-assailants were recognized by the witnesses and the reasoning given by the learned trial Court in connection with the production of (Ex.Kha-1) has no bearing on the incident in which Noor Ahmad is said to have been killed. Moreover, no question regarding (Ex.Kha-1) was put to Hafeez, who has appeared as prosecution witness in the said case and the evidence of Absar Ahmad, Advocate (DW-1) is not reliable. Learned trial Court has erred in relying his evidence and acquitting accused Badar as such it was prayed in this appeal that the order of acquittal may be set aside by convicting and sentencing the respondent-accused Badar. It is also urged by the learned AGA that at the time when Noor Ahmad was fired upon in the Biri branch/shop which was 5 ft.x 10 ft. dimension, he ran away but all the three accused Mikki Mian, Tahir and Badar attacked upon him. He has relied upon the statement of Irshad Khan (PW-4) wherein he stated that accused Tahir and Badar caught hold of Noor Mohammad and accused Mikki Mian attacked upon Noor Ahmad with Chhuri.
8. He has relied upon the finding recorded in the judgment impugned wherein it has been noted by the learne
