SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 252

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Siddhartha Varma, Anish Kumar Gupta, JJ.
Mohd. Shakeel – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Capital Case No. - 19 of 2022, Capital Case No. - 2 of 2023, Capital Reference No. -14 of 2022
Decided On : 22-03-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Apul Misra, Sukhvir Singh, Mukhtar Ahmad Ansari, Apul Misra, Sukhvir Singh

The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in circumstantial evidence cases, where motive and the validity of recoveries are crucial.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/34 - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25 and 27 - Death penalty imposed for the murder of three women - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence, including extra judicial confessions and recoveries - Prosecution failed to prove motive, last seen theory, and validity of recoveries due to lack of independent witnesses - Appeals allowed, and acquittal ordered. (Paras 32, 59, 60)

(B) Circumstantial Evidence - Requirements for conviction based on circumstantial evidence include establishing a complete chain of evidence, consistent with guilt, and excluding all reasonable hypotheses of innocence. (Paras 44, 46)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of three women, including the wife of one appellant, based on a First Information Report and subsequent investigations. The prosecution's case relied on extra judicial confessions and recoveries of weapons. (Paras 5, 32)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding motive and the validity of recoveries. (Paras 59, 60)

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the extra judicial confessions, the motive for the murders, and the admissibility of the recovery of weapons. (Paras 59, 60)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution's failure to prove the extra judicial confessions and the lack of independent witnesses for the recoveries rendered the evidence insufficient for conviction. (Paras 59, 60)

Result: Appeals allowed; both appellants acquitted of all charges.

JUDGMENT :

Anish Kumar Gupta, J.

1. Heard Shri Apul Misra and Shri Sukhvir Singh, learned counsel for both the appellants and Shri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A. assisted by Ms. Mayuri Mehrotra and Ms. Archana Singh for the State.

2. Capital case No. 19 of 2022 has been filed by Mohd. Shakeel-appellant against the judgement and order dated 3.11.2022 passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad whereby he has been convicted in S.T. No. 612 of 2007 arising out of Case Crime No. 1002 of 2007 P.S. Kotwali Farrukhabad District Farrukhabad under section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to death penalty with fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to go further Rigorous imprisonment for two years. He has also been convicted in S.T. No. 611 of 2011 arising out of Case Crime No. 1011 of 2007 P.S. Kotwali Farrukhabad District Farrukhabad under section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to imprisonment for three years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and under section 27 of Arms Act he is sentenced to imprisonment for three years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, with default stipulation.

3. Capital case No. 2 of 2023 has been filed by Mohd. Kaleem-appellant against the judgement and order dated 3.11.2022 passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad whereby he has been convicted in S.T. No. 612 of 2007 arising out of Case Crime No. 1002 of 2007 P.S. Kotwali Farrukhabad District Farrukhabad under section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to death penalty with fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further go Rigorous Imprisonment for two years. He has also been convicted in S.T. No. 611 of 2011 arising out of Case Crime No. 1012 of 2007 P.S. Kotwali Farrukhabad District Farrukhabad under section 25 of Arms Act and sentenced to imprisonment for three years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation.

Capital Reference No. -14 of 2022 has also been made by the trial court for confirmation of the death sentence of both the appellants.

4. Since both capital cases and capital reference arising out of a common judgement for the same incident, all were heard together and are now being decided by this common judgement.

5. The prosecution case in brief is that upon an incident having had taken place in the night intervening 25/26.07.2007, wherein three ladies have been murdered, a First Information Report was lodged by one Mohd. Shakeel s/o Sabbir Ahmad. First Information Report was scribed by Dr. Dinesh Chandra Agnihotri on the dictation of Shakeel (complainant). The allegation in the First Information Report was that in the house of his cousin (Chacha's son) Mohd. Kaleem in the night intervening 25/26.07.2007 at around 4:00 A.M., certain unknown persons had committed murder of the wife of his brother-Kaleem, namely, Yaasmeen, mother, namely Noorjahan and sister, namely Nasreen and that on the body of the three deceased there was evidence of the fact that they were killed by bullets and there were also other marks of injuries caused by sharp edged weapons. It was stated in the First Information Report that the brother of the first informant, namely Kaleem was also grievously injured and he was sent to Lohiya Hospital for medical treatment. Upon the First Information Report having been lodged, investigation commenced. From the spot a recovery memo of the recovered articles was prepared. On the spot the recovery was made by the Investigating Officer (IO) of two empty cartridges of 315 bore and one empty cartridge of 12 Bore. The other articles which were taken into possession were plain soil and the blood stained soil. Thereafter, on the same date, inquest report was prepared and the three dead bodies of Nasreem, Yaasmeem and Noorjahan were sent for postmortem. As per the case of the prosecution, Kaleem was taken to the hospital by the Police and he was subsequently arrested on the statements made by Mohan and Ka

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top