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
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
Anter Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (2004) 10 SCC 657
Delhi Administration Vs. Bal Krishan (1972) 4 SCC 659
Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Mohd. Inayatullah Vs. State of Maharashtra (1976) 1 SCC 828
Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra
Sharad Birdichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra
Subramanya vs. State of Karnataka
AI
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in circumstantial evidence cases, where motive and the validity of recoveries are crucial.
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt if it forms a complete chain pointing to the accused, even without direct evidence.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and conclusive chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence; mere suspicion is ....
Criminal Law – Appeal against conviction – Theory of last seen – Reliability of - The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between point of time when Accused and deceased were seen las....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.