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) 1495

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
BRIJ RAJ SINGH, SIDDHARTH, JJ.
Mahmood Ali – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.6909 of 2009
Decided On : 08-08-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mohd. Afzal, Manoj Singh, Mukhtar Alam.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of credible witness accounts for conviction, finding significant contradictions and lack of independent corroboration in the prosecution's case.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25/4 - Conviction and sentencing of the appellant for life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and one year under Arms Act set aside due to lack of credible evidence and contradictions in witness statements. (Paras 41, 40)

(B) Evidence - Witness credibility - The court found that key witnesses were either chance witnesses or provided contradictory statements, undermining the prosecution's case. (Paras 26, 37)

Facts of the case:

The appellant was accused of murdering Mohd. Raees Ahmad, allegedly due to personal enmity, with the incident witnessed by several individuals. However, key witnesses later contradicted their statements, raising doubts about the prosecution's narrative.

Findings of Court:

The trial court's conviction was deemed perverse due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.

Issues: The main issues included the reliability of witness testimonies and the adequacy of evidence supporting the conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of credible and consistent witness accounts for a conviction, highlighting the contradictions and lack of independent corroboration in this case.

Result: Appeal allowed; the appellant acquitted.

JUDGMENT :

(Brij Raj Singh, J.)

1. The present appeal has been filed against the common judgement and order dated 06.11.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No.201 of 2008, arising out of Case Crime No.444 of 2007, thereby convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 IPC for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year additional imprisonment and further in Sessions Trial No.189 of 2008, arising out of Case Crime No.478 of 2007, under Section 25/4 Arms Act, thereby convicting and sentencing the appellant for one year imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year additional imprisonment. However, both the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. As per the prosecution case, the complainant, Raj Mohammad lodged a report mentioning therein that his maternal uncle, Mohd. Raees Ahmad S/o Rafeeq Ahmad used to live in his house and he was going to attend the Namaz on 26. 07.2007 at 5.30 AM. The accused-appellant, Mahmood Ali assaulted his maternal uncle by knife in front of Power-loom factory. His maternal uncle made alarm and fell down. The accused-appellant ran away from the place by hurling knife. It is alleged that accused-appellant had brought a lady, namely, Parveen who had gone to some other place after living with him for 5-6 months. The accused-appellant had developed enmity with Mohd. Raees Ahmad believing that Mohd. Raees Ahmad helped Parveen, who left the house of the accused-appellant. The complainant, Mohd. Alam S/o Bundhu and other neighbours had seen the accused-appellant assaulting his maternal uncle. The complainant had taken his maternal uncle to the Government Hospital, but he died before reaching the hospital.

3. On the basis of written Tehrir FIR was lodged in Case Crime No.444 of 2007, under Section 302 IPC and after recovery of the knife, second FIR was lodged in Case Crime No.478 of 2007 under Section 25/4 Arms Act. Inquest was conducted and thereafter the dead body was sent for post-mortem. The cases were investigated by the Investigating Officer, who after completion of enquiry, filed two separate charge sheets; one under Sections 302 IPC and the other under Section 25/4 Arms Act against the accused-appellant. The cases were committed to the court of sessions. Both the cases were tried together. Charges were framed against the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC and Section 25/4 Arms Act. The accused-appellant denied the charges and pleaded for trial.

4. The prosecution to prove its case, produced the following eight witnesses:-

    P.W.-1 Raj Mohammad

P.W.-2 S.I. Sayeed Ahmad

P.W.-3 Nayeem

P.W.-4 Inayat Ali

P.W.-5 S.I. Reshampal Singh

P.W.-6 Rajmani Rakesh

P.W.-7 Sanjay Tyagi

P.W.-8 Dr. Ramendra Singh

5. 19 exhibits were also produced by the prosecution to prove its case.

6. The accused-appellant was confronted under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he deposed before the court that he was falsely implicated In the case. He also produced D.W.-1, Smt. Parveen to support his case.

7. The trial court after examining the witnesses and adducing the evidence on record, convicted the accused-appellant as mentioned above. Hence, the present appeal has been filed.

8. P.W.-1, Raj Mohammad was examined before the trial court and he deposed the same facts in his examination-in-chief as has been narrated in the FIR. In the cross-examination, he deposed that the FIR was not written by him and he only made signature. He had not seen the incident because he was not present at the place of occurrence. He lodged the report at the behest of the neighbours. He reached to the place of occurrence after half an hour of the incident and he took his maternal uncle to the hospital.

9. P.W.-2, Sayeed Ahmad was examined before the court and he deposed that he was posted as Sub-Inspector on 26. 07.2007 in the police station. He took the custody of the dead body of Mohd. Raees Ahmad and c

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