Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW
ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, JJ.
Hafeez Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 878 of 2019
Decided On : 13-09-2024
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Appeal against conviction - The appellant challenged the trial court's judgment convicting him for murder and related offences based on insufficient evidence and reliance on hostile witness testimonies. The court found the trial court's conclusions perverse due to lack of credible evidence linking the appellant to the crime. (Paras 60-61)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 63 - Admissibility of secondary evidence - The trial court erred in relying on a photocopy of a marriage agreement without establishing the admissibility of secondary evidence. (Paras 28-29)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of murdering his wife, Sayra Bano, with allegations of dowry demands. The prosecution's case relied heavily on witness testimonies that later turned hostile, leading to a lack of evidence supporting the charges. (Paras 3-4)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the trial court's conclusions regarding the appellant's guilt were not supported by credible evidence, leading to the acquittal of the appellant. (Paras 60-61)
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of witness testimonies and the sufficiency of evidence to establish the appellant's guilt. (Paras 32-33)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution bears the burden of proof and that the appellant cannot be held guilty without credible evidence. The reliance on hostile witnesses without corroborating evidence was deemed insufficient for conviction. (Paras 45-46)
Result: Appeal allowed; the appellant acquitted of all charges.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The conviction of the appellant was primarily based on evidence that was found to be inadmissible or unreliable, such as a photocopy of a marriage agreement that was not properly authenticated or proved (!) .
The prosecution failed to establish that the deceased, Sayra Bano, was married to the appellant, as the witnesses consistently stated she was married to someone named Munna, and no credible evidence linked her to the appellant (!) (!) (!) .
There was no concrete evidence to prove that the deceased was present at the appellant’s residence at the time of her death, nor any direct evidence that the appellant caused her death. The evidence suggesting her presence in the house was based on suspicion and hearsay rather than factual proof (!) (!) .
The identification of the dead body as that of Sayra Bano was unsubstantiated, as the postmortem report indicated the face was unrecognizable, and no scientific methods or proper identification procedures were employed to confirm her identity (!) (!) .
The recovery of the dead body from the grave was not supported by proper exhumation procedures, and key witnesses who purportedly witnessed the recovery were not examined, rendering the recovery evidence unreliable (!) .
The weapon allegedly used in the crime was not conclusively proven to be recovered from the appellant’s house, as the evidence relied upon was weak and the blood analysis was inconclusive regarding the blood’s origin (!) .
The appellant’s statement denying the marriage and involvement in the crime was not adequately contradicted or corroborated by admissible evidence, and the trial court’s reliance on the absence of Munna’s evidence was misplaced, as the prosecution bears the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt (!) .
The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to produce any credible evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant, and many of the findings by the trial court were based on assumptions, misinterpretations, or perverse conclusions (!) (!) .
The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentences were set aside, leading to the acquittal of the appellant from all charges (!) .
The appellant, who had been in custody for over 7½ years without substantive evidence, was ordered to be released immediately, with a direction for the State to pay a token compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 for wrongful confinement (!) (!) .
The court highlighted the importance of adhering to proper evidentiary standards and principles of justice, reaffirming that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that an accused should not be convicted on unreliable or insufficient evidence.
JUDGMENT :
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Shri Indu Prakash Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri R.S. Dwivedi, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. By means of the instant appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. the appellant has challenged validity of the judgment and order dated 27.03.2019 passed by Sri Nand Pratap Ojha, the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Bahraich in Sessions Trial No. 110 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 215 of 2017 under Sections 498-A, 323, 304-B, 201, 504, 506, 302 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act registered at Police Station-Risiya, District Bahraich, to the extent that it holds the appellant guilty of committing offences under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. and sentences him to undergo simple imprisonment for life and pay Rs.50,000/- as fine and on failure to pay fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 3 years for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 5 years and pay Rs.10,000/- fine and in case of failure to pay fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one year for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C.
3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 15.01.2017, the informant Shabana, daughter of Azmat Khan, had given a written complaint to the Station House Officer, Risiya stating that her sister Sayra Bano had got married to the appellant-Hafeez Khan on 11.05.2016. Merely a few days after marriage, her sister informed her telephonically that the appellant, his mother - Zakrun Nisa, her maternal aunt Shahjahan and his grand-father Buddhu used to beat her for demanding dowry. Thereafter, the informant took her sister to her home. After some days, the appellant visited the informant’s home, apologized for his fault and assured that such things would not recur. The informant sent her sister with the appellant on 12.12.2016. After a few days, the informant’s sister informed her telephonically that all the aforesaid four persons had again started beating and harassing her for demanding dowry. The informant tried to contact her sister through phone, but her phone was switched off. On 15.01.2017, she went to her sister’s home at Makoliya where all the aforesaid four accused persons abused and threatened her and they turned her out of their home. The informant expressed a suspicion that the aforesaid four persons had made her sister disappear for demanding dowry.
4. The Investigating Officer claims that some informer told him that the appellant had killed his wife and had buried the dead body in the grave of one Kennoo, whereupon the appellant was taken into custody. The grave of Kennoo was dug out and a dead body was exhumed after digging upto a depth of merely about two feet. The inquest proceedings conducted at the spot of recovery of the dead body was witnessed by (1) the informant Smt. Shabana, (2) the informant’s sister Smt. Parveen, (3) Achhan son of Kennoo, (4) Abdul Naushad and (5) Pappu. It mentions that a red colour Kurta and salwar was there on the dead body and a Duppatta like sheet was wrapped around its neck. It mentions that the informant Smt. Shabana and her sister Smt. Parveen had identified the dead body as belonging to Sayra.
5. The postmortem examination of the dead body was conducted on 19.01.2017 itself and the postmortem report also makes a mention of the clothes and a black thread with Tabeez present on the dead body. The report mentions that the face of the body was not recognizable. Skin had peeled off with grayish dis-colouration, ligaments were loosened, nails, hairs easily pulled out, teeth loosened from their sockets and soft parts were changing into black mass. Eyeballs were missing and eye-tor orbit was filled with mud. The postmortem examination report mentioned some injuries on the dead body, including an incised wound of 8x2 cm, cervical vertebra deep over front of neck, trachea and cervical vertebra out, hyoid bone a
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; reliance on hostile witnesses without corroborating evidence is insufficient for conviction.
Murder – Non-examination of Doctor who conducted autopsy on dead body of deceased and who prepared post-mortem report is not fatal to case of prosecution.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances and motive in murder cases; failure to do so warrants acquittal.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden shifts to the accused to explain circumstances within their knowledge, especially when ....
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to establish a solid evidentiary basis results in acquittal.
The court reinforces that a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if deemed truthful, voluntary, and corroborated by reliable evidence.
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
The court relied on oral and documentary evidence to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 302 IPC.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
