IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI, JJ.
Sayeed and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 6693 Of 2010
Decided On : 27-09-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details on the prosecution case and witness accounts. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 10) |
| 2. postmortem details affirming cause of death. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. arguments against witness credibility and evidence reliability. (Para 12 , 14 , 16 , 18) |
| 4. court's reliance on direct evidence and witness testimony. (Para 20 , 22) |
ORDER :
(Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi, J.)
1. Heard Sri I.M. Khan, learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. This criminal appeal has been filed against the common judgment and order dated 26.08.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, court no. 6 Saharanpur in S.T.s No. 742 of 2005 (State vs. Sayeed alias Shahid) in case crime no. 448/05 under Section 302 and 307 IPC, S.T. No. 744 of 2005 (State vs. Sayeed alias Shahid) in case crime no. 453/05 under Sections 25 /4 of ARMS ACT , and S.T. No. 746 of 2005 (State vs. Zahid) Case Crime No. 470/05, under Section 25 /4 of ARMS ACT , P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District-Saharanpur, convicting the accused-appellants (Sayeed @ Shahid and Zahid) under Section 302 /34 and sentencing each of them to undergo life imprisonment, and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, three months simple imprisonment, under Section 307 /34 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, three months simple imprisonment and further convicting the accused-appellant (Sayeed @ Shahid) under Section 25 /4 of ARMS ACT and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, one month simple imprisonment and accused-appellant (Zahid) under Section 25 /4 of ARMS ACT and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and imposing a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, one month simple imprisonment. All the sentences to run concurrently.
3. In brief the prosecution case is that complainant-Furkan gave a written information dated 09.09.2005 at Police Station-Kotwali Dehat, District-Saharanpur that today on 09.09.2005 at about 7:00 p.m. he along with his father Rashid Ahmad and brothers Nasir, Kabir and Abdul Qadir after offering Namaz were coming out from the Mosque situated at pooja road, village-Rasoolpur when accused-persons Islam, Shahid, Zahil (correct name-Zahid) and Israr who are the resident of the same village armed with knives/chhura and saying that today no one should be let alive suddenly with the intention to kill, attacked them. His brothers Nasir and Kabir got seriously injured and Abdul Qadir also received serious injuries. Fear and panic prevailed. The devotees coming out from the Mosque ran helter-skelter bare footed to save their lives and the neighbourers out of fear shut the doors and windows of their houses. All the four accused persons seriously injured the three brothers of the complainant. Complainant and his brothers ran towards their house to save their lives, the accused-persons chased them and entered into their house because of which the female members of the house ran outside towards the forest to save their lives. Injured Nasir, Kabir and Qadir were taken to the District Hospital by the complainant and his father with the aid of other villagers where the doctor declared Nasir and Kabir dead while Abdul Qadir is under treatment. The incident has been witnessed by the complainant and his father and other villagers in the electric light.
4. On the aforesaid written information, case crime no. 448 of 2005 under Sections 307 and 302 IPC was registered against Islam, Sayeed, Zahil and Israr all sons of Phullu and the investigation commenced, the inquest report and related papers of the dead bodies of Nasir and Kabir were prepared, the dead bodies were sealed and sent for post-mortem. The Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence and collected the blood stained and plain soil from the spot and sealed it in separate containers, prepared the site plan
Abdul Sayeed vs. State of M.P.
Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab
Baleshwar Mahto vs. State of Bihar
Rajesh Singh vs. State of U.P.
The burden of proof rests on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and contradictions in eyewitness testimonies may result in acquittal.
Murder - Conviction Upheld - It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the f....
Point of law : Conviction upheld - Ocular testimony stands corroborated with medical evidence - Recovery of weapon at the instance of accused.
(1) FIR is an important document even though it is not a substantive piece of evidence. Prompt FIR prevents possibility of coloured version being put by informant.(2) Testimony of witnesses cannot be....
Conviction for murder by unlawful assembly sustainable on reliable sole eyewitness to killing, corroborated by medical evidence and abduction witnesses, despite FIR delay, witness non-examination, an....
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.