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

2025 Supreme(All) 2403

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTH, PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, JJ.
Ibrahim - Appellant 
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 442 of 2013, Criminal Appeal No. 772 of 2013, Criminal Appeal No. 789 of 2013
Decided On : 07-04-2025


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Amit Daga, Yogesh Srivastava, Ajay Kumar Mishra, Arun Srivastava, Kandarp Srivastava, Avnish Kumar Srivastava, Sunil Kumar Yadav, V.P. Srivastava.
For the Respondent:Govt. Advocate.

In cases of honor killings, the burden of proof shifts to the accused when the crime occurs within their domain, requiring them to explain the circumstances.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 302, 149 - Conviction for murder and rioting - Accused-appellants were convicted for life imprisonment for the murder of Sharafat and Soni, stemming from a family dispute over an illicit relationship. The prosecution established motive and presence at the crime scene through eyewitness accounts and circumstantial evidence. (Paras 2, 38, 64)

(B) Burden of Proof - Section 106 of the Evidence Act - The court emphasized the burden of proof lies on the accused in cases where the crime occurs within their domain, reinforcing that they must provide an explanation for the circumstances surrounding the crime. (Paras 41, 62)

Facts of the case:
The case involved a family dispute leading to the murder of Sharafat and Soni, who were killed by the accused-appellants, with evidence including eyewitness testimonies and post-mortem reports confirming the cause of death. (Paras 4, 39)

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the conviction based on the evidence presented, confirming the trial court's findings of guilt against the accused-appellants for murder and rioting. (Paras 64, 65)

Issues: The main issues included the reliability of eyewitness testimonies and the adequacy of evidence linking the accused to the crime. (Paras 38, 60)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the trial court's reliance on eyewitness accounts, despite some witnesses turning hostile, was justified, as the overall evidence supported the prosecution's case. (Paras 62, 64)

Result: Appeals dismissed; convictions and sentences upheld.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case including the incident and fir. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8)
2. arguments regarding the evidence and motive behind the crime. (Para 38 , 39 , 40)
3. legal principles regarding circumstantial evidence and witness testimony. (Para 41 , 42 , 48 , 59)
4. court's analysis on the burden of proof and evidence evaluation. (Para 43 , 44)
5. final judgment and order confirming conviction. (Para 64 , 65 , 66)

JUDGMENT :

(Praveen Kumar Giri, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the accused- appellants, Sri Prem Shankar Prasad, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the record.

2. The above noted appeals have been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 7.1.2013 and the order of sentence dated 8.1.2013 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Meerut, in Sessions Trial No.358 of 2006 (State vs. Ibrahim and others) wherein the Trial Court has convicted accused-appellants under Sections 147, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in case of default in payment of fine, further to undergo one year imprisonment and for two years’ imprisonment under Section 147 of IPC .

3. The Trial Court’s record is received and paper books are ready. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, the entire evidence is re-scrutinized and re-appreciated.

4. The prosecution story is that informant- Raees Ahmad, brother of deceased-Sharafat, had given a written report at the concerned police station stating therein that the house of accused-Ibrahim is in front of his house. Accused-Ibrahim and his family members complained to the informant that his brother, Sharafat, had an illicit relationship with his daughter, Soni, therefore, the informant must send his brother out of village otherwise they would face dire consequences. On these facts, informant proposed marriage of his brother with Soni but the accused-appellants denied the proposal and kept a grudge against the informant’s family. Thereafter, on 05.02.2006, accused-Ibrahim along with his six sons and two other persons, carrying guns, sticks and axes came assaulting their daughter/ sister, Soni, and abducted Sharafat from his home. Thereafter, they killed Sharafat.

5. The informant regarding incident dated 05.02.2006 which occurred at about 11:00 P.M. (Night) lodged a First Information Report on 06.02.2006 at 02:30 A.M. (night) while police station was at a distance of about of 6 KM.

6. The First Information Report was lodged as Case Crime No. 16 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC at Police Station-Bahsuma, District- Meerut.

7. The First Information Report was lodged against Ibrahim (father of deceased-Soni) and his six sons, namely, Farukh, Mussarat, Ayub, Sannuar, Kayoom, Shaukin and two unknown persons in presence of eye-witnesses i.e. informant namely, Anvar, Liyaqat Ali, Yameen, Jiju. The incident took place at night and was seen in the artificial lights i.e. Gas Lamp and Torch Light as mentioned in the F.I.R. The place of occurrence is inside the house of the accused-appellants.

8. The motive was that deceased-Sharafat was having illicit relation with the daughter of the informant, Soni, which was diminishing the reputation of the accused-appellants, who happened to be neighbours of the informant.

9. S.I. Resham Singh (P.W.-4) reached on the spot and found two dead bodies which were of Soni and Sarafat, in the house of the accuse-appellants. He prepared panchayatnama/inquest report of deceased-Sharafat on 06.02.2006 at 03:30 A.M. (night) in artificial light in presence of witnesses namely, Ehsan, Jijudin, Shyam Lal Pradhan, Mahkar Singh and Mustkeem. In the panchayatnama/Inquest Report, the dead body was shown to have been found inside the room of the house of the accused-appellants and in the opinion of the witnesses of the panchayatnama/inquest report, deceased-Sharafat died due to injuries ca

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