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

1964 Supreme(MP) 23

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
T. P. NAIK, N. M. GOLVALKAR, JJ.
State of M. P.
Vs.
Nabi Bux and others
Cr. A. No. 299 of 1962 from judgment of Shri M. D. Kirtane, Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur;
Decided on : 13-2-1964

Advocates appeared:
R. J. Bhave, Government Advocate for State;
S. P. Bhargava & Rajendra Singh for respondents.

Headnote:(1) Criminal trial-communal riot case-Principles for appreciating evidence in appeal against acquittal.

       In a case arising out of communal riots and where the complicity of the accused persons depends mainly on the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, certain matters have to be borne in mind which have a bearing in appreciating the evidence.

       (a) Where the witnesses belong to one community in a case which has assumed communal colour, the Court has to guard against their communal prejudices having the better of their regard for truth.

       (b) Where the main witnesses are near relations, though this fact by itself is not any reason for rejecting their testimony, it furnishes a strong motive for overstating ones' case, for exaggerating it and for falsely implicating persons. Consequently greater care shall have to be taken in scrutinizing their evidence.

       (c) The prosecution witnesses could not impress the trial Judge who had the opportunity of seeing them depose before him and, consequently, his appreciation of their reliability would have to be given due weight. [Para 7]

       Other considerations in this particular case also detailed. [Para 7]

       (2) Penal Code, 1860 - S. 120B - inference of criminal conspiracy-only association not sufficient - there should be proof of suspicious nature of it.

       In order to permit a reasonable inference of criminal conspiracy, there must be proof not only of association but also of something suspicious in such association. [Para 12]

       (3) Criminal trial-prosecution witnesses mixing truth with falsehood - conflict between paramount importance of convicting the guilty and rules of adjudication of guilt-proper cause for the Courts.

       Though we are of opinion that one or the other of the accused-respondents may have been/present in the unlawful assembly, we cannot, with certainty, say who it was, because the prosecution witnesses have so mixed truth with falsehood that it is difficult to ascertain who the accused are with respect to whom they could be believed. Under the circumstances, we found that the only course, which prudence dictated and which alone could save innocent persons from being wrongly convicted, was to look for corroboration, in material particulars, of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and to refuse to believe them unless independent adequate corroboration, in material particulars, was available.

       We are not unmindful of the paramount social importance of convicting the guilty; but when certain rules of adjudication have been prescribed, it is not for us to doubt their wisdom and to substitute for them a different set of rules more calculated to uphold the conviction in our problematical efforts to reach the crimes. [Para 19]

       

JUDGMENT

Naik, J.-

l. The accused-respondents Nos. 1 to 15, namely, Nabi Bux, Ramzan, Habibullah, Bismillah, Abdul Salam, Mohommad Shafi, Peer Bux. Papa Ramzan, Kadar, Ramzan s/o Razzak, Sheikh Mohammad, Haji Amir Badshah, Gafoor, Usman and J:cmaluddin, were prosecuted in the Court of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, for offences under sections 120-B, 148, 436, 450, 452, 323, 324 and 397 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court acquitted them all of all the offences. The State Government has, therefore, filed this appeal against their acquittals.

2. The case for the prosecution, in brief, was as follows :-

On the night of 7-2-1961, at about 9-15 p.m., an assembly consisting of about 300-400 persons come to the house of the complainant Ramchandra (P.W. 1), that the assembly was shouting communal slogans, inciting the people to kill and lot the Hindus and that the members of that assembly were armed with axes, speas, lathis, daggers and flaming torches. The complaint Ramchandra (P.W. 1) was in his house at that time, along with his son, Shambhu Dayal (P.W. 2) and a widowed sister Mst. Gomti Bai (P.W. 6). In order to ascertain as to what the commotion was about, the complainant Ramchandra (P.W. 1) opened the front door of his house when he saw the accused-respondent Ramzan Papa, whom he asked as to what the matter was. Ramzan Papa assured him that no harm would come to them. Even thereafter, suspecting that something was wrong, the three of them (viz., P.Ws. 1, 2 and 6) went up to the first floor of their house. From the balcony of their house, they then saw a large mob of about 300-400 strong converging on the Nalband Mohalla and their house. The rioters thereupon broke open the door of the Parchhi of the house of the complainant Ramchandra (P.W. 1) and set fire to it. Some of the rioters claimed up a ladder on to the balcony of his house and threw acid on Ramchandra (P.W. 1) and Shambhu Dayal (P.W. 2) which caused acid burns to them. Meanwhile, a stone hurled by one of the members of the assembly struck Mst. Gomti Bai (P.W. 6) injuring her. Some of the members of the assemble also took away a cash-box containing Rs. 1,500/- from the ground-floor of the house of the complainant Ramchandra (P.W. 1) Shortly afterwards, the police arrived on the scene and had to open fire on the mob before peace could be restored. It is further alleged that all the aforesaid attack as well as the attack on the other houses of the locality was in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy entered into between the accused-respondents Hafiz Nabi Bux, Habibullah Ramzan Papa and Haji Amir Badshah, along with other Muslims of Garha, Baidra Mohalla, Kanchghar, Ghamapur, Naya Mohalla, Gohalpur and Nalband Mohalla in general. It is further alleged that in the police firing, which had taken place, the accused-respondent Hafiz Nabi Bux was wounded in his leg.

The first information report (Ex. P-1) of the incident was made by the complainant Ramchandra (P.W. 1) at the Victora Hospital on the 8th of February 1961, at 12 noon. During investigation, the doors of the home of complainant Ramchandra (P.W. 1) were seized by the police.

3. All the accused-respondents abjured their guilt and pleaded that they had been falsely implicated due to communal feelings.

To explain the injury caused to his leg, by a gunshot, the accused-respondent Hafiz Nabi Bux stated that on the night of the 7th February 1961 one Kunjbihari was blowing counches and ringing bells and that when he (the accused) had remonstrated with him not to do so, the said Kunjbihari had fired at him which had resulted in a wound in his leg.

4. The trial Court acquitted all the accused-respondents inter alia holding that though there was an unlawful assembly at Nalband Mohalla square on the night of the 7th of February 1961, the complicity of the accused-respondents therein had not been conclusively establisbed, because the prosecution witnesses, who spoke of the presence of the accused-








































































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