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

2022 Supreme(MP) 1489

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
G.S. Ahluwalia, Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, JJ.
Ahmed Sayeed & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Cr.A. No. 410 of 2010 With Cr.A. No. 456 of 2010
Decided On : 04-01-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Shri R.K.S. Kushwaha, Counsel for Appellants No. 1 and 2, Shri Padam Singh with Shri Udaiveer Singh Counsel for Appellants No. 3 and 4, for the Appellant; Shri C.P. Singh Counsel for the State, for the Respondent

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 302/149, and 307/149 - Conviction of appellants for murder and attempt to murder - Appellants convicted for the murder of three individuals and attempting to kill others - All sentences to run concurrently. (Paras 2-10, 12-24)

(B) Eyewitness Testimony - Reliance on eyewitness accounts affirmed despite variances in accounts - The court emphasized that discrepancies in testimony do not undermine the overall trustworthiness of injured witnesses. (Paras 25-26, 118-137)

Facts of the case:
Dispute over land boundaries leads to the violence involving multiple gunshots fired by the appellants, resulting in the deaths of three individuals and injuries to others. The incident arose after a failed attempt to resolve a boundary dispute amicably. (Paras 3-24)

Findings of Court:
The evidence established that the deaths were homicidal, with the appellants actively involved in the unlawful assembly that resulted in murder and attempted murder, despite their claiming self-defense. (Paras 22-25, 130-132)

Issues: 1. Whether the appellants formed an unlawful assembly? 2. Did the appellants' defense of private defense hold? 3. Were variances in witness testimonies substantial enough to discredit the prosecution? (Paras 118-135)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled the eyewitnesses credible, emphasizing that their injuries guaranteed their presence at the scene. Variance in testimonies did not negate the coherence of the prosecution's case. Occurrence of prior enmity among parties supported the finding of a common object in an unlawful assembly. (Paras 28-35, 119-121)

Result: Appeals dismissed; convictions upheld.

Table of Content
1. overview of the case and facts. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments by the defense about witness reliability. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
3. court's observations on evidence and its evaluation. (Para 13 , 19 , 48)
4. medical evidence of deceased individuals. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
5. discussion on the legal implications of evidence conflicts. (Para 30 , 31)
6. analysis of the common object of unlawful assembly. (Para 46 , 50)
7. final decision and implications. (Para 91 , 92)

JUDGMENT

G.S. Ahluwalia J. - By this common judgment, the Cr.A. No. 410/2010 and Cr.A. No. 456 of 2010 shall be decided.

2. Cr.A. No. 410 of 2010 has been filed by Appellants Ahmed Sayeed, Samim, Anees and Shakeel against the judgment and sentence dated 13-4-2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, Distt. Vidisha in S.T. No. 15/2004, by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the following offences :

    a. Under Section 302 /149 of I.P.C. (On three counts for murder of Fida Mohd., Abdul Azeez and Rabia bi) and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- in default 6 months R.I., on three counts ;

    b. Under Section 307 /149 of I.P.C. (On three counts for attempting to kill Anwar, Johra bi, and Mohd. Khalil) and sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default 6 months R.I., on three counts ;

    c. Appellant Ahmed Sayeed under Section 148 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- in default 3 months R.I.

    d. Appellants Samim, Anees and Shakeel under Section 147 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- in default 3 months R.I.

All the sentences to run concurrently.

Whereas Cr.A. No.456/2010 has been filed by the State for enhancement of sentence and for award of death penalty.

3. The necessary facts for disposal of present appeal in short are that the complainant Gaffar Khan lodged a Dehati Nalishi, Ex. P.1 on 5-5-2003 at 10:25 A.M., on the allegations that he is the resident of village Jhujhalakheda and is an agriculturist by profession. There was a dispute between Abdul Azeez and Ahmed Sayeed on the question of boundary of field. At about 8:00 A.M., Haneef Khan, Munne bhai, Fida Bhai and the complainant had gone to amicably settle the matter. Anees, Shakeel, Yusuf and Shamim, all sons of Ahmed Sayeed were also there. The complainant, Munna bhai, Fida Bhai and Haneef Bhai were affixing stones on the earthen boundary. Ahmed Sayeed and his sons Anees, Samim, Yusuf and Shakeel started abusing and scuffling. They were separated by the complainant and others. Thereafter, Ahmed Sayeed and his sons ran towards their house. Ahmed Sayeed came out along with his .12 bore gun. Shakeel was following him along with a belt of cartridges. Shakeel, Yusuf and Samim also came there and started shouting that all should be killed. Ahmed Sayeed fired a gun shot causing injury to Khalil who was standing in the courtyard of Ahmed Sayeed. He fell down after sustaining gun shot injury. Thereafter, Ahmed Sayeed fired a gun shot causing injury to Azeez, who also fell down after sustaining gun shot injury. Azeez was standing in front of the house of Munnawar. Rabia bi was also standing there, who also sustained gun shot injuries and also fell down. The children and other ladies came on the spot and started crying and pleading for mercy from Ahmed Sayeed, but Ahmed Sayeed did not stop. Anees, Shamim, Shakeel and Yusuf were exhorting that no one should be spared. Thereafter, Ahmed Sayeed, after reloading his gun caused gun shot injuries to Johra bi, Akhtar, Jamil, Anwar, Rabia bi, Chhammu Khan, Haneef Khan. Ahmed Sayeed was challenging that if any body has a courage, then he may come forward. The people ran helter-skelter. Fida Bhai along with his wife, was going on a motor cycle to lodge a report. The movement he started the motor cycle, Sayeed Ahmed came nearer to the house of the complainant, and fired a gun shot causing injuries to Fida and his wife as a result, both of them fell d

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