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

2009 Supreme(Online)(All) 209

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Poonam Srivastav, *Rajesh Chandra, JJ.
Imamuddin v. State of U.P.
Sessions Trial No. 187 of 1999



The conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act was overturned due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of reliable evidence supporting the prosecution's case.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25 - Murder conviction - Accused convicted for murder of the victim based on eyewitness testimonies and firearm recovery. Court found discrepancies in prosecution evidence, including reliance on witness statements later deemed unreliable. Recovery of firearm was not proven to be made pursuant to a disclosure statement, raising doubts about evidence integrity. (Paras 1, 25, 26, 36)

(B) Evidence - Standard of proof - The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and discrepancies negate the reliability of witness testimonies. (Paras 24, 35)

(C) Acquittal - The rationale for acquittal centered on the lack of credible evidence and the trial court's erroneous reliance on unreliable testimony. (Paras 34, 36)

Table of Content
1. background information on the case and incident details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments from the appellant's counsel challenging the conviction. (Para 7 , 8)
3. examination of eyewitness accounts and their credibility. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. clarifications on evidentiary standards regarding witness credibility. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 24)
5. evaluation of the recovery of the weapon and its evidential value. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
6. final decision and acquittal of the appellant. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)

1. This appeal has been filed by accused appellant Imamuddin against the Judgement and order dated 26-9-2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No.3, Azamgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 187 of 1999 convicting him for the offence under S.302, IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/- with default clause. The appellant has further been convicted for the offence under S.25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of two years and with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default clause. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The background facts are that one Zaheer Ahmad resident of Police Station Devgaon, District Azamgarh submitted a written report (Ext. Ka1) at Police Station, Devgaon on 13-11-1997 at 5.05 p.m. and alleged that his brother Nabi Sarvar alias Khaddar was doing some job with Rais son of Idris resident of Jehatmandpur Police Station, Devgaon, district Azamgarh but he left the job about three months back. It was further mentioned that in the last month 'Hawala' money belonging to Rais was seized by Varanasi Police. Rais suspected that Nabi Sarvar was behind this police action and as such nurtured ill will against Nabi Sarvar and had also threatened him of his life.

3. According to the complainant Zaheer Ahmad, on 13-11-1997, he along with his brother Nabi Sarvar was coming on the scooter from Devgaon and was going towards his home. When at about 4 p.m. they reached within the vicinity of village Chandapur accused Imamuddin resident of Kundanpur, accused Nasruddin resident of village Dauna and one more associate came from behind on a motorcycle and after coming ahead of the scooter stopped their motorcycle. The complainant in order to avoid accident turned towards left side and went into a ditch having water. The accused Nasruddin and two others dragged Nabi Sarvar from the ditch, brought him on the side of the road and then accused Imamuddin and Nasruddin opened fire upon Nabi Sarvar with their pistols. Nabi Sarvar fell down and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. It was also mentioned in the FIR that this murder was committed at the instance of Rais.

4. On the basis of the written report a chick report Ext. Ka 10 was prepared at the police station and the case was entered into the General Diary (Ext. Ka 11). The investigation was taken up by Ram Chandra Bharati (PW 7) Station Officer, Devgaon. By the time he reached the spot, the inquest over the dead body of Rais had already been conducted by Sub-Inspector, Chakrapanidutt Misra and he had prepared the inquest report Ext. Ka 12. Mr. Misra had also prepared the sketch of dead body, police form No. 13, letter to the Reserve Police Inspector, Police Lines, Azamgarh and letter to Chief Medical Officer Azamgarh, Police Form No. 33 respectively (Ext. Ka 13 to Ext. Ka 17). Mr. Misra had also collected a sandal allegedly belonging to one of the accused, a scooter belonging to deceased Nabi Sarvar, one chappal belonging to deceased Nabi Sarvar as well as plain and blood stained earth under memos Ext. Ka 19 to Ext. Ka 22. The Station Officer, Mr. Bharati prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka 18) of the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of the complainant Zaheer Ahmad as well as the statement of Sarfaraj and others. On 26-11-1997 Mr. Bharati was transferred from the police station and thereafter the investigation was taken over by Deputy Sup



















































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