Md. Jabbar Ali vs State of Assam - 2022 Supreme(SC) 1065

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 1065

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AJAY RASTOGI, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Md. Jabbar Ali & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Assam - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1105 of 2010
With
Md. Ajmot Ali - Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1128 of 2010
Decided On : 17-10-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR, Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Adv., Mr. Anupam Bhati, Adv., Mr. Nakul Chaudhary, Adv.
For the Respondent: M/S. Corporate Law Group, AOR, Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR, Mr. Kumar Arnav Singhdeo, Adv.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 IPC - SUBJECT - MURDER - ACT/SECTION REFERRED - SECTION 302, 149 IPC - SUMMARY - The Supreme Court set aside the concurrent findings of the High Court and the Trial Court convicting the accused for murder and other offences. The Court held that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was full of contradictions and discrepancies and could not be relied upon to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Court also noted that the prosecution had failed to examine any independent witnesses and that the witnesses examined were all related to the deceased.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants were convicted by the Trial Court and the High Court for the murder of one Ekkabar Ali. The prosecution alleged that the appellants had formed an unlawful assembly and had assaulted the deceased with deadly weapons, causing his death. The appellants denied the allegations and claimed that they were not present at the scene of the crime.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was full of contradictions and discrepancies. The Court noted that the witnesses had given different versions of the incident and that their testimonies were not consistent with each other. The Court also found that the prosecution had failed to examine any independent witnesses and that the witnesses examined were all related to the deceased. The Court held that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was not reliable and could not be relied upon to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was reliable and could be relied upon to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the prosecution had failed to examine any independent witnesses and that the witnesses examined were all related to the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was full of contradictions and discrepancies and could not be relied upon to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Court also noted that the prosecution had failed to examine any independent witnesses and that the witnesses examined were all related to the deceased. The Court held that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was not reliable and could not be relied upon to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the concurrent findings of the High Court and the Trial Court convicting the accused for murder and other offences. The Court acquitted the accused of all the charges levelled against them in the instant case.

JUDGMENT :

Nagarathna, J.

1. These Criminal Appeals have been filed assailing the common impugned judgment and order dated 21.08.2009 passed by the Gauhati High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 2007 by which the judgment of conviction dated 29.12.2006 and order of sentence dated 30.12.2006 passed in Special Case No.46 of 2004 by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Barpeta (‘Fast Track Court’, for the sake of convenience) has been upheld by dismissing the aforesaid appeals and consequently confirming the conviction of all the accused persons.

2. Since both the criminal appeals arise out of a common impugned judgment, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank before the Fast Track Court.

4. The Fast Track Court vide its judgment dated 29.12.2006 convicted the appellants herein viz., Md. Yunush Ali (accused No.1), Md. Hasan Ali (accused No.2), Md. Omar Ali (accused No.3), Md. Jabbar Ali (accused No.4), Md. Tabibor Rahman (accused No.5), Mustt. Hazerabhanu (accused No.6), Mustt. Chandrabanu (accused No.7), Md. Moyan Ali (accused No.10) and Md. Sahed Ali (accused No.11) [all appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1105 of 2010] and Md. Ajmot Ali (accused No. 8) [appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1128 of 2010].

5. The present appeal qua accused No.1 stood abated vide order dated 04.10.2010 since he died on 06.11.2009 during the pendency of the aforesaid appeals.

6. By its judgment dated 30.12.2006, the Fast Track Court sentenced accused Nos.4, 10 and 11 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months more, for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’, for short). Each of these accused have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC read with Section 148 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 447 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

7. By the same judgment of the Fast Track Court, accused Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year each for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC, simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and simple imprisonment of two months for the offence punishable under Section 447 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

8. By the judgment of the Fast Track Court, accused Nos.1 and 5 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year each for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC; simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC and simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 447 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

9. Currently, all the accused-appellants are on bail. accused No.4 and accused No.10 were granted bail vide order of this Court dated 18.08.2017; accused No.11 was granted bail by order dated 03.04.2017 and the accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were granted bail vide order dated 25.10.2010.

10. Succinctly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 19.11.1999 at about 7:00 a.m. when Md. Baju Mollik (PW-6) had gone to plough his land, an altercation took place between him and accused No.11. At that time, the other co-accused armed with falla, jong, dagger, lathi etc. attacked Md. Baju Mollik. Ekkabar Ali, Md. Samad Ali (PW-1) and