Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. Ramasubramanian, Pankaj Mithal, JJ.
Mohd. Muslim – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh (Now Uttarakhand) – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.1089 of 2011
Decided On : 15-06-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Life sentence – Ante-timing of the FIR – Immediately on occurrence of incident, large number of people have assembled and even then prosecution was not successful in finding a proper eye witness or any other independent person who could have narrated entire incident – Son and nephew of deceased were following him on their own cycle but defence has doubted their presence – Conduct and behaviour of both of them appear to be unnatural inasmuch as, had their father been assaulted in manner alleged, they would have been first person to intervene so as to save him – Conduct of these two persons amply supports defence version that they may not be present at place of event – There is no independent witness to incident – Prosecution failed to prove to hilt that accused appellants were persons involved in assault and death of deceased – There was delay in conducting post-mortem and difference in name of weapons of crime – Prosecution has miserably failed to prove that accused appellants have committed offence beyond any reasonable doubt – Judgment and orders of Courts below set aside and accused appellant No.1 acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. (Paras 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25)
Facts of the case:
Two accused appellants, father and son, have preferred this Criminal Appeal against their conviction for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 whereby and whereunder, they have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they have been ordered to undergo further six months of rigorous imprisonment.
Findings of Court:
It is a case where the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused appellants have committed the offence beyond any reasonable doubt.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Pankaj Mithal, J.
1. Heard Mr. Prafulla Kumar Behera, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, learned Advocate-on- Record appearing for the respondent.
2. The two accused appellants, father and son, have preferred this Criminal Appeal against their conviction for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”) whereby and whereunder, they have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they have been ordered to undergo further six months of rigorous imprisonment.
3. The incident is of 4th August, 1995 which allegedly took place at 09:00 AM within the jurisdiction of Police Station Mangalore. It is said that deceased Altaf Hussain, the father of the informant Salim Ahmad (PW-1), had some land dispute with the accused appellants. They as such had a grudge against deceased Altaf Hussain. In connection with the said land dispute, proceedings were pending before the Consolidation Officer. On the fateful day, deceased Altaf Hussain was going to Roorkee for attending the said proceedings, he was on his bicycle and his son – the informant (PW-1) and his nephew – Irshad (PW-2) were little behind on their cycles and were following him. When deceased Altaf Hussain reached near Bajari Plant on G.T. Road from where Roorkee was only at a short distance of 5 kms, the accused persons armed with “tabal” and “axe” assaulted him. Upon raising an alarm, one Tahir, son of Md. Saddiq and one Md. Afzal (PW-3), son of Niyaz Ahmad came from behind and tried to get hold of the accused persons but they escaped towards the jungle leaving behind their ‘loi’ (blanket) and cycle at the place of occurrence.
4. On the basis of the written complaint submitted by the informant (PW-1) at around 09:50 AM on 04.08.1995 itself (Exh. Ka-1), a chick FIR (Exh. Ka-8) was registered. The Investigating Officer (PW-7) – Anil Kumar prepared the inquest report (Exh. Ka-4), the site plan (Exh. Ka-13) and took into his possession, one pair of rubber shoes, one pair of slippers, a ‘loi’ (blanket) and the cycle. The ‘loi’ and the cycle were alleged to be that of the accused persons and were marked as Exh. Ka-10 and Exh. Ka-11 respectively.
5. Sub-inspector (PW- 5) – Om Veer Singh prepared a letter (Exh. Ka- 5) addressed to the Chief Medical Officer for the purpose of postmortem. The post-mortem was conducted by Dr. Sudhir Kumar Dhaundhiyal on the next day, i.e., 05.08.1995. The post-mortem report (Exh. Ka-3) was proved by Dr. O.P. Sharma (PW-4) as Dr. Sudhir Kumar Dhaundhiyal who conducted the post-mortem, had died in the meantime.
6. Both the accused persons were arrested by the Investigating Officer on 07.08.1995 and on their pointing out the weapons of crime, i.e., the axe and the “tabal” were recovered and taken into possession vide possession memo (Exh. Ka-14).
7. The Police submitted a chargesheet under Section 302 IPC against the accused persons, i.e., Mohd. Muslim and Shamshad in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee. The case was committed to the Sessions Court on 26.10.1995 for trial.
8. The accused appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “CrPC”) and they denied their involvement in the crime rather alleged that no such incident had taken place and that they have been unnecessarily framed as they are new to the village.
9. The Sessions trial ended in the conviction/sentencing of the accused appellants vide judgment and order dated 25.04.1998. The High Court on appeal upheld and confirmed the same. Thus, the present appeal.
10. It may be worth noting that the appeal stood abated against the accused appellant No.2 vide order of this Court dated 16.08.2021. Accused appellant No.1 is now aged about 79 years and has undergone six years of incarceration. He is on bail since 2013.
11. The main plank of the argument from the side of the accused appellant is that there is interpolation in the FIR a
Conviction and sentence cannot be sustained where prosecution case is shaky on material aspects.
The acquittal of the accused was upheld due to significant doubts regarding eyewitness credibility and procedural inconsistencies in the prosecution's case.
The court emphasized that an anti-timed FIR and inconsistent witness testimonies undermine the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
The delay in recording witness statements and minor discrepancies in evidence do not necessarily undermine the credibility of the witnesses or the prosecution's case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent witness testimony, post-mortem evidence, and the lack of evidence to support the appellants' claims in affirming the con....
Conviction set aside - FIR is ante-timed and there are no independent witness of the incident. Prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellants-accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The court emphasized that delay in lodging an FIR must be satisfactorily explained; failure to do so may lead to acquittal if the prosecution cannot establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
As the medical evidence does not support the manner of assault on the victim. It also lends support to the defence case, such a wound could not be possible looking to the position of the victim & per....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
