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

2004(4) Crimes 119 (SC)
Supreme Court of India
(From Allahabad High Court)
K.G. Balakrishnan & B.N. Srikrishna, JJ.
State of Uttar Pradesh —Appellant
versus
Farid Khan and Ors. —Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1863-64 of 1996
Decided on 23-9-2004

Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Ajit Kumar Pande and Pramod Swarup, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R.K. Shukla, S.C. Maheshwari, Sr. Advocates, Jabur Singh, Ms. Sandhya Goswami, Zafar Sadique and Balraj Dewan, Advocates.

Important point
Evidence of a witness who got a criminal background is to be viewed with caution but if such evidence gets sufficient corroboration, it can be believed.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302/34—Respondent-accused found guilty by trial Court were acquitted by High Court in appeal—State appeal—Three accused armed with knives surrounded deceased, attacked him with knife and deceased died on spot—PW 1, brother of deceased and PW2 and PW3 independent persons were the eye witnesses—High Court disbelieved PW2 on ground that earlier he had been convicted for four years in a criminal case and appeared to be a chance witness—Evidence of witness who had a criminal background to be viewed with caution but if there was sufficient corroboration no reason to not to believe him—High Court wrongly discarded his evidence—PW 3 could not have been disbelieved merely because he belonged to different area or had no business to be near place of occurrence—High Court disbelieved PW1 on basis of a document produced in High Court and witness during trial had no opportunity to explain it—High Court should not have allowed such document to come on record at appellate stage—Acquittal could not be sustained. (Paras 4 to 6)

       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 34—Conviction of three accused for offence of murder with help of Section 34 IPC—All three accused armed with knife attacked deceased who died on spot—A1 had stabbed deceased on chest and other two assaulted on other parts—Post-mortem report showed deceased had two injuries on chest and injuries on right thigh above knee and inner aspect of right ankle were very small in nature—A2 and A3 could not be said to have shared common intention to cause death—They were liable to be convicted u/s 324/34 IPC—A1 convicted u/s 302 IPC. (Paras 7 and 8)

       Result : Appeal disposed of accordingly.

       

Judgment

K.G. Balakrishnan, J.—These appeals are preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh assailing the acquittal of the three respondents accused of the offences charged against them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The respondents-accused were found guilty by the Sessions Court. Rampur, for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for having caused the death of one Khurshid Mian.

2. The incident giving rise to the present appeals happened on 2.8.1978 at about 5.45 P.M. in Mohalla Mazar Tat. On the date of occurrence, Achhey Mian, brother of deceased Khurshid Mian, who lived in Mohalla Nalapar, visited his brother Khurshid Mian. Their father, Banney Mian, had died 28 days prior to the date of occurrence and Achhey Mian visited his brother Khurshid Mian to discuss about the arrangements for the Chaalisvan [the fortieth day ceremony] of their late father. Achhey Mian found the house of his brother locked. There, he met Wajid Khan, who told him that Khurshid Mian had gone to the mosque for offering prayer. Achhey Mian; witness Wajid Khan; and one Alla Rakha stood in front of a shop and were exchanging pleasantries. They saw the three accused persons coming there and asked Wajid Khan whether he had seen Khurshid Mian. In the meantime, Khurshid Mian was also seen coming from the western side. The accused persons surrounded Khurshid Mian and immediately started attacking him with knives. Accused Saghir pierced the chest of the deceased and accused Mamoo and Farid Khan gave knife blows on the back and legs of the deceased. The deceased was repeatedly stabbed by the assailants and thereafter they ran away from the place of incident. The deceased fell on the ground and died on the spot. Two other persons, namely, Sharif and Salim Khan who were also coming behind the ­deceased arrived at the scene. Achhey Mian, the brother of the deceased, went to the Ganj Police Station and gave the Exh. K-1 report. The motive of the crime is stated to be that Banney Mian, the father of Khurshid Mian and Achhey Mian had rented out certain shops in Mohalla Mazar Tat to one Zakkan Khan and his children. They committed default in paying arrears and, therefore, Banney Mian filed a suit for recovery of arrears of the rent and in the execution of the decree obtained by him, the house of the accused was attached for court sale. The accused persons thus bore a grudge against Banney Mian and his family members.

3. Investigation of the case was taken over by PW-6, who prepared the inquest report. Post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by PW-4. There were five incised injuries and the doctor was of the view that the death of the deceased had taken place due to shock and hemorrhage resulting from the incised injuries found on the chest of the deceased. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and they alleged false implication. The accused persons contended that the witnesses spoke falsehood and that they had not seen any incident. They alleged that Achhey Mian, in collusion with the police, implicated the accused as he was inimically disposed towards them.

4. On the side of the prosecution, six witnesses were examined. PW-2 Sharif and PW-3 Salim Khan were the eye witnesses to the occurrence. The Sessions Court believed the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3. PW-2 Sharif deposed that the incident happened at about 5.45 P.M. and he saw accused, Saghir, Mamoo and Farid Khan coming from the western side. He stated that he heard accused Saghir shouting and thereafter striking a blow of knife on the chest of the deceased. He also saw Mamoo and Farid Khan stabbing the deceased with knives. He saw Khurshid Mian falling on the ground with injuries and the accused persons running towards south. He was extensively cross examined by the counsel for the accused. He stated that he was a “Beedi” roller by profession and on the day of occurrence he was going to meet Safi to collect his wages. He also stated that he saw PW-3

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