No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
AFR
Court No. 48
Reserved on:- 23.2.2022
Delivered on:- 26.5.2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 888 of 2016
Appellant :- Alam
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellants :- Mukhtar Alam, Saquib Mukhtar
Counsel for Respondent :- A.N. Mulla, S.N. Mishra
With
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 639 of 2016
Appellants :- Noor Mohammad and Another
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellants :- Mukhtar Alam, Saquib Mukhtar
Counsel for Respondent :- A.N. Mulla, S.N. Mishra
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1.The present Criminal Appeals have been filed against the
Judgment and Order dated 14.1.2016 passed by the Special
Judge / Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Session Trial
No.485-A of 2011 (State vs. Alam); Session Trial No.485 of
2011 (State vs. Noor Mohammad and Others), arising out of
Case Crime No.52 of 2011, under Sections 302/34, 323/34 IPC,
P.S. Mandawar, District Bijnor, whereby appellants were
convicted for life imprisonment under Sections 302/34 IPC and
fine of Rs.20,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, six
months additional R.I. and under Section 323/34 IPC, 3 months
R.I. and fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine, one
month additional R.I. with a direction that all the sentences shall
run concurrently.
2.Being aggrieved therefrom, accused Alam preferred
Criminal Appeal No.888 of 2016 and accused Noor
Mohammad, Deen Mohammad preferred Criminal Appeal
no.639 of 2016 for setting aside their conviction and passing an
order of acquittal.
3.Since common issues are involved in both the appeals,
both are being disposed of by a common order. The facts stated
in Criminal Appeal No.888 of 2016 shall be treated as the
leading appeal.
4.The brief facts relating to case are that Salamat (son of
deceased) submitted a written report at Police Station with the
averment that he is resident of village Khirani, P.S. Mandawar,
District Bijnor. His father purchased about 18 bigha land 2 years
before from Hamid, son of Jamaluddin that is why Noor
Mohammad, Deen Mohammad, Alam were on enemical terms
to his father. On 19.3.2011 at 7.15 PM (evening), his younger
brothers Riyasat and Faizan went to purchase items from the
grocery shop of Habib, at that moment , Noor Mohammad,
Deen Mohammad and Alam armed with countrymade pistol,
came there, abused them and started altercation with Riyasat.
Faizan came back from shop and told about the incident to his
father, then he and his father Aslam reached at the shop of
Habib and tried to protect Riyasat, at that time, Alam fired shot
from his countrymade pistol on the head of his father, who died
on spot. He and Riyasat tried to catch Alam, then Noor
Mohammad and Deen Mohammad with an intention to kill, fired
shot from their countrymade pistol but he and Riyasat were
escaped narrowly. The prayer was made to register the report
2
and legal action be taken. Rafeeq son of Imam Shah and
Others were mentioned as witness of the incident.
5.On the basis of written report, Case Crime No. 52/2011,
under Sections 302/323/307/34 IPC was registered against
accused Alam, Noor Mohammad, Deen Mohammad on
19.3.2011 at 8.30 PM and investigation of the case was handed
over to Station Officer Sunil Kumar Sharma who went to the
place of incident where S.I. Veer Singh conducted
Panchayatnama of the dead body and after completing the
formalities, dead body was sent for postmortem. The spot map
of the place of incident was prepared, two empty cartridges
were recovered by the police from the roof of the accused, the
memo was accordingly prepared. During investigation, on
22.3.2011 accused were arrested and on the pointing out of
Alam, countrymade pistol 315 bore, 2 live cartridges, one empty
cartridge 315 bore inside the barrel and on the pointing out of
Noor Mohammad, countrymade pistol 12 bore and 2 live
cartridges were recovered, the memo were accordingly
prepared. FIR was lodged against Alam and Noor Mohammad
under Section 25 of the Arms Act on 22.3.2011 at 12.30, the
investigation of the case under the Arms Act was handed over
to H.C.P. Prem Singh. Respective Investigating Officer
submitted charge-sheet against accused Alam, Noor
Mohammad and Deen Mohammad under Sections 302/34,
307/34, 323 IPC and against accused Alam and Noor
Mohammad under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Charges were
framed against Alam, Noor Mohammad, Deen Mohammad
under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 323 IPC and against accused
3
Alam and Noor Mohammad under Section 25 of the Arms Act to
which they denied and claimed trial.
6.The prosecution in order to prove its case, produced as
many as 12 witnesses whose particulars are as follows:
P.W.1 Salamat son of Aslam (First informant and
alleged eye-witness)
P.W.2 Faizan son of Aslam (alleged eye-witness)
P.W.3 Rafeeq son of Imaam Shah (alleged eye
witness as well as independent witness)
P.W.4 Dr. R.S. Ravidas
P.W.5 S.I. Veer Singh
P.W.6 Constable Jaiveer Singh (witness of the
inquest)
P.W.7 Constable Narendra Sharma (FIR scribe of
Case Crime No. 53 of 2011 and 54 of 2011)
P.W. 8 HCP Prem Singh (IO of Case Crime No.53 of
2014 and 54 of 2011)
P.W.9 Sub-Inspector Shishpal Singh
P.W.10 HC 139 Mahak Singh Sharma (Scribe of
Case Crime No.52 of 2011)
P.W.11 Sunil Sharma ( IO of Case Crime No.52 of
2011)
P.W.12 Shailendra Pratap (Subsequent IO of Case
Crime No.52 of 2011)
7.In support of the occular testimony of the witnesses,
prosecution filed following documentary evidence:
1. FIR dated 19.3.2011 (Ext. Ka 19)
4
2. FIR dated 22.3.2011 (Ext. Ka12)
3. Written report dated 19.3.2011 (Ext. Ka1)
4. Panchayatnama dated 19.3.2011 (Ext. Ka 3)
5. Postmortem report dated 20.3.2011 (Ext. Ka 9)
6. Site plan dated 19.3.2011 (Ext. Ka 21)
7. Site plan dated 23.3.2011 (Ext. Ka 14)
8. Site plan dated 23.3.2011 (Ext. Ka 15)
9. Charge-sheet dated 15.4.2011 (Ext. Ka 23)
10. Charge-sheet dated 23.3.2011 (Ext. Ka16)
11. Charge-sheet dated 23.3.2011 (Ext. Ka 17)
8.The accused appellants in their statements recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case and
disputed the veracity of the evidence adduced by the
prosecution.
9.P.W.1 Salamat son of deceased Aslam as well as first
informant in his examination-in-chief stated that he knows
accused Noor Mohammad, Deen Mohammad and Alam, they
belong to his village. His father purchased about 18 bigha land
2 years before from Hamid, son of Jamaluddin that is why Noor
Mohammad, Deen Mohammad, Alam were on enemical terms
to his father. On 19.3.2011 at 7.15 PM (evening), his younger
brothers Riyasat and Faizan went to purchase items from the
shop of Habib, at that moment, Noor Mohammad, Deen
Mohammad and Alam armed with countrymade pistol, came
there, abusing them and started altercation with Riyasat. Faizan
came back from shop and told about the incident from him and
his father, then he and his father Aslam reached at the shop of
5
Habib and tried to protect Riyasat, at that time, Alam fired shot
from his countrymade pistol on the head of his father, who died
on spot. He and Riyasat tried to catch Alam, then Noor
Mohammad and Deen Mohammad with intention to kill, fired
shot from their countrymade pistol but he and Riyasat were
escaped narrowly. Accused Noor Mohammad, Deen
Mohammad, Alam, sons of Bundu ran away towards their
house after fire shot. In cross-examination, he stated that he
reached to police station at 8.30 PM by tractor. Rafeeq,
Shafeeq, Anwar and Abid also accompanied him, they did not
bring any written report with them and told incident to police so
police came to the spot along with him. Police made necessary
inquiry and told him to give written complaint / report,
accordingly, he gave written report to police at the village after
being written by Mahaboob Alam on his instruction at about
9.00 PM and the dead body of his father was sealed by the
police, the same was kept on tractor trolley and he was also
sitting on the tractor. He stated that altercation took place
before the shop of Bundu. He further stated that his father
received fire-shot in front of primary school. He stated that the
person who fired was 7 step away from his father. He further
stated that Noor Mohammad and Deen Mohammad fired from
their roof, both of them were on their roof and remained there.
Two fires were made from the roof and his father was standing
when the fire was made.
10.P.W. 2 Faizan aged about 15 years, alleged eye-witness,
in his examination-in-chief stated that incident is of about 10
months before at about 7.15 PM. He and his brother Riyasat
went to shop of Habib for purchasing, at that moment, Noor
6
Mohammad, Deen Mohammad and Alam armed with
countrymade pistol, came there, abusing them and started
altercation with him and his elder brother Riyasat. He ran away
to his home and told about the altercation to his father Aslam
and brother Salamat. Having heard the same, his father and
brother came to the shop and tried to protect Riyasat, at that
time, Alam fired shot on the head of his father Aslam and he
died on spot. His brother Salamat and Riyasat tried to catch
Alam, then Noor Mohammad and Deen Mohammad fired shot
with intention to kill Riyasat and Salamat but they were escaped
narrowly. All the three accused run away to their home. About 2
years before his father Aslam purchased about 18 bigha land
from Hamid due to which Bundu and his sons Noor
Mohammad, Deen Mohammad and Alam were on enemeical
terms to his father. In the cross-examination, he stated that his
father did not receive fire-shot at the place where Riyasat was
caught rather he received fire-shot at Chauraha.
11.P.W.3 Rafeeq alleged eye-witness, in his examination-in-
chief stated that incident is of 10-11 months before, it was Holi
festival and time was about 7 PM (evening). He was sitting with
Aslam then Faizan son of Aslam came and told that Noor
Mohammad, Deen Mohammad, Alam are beating him and his
brother. He and Aslam went there along with Faizan, Aslam was
on front side and he was on back side. They reached to the
shop, Aslam tried to protect his son from accused then all the
three accused persons started altercation with Aslam and after
that Alam fired shot from his countrymade pistol on the head of
Aslam who died on spot. He did not interfere and went to his
house. Deen Mohammad and Noor Mohammad fired two shots
7
on Aslam but did not fire on Salamat and Riyasat. In his cross-
examination, he stated that when he reached at the place of
occurrence, Aslam was dead and Noor Mohammad, Deen
Mohammad, Alam were not present at that time. He further
stated that he did not go to the house of Aslam on that day. He
stated that when fire shot took place, he was present in his
house. He further stated that he did not see anybody who fired
shot on Aslam.
12.P.W.4 Dr. R.S. Ravidas, Community Health Centre,
Laharpur, District Sitapur conducted the postmortem of the
dead body of Aslam on 20.3.2011 at 2.00 PM. He has proved
the postmortem report as Ext. Ka 9 and has stated that
following injuries were found on the body of the deceased:
1. Fire arm wound of entry 2cm x 2cm. Cavity deep on
middle forehead upto root of the nose. Blackening
present in some extant. On dissection one metallic piece
recovered from the right side of occipital region of brain
and handed over to police. Fracture of nasal bone and
forehead bone, fracture of right occipital bone, brain
membrane lacerated
13.P.W.-5, S.I. Veer Singh in his examination-in-chief stated
that on 19.3.2011 he was posted on the post of Sub-Inspector
at Police Station- Mandawar. He prepared the Panchayatnama
of the dead body of deceased Aslam and handed over the
deadbody after necessary formalities for postmortem, the other
documents relating to panchayatnama were prepared.
Panchayatnama (Ex-Ka-3), letter to R.I. (Ka-4), Chalan Lash
(Ka-6), Photo Lash (Ka-7), letter to C.M.O. (Ka-5) were
8
prepared by him on the spot. Ex-Ka-9 is memo of recovery of
plain earth and stained earth was prepared by him.
14.PW.-6, Constable Jaiveer Singh in his examination-in-
chief stated that on 19.3.2011, he was posted at Police Station-
Mandawar on the same post and place. On the information of
murder of deceased Aslam he reached along with force to place
of incident situated in village- Khirani. After completion of
proceeding of Panchayatnama, he received the dead body of
Aslam in a sealed position at 22:00 hours from homeguard
Ashraf and constable-Randhir Singh and kept the dead body in
the morchary of district hospital, after postmortem, dead body
was handed over to family members. In the cross-examination,
he stated that dead body was given to him on 19.3.2011 at 8:00
P.M. He carried dead body from village-Khirani through tempo
to hospital and 30-45 minute was taken in covering the distance
from Village-Khirani to hospital.
15.P.W.-7, Constable Clerk, Narendra Sharma in his
examination-in-chief stated that on 22.3.2011, he was posted as
constable clerk at Police Station- Mandawar. He proved chik
F.I.R. as well as Ex-Ka-12 and Ex-Ka-13. In the cross-
examination, he stated that original G.D. is not on record nor he
brought the same with him on that day.
16.P.W.-8, H.C.P. Prem Singh has stated in his examination-
in-chief that on 22.3.2011, he was posted as H.C.P. at Police
Station- Mandawar. He received investigation of Case Crime
No.53 of 2011 (Alam Vs. State) and Case Crime No.54 of 2011
(Noor Mohammad Vs State) from police station office.
Necessary entry were made in the case dairy. Statement of
9
witness, S.I., Sheeshpal Singh, Constable Tejpal Singh and
Constable Sukhpal Singh were recorded in the case diary on
23.3.2011. After that on the pointing out of S.I. Shamim Haider
inspected the place of incident and prepared the spot map
under Section 25 of Arms Act which are Ex-Ka-14 and Ex-Ka-
15, the charge-sheet was also submitted by him under Section
25 of Arms Act, which are Ex-Ka-16 and Ex-Ka-17.
17.P.W.-9, S.I., Sheeshpal Singh, has stated in his
examination-in-chief that on 22.3.2011, he was posted as Sub-
Inspector at Police Station- Mandawar. He arrested the
accused-Noor Mohammad and Alam on 22.3.2011 at 7:45 A.M.
On the pointing out of Noor Mohammad and Alam, a country
made pistol as well as live and empty cartridges were
recovered at 10:45 A.M. on 22.3.2011. The memo was
prepared by I.O. in his presence and the same is Ex-Ka-18
which is signed by him also. In the cross-examination, he
reiterated the same.
18.P.W.-10, Head Constable, Mahak Singh in his
examination-in-chief stated that on 19.3.2011, he was posted
on the post of Head Moharir at Police Station- Mandawar. On
that day at 8:30 P.M., on the basis of report of Salamat Chik
No.30/11, Case Crime No.52/11, under Sections 323/ 302/ 307/
34 I.P.C. was registered by him against Noor Mohammad, Deen
Mohammad and Alam. The same is Ex-ka-19. He mentioned
about the incident on same day in G.D. through report no.39,
time 8.30 PM. He brought the original G.D. with him on that day
which is in his hand writing. He filed the correct and attested
photo copy of the same, which is Ex-Ka-20. In the cross-
examination, he stated that he sent the special report of the
10
case through Constable, Tarachand but in G.D. time of Rawangi
of Tarachand is not recorded. He sent the Tarachand on the oral
instruction of station officer without recording his rawangi in the
G.D. In Report No.39, there is no mention of sending special
report. He further stated that there is no copy of special report
on record. He further stated that he prepared seven copies of
special report but nothing was kept at the police station.
19.P.W.-11, Station Officer, Sunil Sharma in his examination-
in-chief stated that on 19.3.2011, he was posted as station
officer at Police Station- Mandawar. He was investigating officer
of Case Crime No.52/11, under Section-323, 302, 307,34 I.P.C.
which was registered in his presence. He reached to place of
incident along with force, statement of first informant Salamat
was recorded in case diary and on the pointing out of first
informant inspected place of incident and prepared site plan
(Ex-Ka-21). Two empty cartridges of 12 bore were recovered
from the roof of the accused and sealed in white clothes. The
memo was prepared, which is Ex-Ka-22, memo was copied in
case diary. On 20.3.2011 statement of Mahak Singh scribe of
first information report was recorded. On 22.3.2011 accused
Noor Mohammad and Alam were arrested and their statements
were recorded, at their instance country made pistol and
cartridges were recovered, memo was accordingly prepared
which is Ex-ka-18 statement of witnesses Riyasat, Faizan and
Rafeeq were recorded.
20.P.W.-12, Shailendra Pratap, Inspector In-charge stated in
his examination-in-chief that from 3.4.2011 to 6.6.2011, he was
posted at police station- Mandawar. He was handed over
investigation of Case Crime No.52/11, under Sections 302, 307,
11
323, 34 I.P.C. of witnesses which was being investigated by
earlier investigating officer. He started investigation on 5.4.2011
statement of witnesses of recovery, postmortem,
panchayatnama were recorded on 15.4.2011, charge-sheet
no.53/11 was submitted in Court which is Ex-ka-23.
21.The learned Sessions Judge, Bijnor after hearing the
parties and perusal of the record, acquitted the accused-Noor
Mohammad, Deen Mohammad and Alam under Section 307/34
IPC as well as acquitted accused Noor Mohammad and Alam
under Section 25 of the Arms Act but convicted accused Noor
Mohammad, Deen Mohammad and Alam under Section
302/34, 323/34 IPC, hence this appeal.
22.Heard Mr. Mukhtar Alam & Mr. Saquib Mukhtar, learned
counsel for the appellants, Mr. A.N. Mulla, learned A.G.A. for
the State and perused the record.
23.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that following
points for determination are involved in the present appeal:-
1. Whether the occurrence was occurred in presence of
alleged eye-witnesses i.e. P.W.1, P.W.2 & P.W.3 and
there evidence is reliable?
2. Whether prosecution has not produced the best
evidence to prove its case and deliberately withheld the
material witnesses and evidence without any justification?
3. Whether the postmortem report does not support the
prosecution case and as per autopsy, single fire-arm has
been used for the commission of an offence and the shot
was fired at a close range.
12
4. Whether the FIR is ante-timed and absolutely there
was no proper and fair investigation and the investigation
of the case is defective.
5. Whether trial court has completely misread the
evidence and passed the impugned judgment and order
without appreciating the evidence available on record in
its right perspective and the same is not sustainable in
the eyes of law?
24.Learned counsel for the appellants on the points for
determination no.1 submitted as follows:-
P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 alleged eye witnesses are
unreliable witnesses as all the three were not present nor they
have seen the incident.
The relevant portion of examination-in-chief of P.W.-1 is
as follows:-
AFRCou
19.3.2011
क ो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे क रीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे शाम क े सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे ब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेजे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे मे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेरे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे छो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेटे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे
2C3 0.NCtd v Dl nCR i848 u6 Fुक ान पर सामान ले सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे गय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे थे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे। तभी नूर त बजे मेरे छोटेभी नूर
ri1 F,
F4R ri1 F v pM aIRs iCPm S d oUs kMNs iुय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे गाली
Fsds iुय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे आय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे और रिरय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेासत बजे मेरे छोटे क ो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पक ड़क र मारपीट क रने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे लगे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे त बजे मेरे छोटेभी फै जान
nr s.C :r-C 2C3 il Fुक ान से सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे भागक र आय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेा और घटना क े सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे ब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेारे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे में तमंचे लिये हुये गाली मुझे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे
व मे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेरे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे दिपत बजे मेरे छोटेा असलम क ो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे ब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेत बजे मेरे छोटेाय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेा मै त बजे मेरे छोटेथा मे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेरे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे अब्ब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेा असलम
,
हब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे क ी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर
Fुक ान पर पहुंचे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे और रिरय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेासत बजे मेरे छोटे क ो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे ब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेचाने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे लगे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे त बजे मेरे छोटेभी आलम ने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे अपने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे हाथ
S kMNs d oUs ts s.s aW8C us CPs I. LrM4 C. F4
,
जिजससे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे उनक ी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर मौक े सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे
पर मृत्य करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेुहो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे गय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेी थी। तभी नूर मैने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे व मे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेरे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे छो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेटे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे भाई रियासत व फैजान हबीब की दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर रिरय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेासत बजे मेरे छोटे ने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे आलम क ो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पक ड़ना
UCiCE d24 Rf. ri1 F v F4R ri1 F Rs nCR ts C.Rs u6 ARNd ts
अपने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे हाथों में तमंचे लिये हुये गाली में तमंचे लिये हुये गाली लिलय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे त बजे मेरे छोटेमंचे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे से सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे हमारे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे उपर फाय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेर दिक य करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे गय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे जिजससे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे हम ब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेाल
ब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेाल ब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेच गय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे। तभी नूर मैं अपने पिता असलम की लाश को मौके पर छोड़कर अपने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे दिपत बजे मेरे छोटेा असलम क ी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर लाश क ो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे मौक े सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पर छो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेड़क र
PCRs pNs h. i fF pM ts 0.Ir-g kMOu. PCRs I. F4 nr lRs
8rMC PC vi4 i fF pM Rs kMOC PC lRs t5Ru. di.4. I. aIRC
अंगूठा लगाय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेा था। तभी नूर पत्रावली पर त बजे मेरे छोटेहरीर क ागज सं०
11/2
FCkOM il
13
जिजस पर एक्ज क
-1
(CMC LNCE 5M9n CR Rf. ri1 F
,
F4R ri1 F
v pM I5cL) 85;Fूगो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेली मारक र व फाय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेर क रक े सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे अपने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे घर क ी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर ओर
भाग गय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे थे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे। तभी नूर
25.The relevant portion of cross-examination of P.W.-1 is as
follows:-
i848 u6 Fुक ान उत्तर सामनी है। तभी नूर और उसक े सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे सामने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पूरब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पश्चिBम रास्त बजे मेरे छोटेा
है। तभी नूर पश्चिBम क ो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे हमारी त बजे मेरे छोटेरफ क ो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे रास्त बजे मेरे छोटेा जात बजे मेरे छोटेा है और पूरब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे क ो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे गांव मे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे जात बजे मेरे छोटेा
ilE n8 s.s vCkMF ur LrM4 ML4 dr Ht t N vi GC3 .4 ICyeCMC
us tC Rs PsE GC3 .4 ICyeCMC us Hx. S p-C U&6 85;Fूहै। तभी नूर य करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेह
प्राई रियासत व फैजान हबीब की दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूरमरी पाठशाला इस पूरब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पश्चिBम वाले सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे रास्त बजे मेरे छोटेे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे क े सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे उत्तर में तमंचे लिये हुये गाली है। तभी नूर पाठशाला
क ी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर ब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेाउण्डरी नही है खुला है। तभी नूर पाठशाला क ी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर पूरब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पश्चिBम चौडाई रियासत व फैजान हबीब की दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर क रीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे
60
फी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूरट है। तभी नूर पाठशाला क ा जो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पश्चिBम वाला क ो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेना है उसक े सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पास गो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेली
ML4 P4 h. F7“) ts UMC3 L3 P4E LrM4 UMCRs vCMC u.48
7 uF
s.s vCkMF ts Fूर था। तभी नूर पाठशाला क े सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे सामने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे रास्त बजे मेरे छोटेा क रीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे
20-22 दिफट
चौड़ा है। तभी नूर
Rf. ri1 F v F4R ri1 F Rs DCN. aIRs uCR u6 :d I. ts AuNs
Ps Ns FrRr MrL aIRs uCR u6 :d I. Ps h. vi… .isE :d I. ts Fr
फाय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेर हुय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे थे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे जब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे फाय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेर हुNs Ps s.s AIdC Ht t N O(s PsE 85;Fूक े सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे
मक ान जिजस क ी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर छत बजे मेरे छोटे पर से सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे फाय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेर हो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेना ब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेत बजे मेरे छोटेा रहा हू@ .CVds us F7“) s il
h. Htts I7z S .CKeF u6 FुuCR ilE .CKeF u6 Fुक ान से सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे उत्तर मे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे
मै
5
Ii.s Fूर था। तभी नूर इनक ी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर छत बजे मेरे छोटे
12
दिफट ऊँ रास्ते के दक्षिण मे है ची है। तभी नूर
26.From the perusal of entire statement (Chief and cross) of
P.W.-1, Salamat alleged eye witness, as well as son of
deceased, it is established that P.W.-1 is changing his stand
with respect to place of incident. In his examination-in-chief, he
stated that incident has taken place before shop of Habib,
where all the three accused were present and fired but in cross
examination he stated that incident has taken place before
primary school and Noor Mohammad and Deen Mohammad
fired from the roof of their house, who remained present on
14
their roof. These are material contradiction in the statement of
P.W.-1 and has not been explained by prosecution, as such,
evidence of P.W.-1 cannot be relied upon.
27.So far as P.W.-2, Faizan is concerned, he is son of
deceased and minor at the time of incident, his statement is
also not consistent. In the cross-examination, he stated that
hundred people were assembled at the place of incident, the
place where Riyasat was caught hold his father, had not
received fire-shot, rather at Chauraha his father received fire
shot, the relevant portion of cross-examination of P.W.-2 is as
follows:-
मुझे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे अपने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे दिपत बजे मेरे छोटेा व भाई रियासत व फैजान हबीब की दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर क ो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे ब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेुलाक र लाने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे में तमंचे लिये हुये गाली पन्द्रह ब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेीस दिमनट लगी हो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेगी। तभी नूर
Ht t N 24 0.NCtd ur 5M9n CR C.I4- u. .is PsE tlu(m pF 4
viCo ?uNC ir LNs PsE q-RCVPM I. vs t8 pF 4 0.NCtd ur UC.m
w. ir .is PsE HR tlu(m pFA Nm s ts l Aut4 uC RC Ri4 8dC
tudCE 5bs AFeCw uC OCR Ri4 il n8 i M'-u. pNs dr 0.NCtd
i848 u6 Fुक ान से सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे
5
पहटे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे हमारे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे घर क ी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर त बजे मेरे छोटेरफ क ो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे था। तभी नूर जहां रिरय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेासत बजे मेरे छोटे क ो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे
Iu, .OC PCE Htts 85;Fूक ा घर उत्तर क ी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर त बजे मेरे छोटेरफ था। तभी नूर जहां रिरय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेासत बजे मेरे छोटे क ो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे
पक ड़ रखा था। तभी नूर वहां मे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेरे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे दिपत बजे मेरे छोटेा क ो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे गो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेली नही लगी थी। तभी नूर ब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेल्कि चौराहे परQक चौराहे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पर
लगी थी। तभी नूर
28.From the perusal of examination-in-chief and cross-
examination of P.W.-2 who was minor at the time of incident, it
is established that statement of P.W.2 is not consistent with
respect to place of incident as well as evidence of P.W.2 is not
corroborated by evidence of P.W.1, thus, evidence of P.W.2 is
also not reliable and trustworthy.
29.P.W.-3, Rafeeq alleged eye-witness as well as
independent witness in his cross-examination clearly stated that
he was at his home when firing took place. He further stated
15
that he had not seen anybody who fired shot to Aslam, the
relevant portion of cross-examination of P.W.-3, Rafeeq is as
follows:-
जब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे मै पहुचा त बजे मेरे छोटेो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे असलम क ो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे मैने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे मरी हु3 iCMd S FsOC tlu(r pF 4
?uNC Ps t8 Bu Fूसरे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे से सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पूछ रहे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे थे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे दिक असलम क ै से सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे मर गय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेा और
AutRs LrM4 C. F4 Ht t N Rf. 'i1 F
,
F4R 'i1 F
,
व आलम
उस समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे घटना स्थल पर नही थे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे जब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे मै वहां घटना स्थल पर पहुंचा उस
AFR l tMC d us q. 24 Ri4 LNC PC n8 LrM4 UM4 l aIRs q. I.
था। तभी नूर सलामत बजे मेरे छोटे अपने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे ब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेाप क े सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पास हो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेगा। तभी नूर
tMC d uC q. If.8 S iv4v u6 FुuCR ts ilE i848 u6 Fुक ान से सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पूव5
ur .CVdC nC .iC ilE i848 u6 Fुक ान क े सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पास क ो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेई रियासत व फैजान हबीब की दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर चौराहा नही है। तभी नूर हवीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे
u6 FुuCR us If.8 s .CVds us 8CF ?V C3M uC q. ilE ?tus 8CF
IoUCNd q. ilE ICyeCMC iv48 u6 Fुक ान से सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे
50-60
uF u6 Fूरी पर है
जो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पूरब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे में तमंचे लिये हुये गाली है। तभी नूर
य करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेह ब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेात बजे मेरे छोटे सही है दिक असलम क ो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे गो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेली मारत बजे मेरे छोटेे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे हुR lRs Aut4 ur Ri4 FsOCE
Ni uiRC LMd il Au ICyeCMC iv48 u6 Fुक ान से सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे
100
गज से सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे अश्चिSक
फासले सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पर हो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे। तभी नूर
30.From the perusal of statement of P.W.-3, it is fully
established that P.W.-3 is not eye-witness of the incident and
his evidence is also not reliable and trustworthy.
31.On the point for determination no.2, learned counsel for
the appellants contended that prosecution has not produced
Riyasat who was alleged to be throughout present on spot and
even beaten by accused but prosecution has failed to produce
Riyasat which makes the prosecution case doubtful. Constable,
Tarachand, special report messenger was also not produced by
prosecution and copy of special report was also not on record
of the case and there is no mention of sending special report of
the case in report no. 39 which demonstrate that special report
16
of the case has not been sent. Accordingly, non-production of
Tarachand by prosecution makes the prosecution case
doubtful.
32.On the point for determination no.3, learned counsel for
the appellants contended that according to postmortem report,
blackening was present in the injuries but P.W.1 in his cross-
examination stated that person who fired shot was 7 steps
away from his deceased father Aslam. P.W.4 Dr. R.S. Rabidas
in his cross-examination stated that deceased received fire shot
from the distance of some inch.
33.On the point of blackening and charring, following
judgment of the Apex Court will be relevant. Paragraph no. 12
of 2007(57) ACC 1099, Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar vs. State
of Bihar and Others is as follows:
12. The autopsy report shows that 'a blackening and
charring' existed so far as Injury No. (i) is concerned. The
blackening and charring keeping in view the nature of the
firearm, which is said to have been used clearly go to show
that a shot was fired from a short distance. Blackening or
charring is possible when a shot is fired from a distance of
about 2 feet to 3 feet. It, therefore, cannot be a case where
the death might have been caused by somebody by firing a
shot at the deceased from a distance of more than 6 feet.
The place of injury is also important. The lacerated wound
was found over grabella (middle of forehead). It goes a
long way to show that the same must have been done by a
person who wanted to kill the deceased from a short
distance. There was, thus, a remote possibility of causation
of such type of injury by any other person, who was not in
the terrace. Once the prosecution has been able to show
17
that at the relevant time, the room and terrace were in
exclusive occupation of the couple, the burden of proof lay
upon the respondent to show under what circumstances
death was caused to his wife. The onus was on him.
He failed to discharge the same.
34. Now, at this stage, we shall proceed to examine whether
the medical evidence renders the ocular account completely
unacceptable or improbable. In this regard, the submission of
learned counsel for the appellants is that the ocular account is
not acceptable because the medical evidence has ruled out
possibility of the shot being fired from seven steps away from
the deceased as per PW-1 in his cross-examination but the
same is ruled out as per PW-4-Dr. R.S. Rabidas in his cross-
examination, who stated that deceased received fire shot from
the distance of some inches. There is also contradictions in the
examination-in-chief and in cross examination of witnesses of
fact i.e. PW-2 and PW-3 vis-a-vis in the medical evidence.
35. At this stage, we may notice few decisions of Hon'ble the
Apex Court on the issue as to when a conflict between medical
evidence and ocular account would render the ocular account
untrustworthy and unreliable. In Thaman Kumar v. State of
Union Territory of Chandigarh, (2003) 6 SCC 380, in paragraph
16, it was observed as follows:
"16. The conflict between oral testimony and medical
evidence can be of varied dimensions and shapes. There
may be a case where there is total absence of injuries
which are normally caused by a particular weapon. There is
another category where though the injuries found on the
victim are of the type which are possible by the weapon of
18
assault, but the size and dimension of the injuries do not
exactly tally with the size and dimension of the weapon. The
third category can be where the injuries found on the victim
are such which are normally caused by the weapon of
assault but they are not found on that portion of the body
where they are deposed to have been caused by the eye
witnesses. The same kind of inference cannot be drawn in
the three categories of apparent conflict in oral and medical
evidence enumerated above. In the first category, it may
legitimately be inferred that the oral evidence regarding
assault having been made from a particular weapon is not
truthful. However, in the second and third category no such
inference can straightaway be drawn. The manner and
method of assault, the position of the victim, the resistance
offered by him, the opportunity available to the witnesses to
see the occurrence like their distance, presence of light and
many other similar factors will have to be taken into
consideration in judging the reliability of ocular testimony."
36. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Punjab Singh v. State of
Haryana, 1984 Supp SCC 233 and Anil Rai v. State of Bihar,
(2001) 7 SCC 318 has considered in detail that (1) if direct
evidence is satisfactory and reliable, the same cannot be
rejected on hypothetical medical evidence, and (2) if medical
evidence when properly read shows two alternative possibilities
but not any inconsistency, the one consistent with the reliable
and satisfactory statements of the eye witness has to be
accepted. The similar view has also been taken by Hon'ble the
Apex Court in Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
(2010) 10 SCC 259. No doubt the legal principle, which has
been pronounced by Hon'ble the Apex Court, is that ocular
19
evidence has greater evidentiary value vis-a-vis medical
evidence. In the present matter, we also find that there is
inconsistency of the prosecution witnesses of fact and after
close scrutiny of the medical evidence, we find that ocular
evidence may be discarded.
37. To appreciate the submission urged by the learned
counsel for the appellants that P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are not
credible and reliable, we have examined their testimony
threadbare. We find that these three witnesses claim
themselves to be the eye witness of the occurrence but their
description of the manner of occurrence and the contradiction
regarding the place of occurrence, the injury sustained by the
deceased from a gun shot fired from approximately seven steps
and considering the statement of PW-4- Dr. R.S. Rabidas that
the gun shot fired from very close range (few inches) are such
circumstances which remain unexplained. Thus, the ocular
testimony is wholly inconsistent with the circumstantial evidence
as well as the medical evidence. The case in hand is based
upon direct evidence. Therefore, in order to award or uphold the
conviction of an accused in a case based upon direct evidence,
the Court has of necessity to hold that the prosecution story is
probable. The prosecution witnesses of fact are credible and
reliable and therefore their testimony is worthy of credit. In a
case of direct evidence motive cannot be said to be of much
value. Therefore, in such situation, it is imperative to the Court
to go into the facts and circumstances of the case and find out
as to what was the cause behind the occurrence, the motive
behind the occurrence and whether it has any relation with the
crime or not. On a careful scrutiny of the alleged motive
20
assigned to the accused-appellants for the commission of
crime, the Court finds, as enumerated above, that the same is
too far stretched.
38. On the point of determination no.4, learned counsel for
the appellants submitted that FIR is ante-timed and
investigation of the case is defective. Learned counsel for the
appellants further submitted that special report of the case has
not been sent according to law, the reliance has been placed
upon paragraph-101 of the police regulation which is as follows:
"101. Special Report cases.- Whenever the occurrence of
an offence of any of the following kinds is reported (1)
dacoity, (2) robbery except unimportant cases such as
snatching earrings, (3) torture by police, (4) escape from
police custody, (5) forging of currency notes (6)
manufacture of counterfeit coin, (7) serious defalcations of
public money including theft of notes or hundis from letters,
(8) important cases of murder, rioting, burglary and theft,
breaches of the peace between different classes,
communities or political groups and other cases of special
interest, copies of the report will be sent immediately in red
envelopes to the Superintendent, the District Magistrate, the
Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Circle Inspector by post
or hand whichever may be the quicker method of
conveyance. The telephone or telegraph when available,
and the department telegraphic code, copies of which have
been supplied to all police stations near telegraph offices
should also be used to give the Superintendent early news
of such offences."
21
39. The counsel further placed cross-examination of PW.10
Head Constable Mahak Singh in order to demonstrate that
procedure for sending special report of the case has not been
followed at all, the relevant portion of cross-examination of
P.W.10 Mahak Singh is as follows:
"
lRs VIseM 0.Ir-g 9nt n4/(4/ s 5uF C uCN iुआ उसी जी० डी० मे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे भे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेजी
मैने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे सी
/
त बजे मेरे छोटेाराचन्द्र क ो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे एस० आर० ले सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेक र भे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेजा था परन्त बजे मेरे छोटेु जी० डी० मे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे त बजे मेरे छोटेाराचन्द्र क ी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर
ur3 .vCRL4 Fng Ri4 ilE dC.C U;M RjeC Rn.4 us aR5tC. t58i
6.05
दिमनट पर
PCRs I. 'nfF PC AD.
8.50
दिमनट पर जी० डी० संख्य करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेा
18
पर य करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे उसक ी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर रवानगी
tF. AvnR'. us kMB iुई रियासत व फैजान हबीब की दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर। तभी नूर दिफर त बजे मेरे छोटेाराचन्द्र क ी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर वापसी
17.40
पर थाने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पर हुई रियासत व फैजान हबीब की दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर। तभी नूर
Htus IzCd dC.CU;M u6 .vCRL4 s Fng Ri4 ilE Hts lRs A8RC .vCRL4 Fng u.s i4
2sn AFNC PC Bt/w/ tCi8 us n5vCR4 pFse s 2snC PCE 5bs Ri4 IdC Au dC.C
U;M uC Ht AFR uC Bt/p./ Msu. nCRs uC -4/B/(4/B/ 2.C LNC NC Ri4
य करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेह सही है दिक रपट नम्ब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेर
39
मे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे एस० आर० भे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेजे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे जाने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे क ा त बजे मेरे छोटेस्क रा नही है। तभी नूर रपट
नम्ब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेर
39
s Ni kMOC il Au Bt/p./ 8CF u.Rs dlNC. .vCRC u6 nCNsL4E Ni
सही है मे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेरे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पास उस एस० आर० क ी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर क ो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेई रियासत व फैजान हबीब की दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर क ापी है। तभी नूर ना ही पत्रावली मे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे उस
एस० आर० क ी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर क ो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेई रियासत व फैजान हबीब की दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर नक ल है। तभी नूर उस एस० आर० पर जो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे भे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेजी थी उस पर
एस० एच० ओ० क े सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे हस्त बजे मेरे छोटेाHर क राय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे थे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे। तभी नूर त बजे मेरे छोटेाराचन्द्र क ी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर क ाय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेमी थाने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पर क ब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे हुई रियासत व फैजान हबीब की दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर मै नही
8dC tudCE dC.CU;M pn uM PCRC Rn4 C8CF s dlRCd ilE Ni uiRC LMd il
दिक रपट नम्ब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेर
39
I. wv. .C?U-L u6 L3 irE Bt/BU/w/ 5uF C uCN 4 us
t N 'nfF Ri4 Ps 5uF C uCN 4 ts Ifvg .I- R18.
34 16.00
ब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेजे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे रवानगी हो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे
U5u6 P4 Bt/BU/w/ u6 vCIt4 AFRCou
19.3.11
क ो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे थाने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पर नही हुई रियासत व फैजान हबीब की दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर अगले सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे
AFR iुई रियासत व फैजान हबीब की दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर हो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेगी। तभी नूर
Ni uiRC LMd il Au lRs ur3 Bt/p./ .vCRC RC u6 ir h. Ni 8Cd 5uF s
ur 8M FsRs us kMB bfoy 8rM .iC iूँ रास्ते के दक्षिण मे है मैने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे जी० डी० रपट नम्ब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेर
39
s Ni Fng AuNC
il Au q-RC u6 tfURC n0.Ns -sM4DrR “sc s C f. .vCRC VPM 8dC AFNC PC
नक ल श्चिचक व नक ल रपट उन्हे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे Hे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेत्र मे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे शिभजवाय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेी थी वह क हाँ रास्ते के दक्षिण मे है थे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे नही पत बजे मेरे छोटेा य करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेह सूचना
मैने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे एस० आई रियासत व फैजान हबीब की दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर० वीर सिंसह क ो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे थाने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पर ब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेुलाक र उनसे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे शिभजवाय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेी थी। तभी नूर वीर सिंसह इस
5u Fs us AvvsUu Ri4 PsE Bt/p./ I. W toTNC
,
अपराS संख्य करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेा
, Sारा
AFRCou q-RC t N
,
AFRCou tfURC t N AFRCou q-RC VPM vCF4 G7dvCF4 RC
मृत बजे मेरे छोटेक ,
दिववे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेचक व अन्य करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे दिववरण बुन्दू गोली मारकर व फायर करके अपने घर की ओर लिलखा जात बजे मेरे छोटेा है। तभी नूर य करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेह एस० आर० डी० आई रियासत व फैजान हबीब की दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर० जी०
irFN,
पुलिलस अSीHक एश्चिड० एस० पी०
,
डी० एम० व एस० डी० एम०
, सी० ओ०
22
और ब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेी० सी० आर० पी० क ो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे भे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेजी जात बजे मेरे छोटेी है। तभी नूर मैने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे एस० आर० क ी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर सात बजे मेरे छोटे प्रश्चित बजे मेरे छोटे क ाब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे5न
लगाक र त बजे मेरे छोटेैय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेार क ी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर थी परन्त बजे मेरे छोटेु थाने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पर उनमे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे से सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे एक भी नही रखी थी। तभी नूर ना ही न्य करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेाय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेालय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे
मे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे भे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेजने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे हे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेत बजे मेरे छोटेु क ो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेई रियासत व फैजान हबीब की दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर रखी। तभी नूर क्य करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेों में तमंचे लिये हुये गालीदिक न्य करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेाय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेालय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे मे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे मूल एफ० आई रियासत व फैजान हबीब की दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर० आर० आत बजे मेरे छोटेी है। तभी नूर
इसलिलए हम न्य करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेाय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेालय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे क ो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे एस० आर० क ी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर क ापी नही भे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेजत बजे मेरे छोटेे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे। तभी नूर
Ni uiRC LMd il Au l ti4 WNCR RC Fs .iC iूँ रास्ते के दक्षिण मे है। तभी नूर और एफ० आई रियासत व फैजान हबीब की दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर० आर० एन्टी
-C3 kMO4 L3 ir 8CF s kMOu. IiMs AFOC F4 L3 irE
"
क ो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेट5 सर्टिट०
t5Ru. dtF4u AuNC
ह० अपठनीय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे ह० अपठनीय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे
स्पे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेशल जज दिवजनौर
स्पे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेशल जज दिवजनौर
8.10.13 8.10.13
ह० अपठनीय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे
एच० सी० महक सिंसह
40. It is relevant to mention here that Constable Clerk
Tarachand Special Report Messenger has not been produced
by prosecution which also makes the prosecution case doubtful
and strengthen the argument of learned counsel for the
appellants on defective investigation.
41.The learned counsel for the appellant further placed
statement of P.W.1 Salamat and P.W.5 Veer Singh in order to
demonstrate that FIR is ante-timed, the relevant portion of
cross-examination of P.W.1 is as follows:
"
थाने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे मै शाम क ो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे साढे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे आठ ब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेजे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पहुoUC PCE i fF
,
आलम पुत्र अमीर हसन दिनवासी
नाराय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेण बुन्दू गोली मारकर व फायर करके अपने घर की ओर पुर मे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेरे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे खालू लगत बजे मेरे छोटेे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे है। तभी नूर नाराय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेण बुन्दू गोली मारकर व फायर करके अपने घर की ओर पुर गांव हमारे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे गांव से सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे
22
दिक लो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेमीटर है। तभी नूर
थाने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे हम क ो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेई रियासत व फैजान हबीब की दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर त बजे मेरे छोटेहरीर ले सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेक र नही गय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे थे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे। तभी नूर हम लो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेग ट्रैक्टर से सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे गय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे थे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे। तभी नूर मे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेरे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे साथ रफी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूरक
,
शफी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूरक , अनवार,
pA8F LNs PsE lRs PCRs nCu. AFvCR n4 ur q-RC 8dC3E s.s
8dCRs I. I5kMt vCMs s.s tCP 'us I. pNs Ps F.rLC n4 24 pNs PsE viCo H;irRs
लो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेगों में तमंचे लिये हुये गाली से सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे त बजे मेरे छोटेहक ी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूरक ात बजे मेरे छोटे क ी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर लो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेगों में तमंचे लिये हुये गाली से सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पूछत बजे मेरे छोटेाछ क ी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर त बजे मेरे छोटेब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे मुझसे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे क हा था दिक जैसा हुआ है
kMO u. Fr d8 lRs i fF pM ts di.4. kMOvCu. F.rLC n4 ur LCov S i4 Fs
F4 P4E Ni 8Cd u.48
9
ब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेजे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे क ी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर रही हो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेगी त बजे मेरे छोटेभी पुलिलस वालों में तमंचे लिये हुये गाली ने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे मे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेरे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे दिपत बजे मेरे छोटेा जी क ी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर
लाश वही सील क ी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर थी। तभी नूर त बजे मेरे छोटेभी
9
8ns n8 lRs di.4. F4 P4E I5kMt vCMm Rs s.s AIdC
क ी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर लाश ट्रैक्टर ट्राली मे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे रख ली और मुझे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे भी ब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेैठा लिलय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेा था। तभी नूर दिफर लाश क ो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे ले सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेक र
23
थाने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे गय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे। तभी नूर थाने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पर लाश ट्रैक्टर ट्राली मे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे ही रखी रही थी। तभी नूर वहां पुलिलस वालों में तमंचे लिये हुये गाली ने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे लिलखत बजे मेरे छोटे
पढ़त बजे मेरे छोटे क ी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर। तभी नूर वहां मे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेरे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे क ो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेरे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे क ागजो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पर अंगूठे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे लगवाय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे। तभी नूर थाने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पर हम लो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेग एक घण्टा रुक े सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे
थे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे। तभी नूर य करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेह एक घण्टा थाने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पर लाश क ी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर लिलखा पढी क े सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे लिलय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे रुक े सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे थे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे। तभी नूर मे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेरे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे दिपत बजे मेरे छोटेा क ी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर लाश
सील घर से सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे क रक े सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे ले सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे गय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे थे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे। तभी नूर लिलखा पढ़ी थाने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पर क ी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर थी। तभी नूर मुझे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे नही पत बजे मेरे छोटेा दिक पुलिलस
ने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे जिजन क ो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेरे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे क ागजों में तमंचे लिये हुये गाली पर मे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेरे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे अंगूठे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे लगवाय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे थे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे उन पर क्य करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेा लिलखा था मुझे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे नही पत बजे मेरे छोटेा
दिक उन क ागजों में तमंचे लिये हुये गाली क ा क्य करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेा हुp n8 MCe Msu. pNs Ps dr i fF pM LCov s i4
रुक गय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे थे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे। तभी नूर ट्रैक्टर ट्राली से सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे हमारे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे गांव से सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे थाने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे आने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे मे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे क रीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे
40
दिमनट लगत बजे मेरे छोटेी है। तभी नूर
s.s OCMf i fF pM s.s LCov s i4 Ps 0.VdsFC.4 us RCds pNs iुय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे थे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे। तभी नूर
थाने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे हैड मो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेहर्रिरर क ी दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर सूचना पर मौक े सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पर गय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेा था। तभी नूर य करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे सूचना लगभग
7 -1/2 ब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेजे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे
A M4 P4E tfURC us 8CF PCRs pNC PC Ht t N Bt
.ओ.
थाने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पर नही थे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे। तभी नूर
क ागजात बजे मेरे छोटे ले सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे क ा इन्द्राज नही क राय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेा था। तभी नूर घटना स्थल पर
20.30
ब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेजे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे हुआ था। तभी नूर
उस समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे एस
.ओ.
PsE HRus ICt IoUCNdRC C 9nQF vLl.C Ri4 P4 Tdu u6 pNु
अनुमान पर लिलखी गई रियासत व फैजान हबीब की दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर थी थाने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पर रात बजे मेरे छोटे मे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे
11
ब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेजे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे वापसी हुई रियासत व फैजान हबीब की दुकान पर सामान लेने गये थे। तभी नूर पंचाय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेत बजे मेरे छोटेनामे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे मे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे एक
RC 8CF s 8[CNC LNC il es^ uCAR/ IiMs ts 'us I. 'nfF PsE 5bs MCe iv4v
u6 Fुक ान क े सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे सामने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे दिमली थी। तभी नूर
य करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेह क हना गलत बजे मेरे छोटे है दिक थाने सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे पर ब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटेैठक र सारे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे क ागजात बजे मेरे छोटे पूरे सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे दिक ए हो समय करीब शाम के सवा सात बजे मेरे छोटे। तभी नूर
"
42.Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon
the case law reported in 2006 (3) ACR 2726 (SC), Jagdish
Murav vs. State of U.P. and Others, the Apex Court in para no.
12 observed as hereunder:
“…....FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder
case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the
purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial. The
object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to
obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstance in
which the crime was committed, including the names of the
actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if
any, used, as also the names of the eyewitnesses, if any.
Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment,
which is a creature of an afterthought. On account of delay,
the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity,
24
danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured
version or exaggerated story. With a view to determine
whether the FIR was lodged at the time it is alleged to have
been recorded, the Courts generally look for certain
extremal checks. One of the checks is the receipt of the
copy of the FIR, called a special report in a murder case, by
the local Magistrate. If this report is received by the
Magistrate late, it can give rise to an inference that the FIR
was not lodged at the time it is alleged to have been
recorded, unless, of course the prosecution can offer a
satisfactory explanation for the delay in despatching or
receipt of the copy of the FIR by the local Magistrate.
Prosecution has led no evidence at all in this behalf. The
second external check equally important is the sending of
the copy of the FIR along with the dead body and its
reference in the inquest report. Even though, the inquest
report, prepared under Section 174 CrPC, is aimed at
serving a statutory function, to lend credence to the
prosecution case, the details of the FIR and the gist of
statements recorded during inquest proceedings get
reflected in the report. The absence of those details is
indicative of the fact that the prosecution story was still in an
embryo state and had not been given any shape and that
the FIR came to be recorded later on after due deliberations
and consultations and was then ante-timed to give it the
colour of a promptly lodged FIR. In our opinion, on account
of the infirmities as noticed above, the FIR has lost its value
and authenticity and it appears to us that the same has
been ante-timed and had not been recorded till the inquest
proceedings were over at the spot by PW.8"
25
43.Further reliance was placed upon the judgment of this
Court delivered in Criminal Appeal No.3019/1986 (Bachhi Lal
and Others vs. State of U.P.) dated 24.4.2019, this Court in
paragraph no. 31 observed as hereunder:
“Testing the evidence on record on the touchstone of the
principles enunciated hereinabove for ascertaining whether
FAR. in this case is ante-timed, we find that neither the
special report was sent by the Investigating Officer or the
constable moharir promptly to the C.O. nor the original F.l.R.
accompanied the dead body when it was dispatched for
post mortem examination. The deposition made by PW6
that the special report was sent on 20.03.1985 and received
back on 23.03.1985 but both the entries regarding the
dispatch of the special report and its receipt were made on
the same day i.e. on 23.03.1985 creates a doubt about the
credibility of the prosecution claim that special report was
sent on 20.03.1985. The total inability of the prosecution to
furnish any plausible explanation for the inordinate delay of
24 hours in delivering the body of the deceased by PW-6,
constable Raspal to PW4, Dr. Keshav Gupta which was
given to him by the Investigating Officer on 19.03.1985 at
11:00 a.m. for post-mortem examination gives rise to only
inference that is the F.I.R. had not come into existence
either at the time of the inquest or till the morning of
20.03.1985. Hence, we hold that the F.I.R. in this is ante-
timed. “
44.Thus, upon complete analysis of record, we find that
special report of the case has not been sent according to rule
and regulation which is proved from the statement of P.W.10
26
Mahak Singh Head Constable. The statement of P.W.1, PW.5
and P.W.11 further reveals that FIR in this case is ante-timed.
45. On the point for determination no.5, learned counsel for
the appellants submitted that learned trial Judge misread the
evidence of P.W.1, PW.2 and P.W.3 to the effect that they are
not eye-witnesses of the incident. He further failed to notice that
what will be result of non-production of material witness
(Riyasat and Tarachand) by the prosecution, the trial court only
say that it is not necessary that prosecution must produce every
witness. It is also material that learned trial court while
acquitting the accused under Section 307 IPC and Section 25
of the Arms Act recorded that accused Noor Mohammad and
Deen Mohammad were present on the roof of their house from
where they fired which is 400-500 yard away from the place of
incident and there are no independent witness of the recovery,
as such Section 25 of the Arms Act is also not made out but
convicted the accused-appellants under Section 302/34 &
323/34 IPC.
46.On the point of eye-witness account as well as on
interested and related witness, the learned counsel for the
appellants placed reliance upon the case law reported in 1994
(Supp 2) SCC 289 Mani Ram vs. State of U.P. and (2018) SCC
435 Sudhakar @ Sudharasan vs. State. In the aforementioned
cases, the Apex Court acquitted the accused on the ground that
there exists reasonable doubt in the case as the case of
prosecution is unsupported by independent witnesses and filled
with suspicious circumstances.
27
47.Learned A.G.A., Mr. A.N. Mulla and Mr. S.N. Mishra on
the other hand, supported the impugned judgment of conviction
and sentence dated 14.1.2016 contending that FIR is not ante-
timed and on the ground of latches in the investigation,
prosecution case cannot be doubted. Prosecution case is fully
proved from the statement of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3. The
appeals filed by accused-appellants have no merit and are
liable to be dismissed. On the point of defective investigation,
learned AGA has cited following case laws:
(i) AIR 2019 SC 519, Jafel Biswas and others vs.
State of West Bengal (Relevant paras are
paragraph nos. 20 to 23)
(ii) (2013) 10 SCC 192, Hema vs. State through
Inspector of Police, Madras (Relevant paras are
paragraph nos. 10 to 18)
(iii) AIR 2010 SC 3718, C. Muniappan and others
vs. State of Tamilnadu (Relevant para is paragraph
no. 44)
(iv) 1972 (2) SCC 640, Pala Singh and another vs.
State of Punjab (Relevant paras are paragraph
nos. 3 & 7).
48.This Court has considered the entire evidence on record
i.e. eye-witness account, non-production of material evidence
medical evidence as well as defective investigation while
deciding the point for determination nos. 1 to 5 and the
defective investigation.
28
49. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case,
it is borne out from the records that point for determination no.1
is answered in negative to the effect that P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and
P.W.-3 were not eye-witness of the incident and their evidence
are not reliable. Further, point for determination no.2 is
answered in affirmative to the effect that prosecution has not
produced the best evidence to prove its case and deliberately
withheld the material witnesses without any justification. Point
for determination no. 3 is also answered in affirmative to the
effect that postmortem report does not support the prosecution
case as P.W. 1 in his cross-examination stated that person who
fired shot was 7 steps away from deceased father Aslam while
in the postmortem report blackening was found in the injury.
Point for determination no. 4 is answered in affirmative to the
effect that FIR is ante-timed and investigation of the case is
defective. The point for determination no.5 is also answered in
affirmative.
50. In view of above, we find that the evidence of alleged eye
witnesses produced by prosecution does not inspire
confidence. There exists a doubt whether they are eye-
witnesses of the incident or not, the place of incident is also
doubtful. Oral evidence is also not consistent with the medical
evidence, FIR is ante-timed and there are no independent
witness of the incident. Prosecution has failed to prove the
charges against the accused-appellants beyond reasonable
doubt.
51. Accordingly, the Appeals are allowed. The impugned
judgment / order of conviction and sentence dated 14.1.2016
are set aside. Appellants are acquitted of the charges framed
29
against them. The accused appellant Alam in Criminal Appeal
No.888/2016 is in jail. He shall be released from jail forthwith.
Accused-appellants Noor Mohammad and Deen Mohammad in
Criminal Appeal No.639/2016 are on bail. Their bail bonds and
sureties are discharged.
Let a copy of the judgment along with the original record
be sent to the court below for compliance.
Order Date:- 26.5.2022
C.Prakash
(Chandra Kumar Rai, J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.)
30
Legal Notes
Add a Note....