Miran Bux Vs. Laloo @ Shagir Ahamad & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 410 of 1992
(With Criminal Appeal No. 411/92)
(With Criminal Appeal No. 411/92)
Petitioner: Miran Bux
Respondent: Laloo @ Shagir Ahamad & Ors.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 410 of 1992
(With Criminal Appeal No. 411/92)
(With Criminal Appeal No. 411/92)
Judges: K.JAYACHANDRA REDDY & G.N.RAY,JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 23, 1993
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Acquittal
Acquittal by the High Court – Evidence of eye-witnesses not trustworthy – Version in FIR not reliable – Infirmities in the evidence of the witnesses – Acquittal by High Court up
Held:
Appeal dismissed.
Held –
JUDGEMENT:
K.JAYACHANDRA REDDY,J.:
1. These two appeals, one filed by P.W.1 Miran Bux and the other filed by the State respectively, are against the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan setting aside the convictions and sentences awarded against the respondents accused.
2. Seven respondents-accused were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302/149, 147 and 148 I.P.C. The trial court convicted all of them and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and various other terms of imprisonment for other offences. The convicted accused preferred an appeal to the High Court. The High Court after a detailed discussion and consideration of the evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses held that the same is not trustworthy and accordingly allowed the appeal setting aside the convictions and sentences. As against the said judgment, the complainant as well as the State have preferred these two appeals.
3. The prosecution case is that one Manzoor Ahmed gave a report to the police on 8th November, 1983 stating that while he and his cousin were working in his meat shop and when the deceased Nazruddin was sitting there at about 8 P.M. the accused armed with Iron rods and hockey-stick came there all of a sudden and questioned the deceased and attacked him with their respective weapons. On the basis of this report the police registered a crime under Sections 147, 148, 307 and 323 I.P.C. The investigation was commenced. Later in the night the deceased Nazaruddin died and an altered F.I.R. was issued. The inquest was held over the dead body and the Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, fond 18 external injuries and one of them was in the head resulting in a fracture. The Doctor opined that the deceased died as a result of intra-cranial haemorrhage. the prosecution relied on the evidence of the eye-witnesses P.Ws 1,6, and 20. P.W.1 is the main witness. he deposed that there was dispute regarding some money between Lallu, A-1 and the deceased and there was a fight between them and on the day of occurrence all the accused came in a body and attacked the deceased. This witness was cross-examined at length. The High Court has examined the evidence of this witness in great detail and pointed out several contradictions and discrepancies. If the evidence of P.W.1 had to be believed there must have been blood on the stones nearby but no blood was found either in the shop or near the shop or on the stones covering the nallah. The High Court pointed out that no explanation has been put forward. All the other eye-witnesses stated to the same effect namely that the deceased was attacked inside the shop but strangely no blood was found. Likewise is the evidence of other eye-witnesses P.W.2 Noor Mohamad, P.Ws 6, 8, 20 and 21 and the same has been considered in detail by the High Court. As rightly observed by the High Court all of them gave the same version in a parrot-like manner. The High Court having discussed their evidence in detail held that they came forward with a version which cannot be relied upon and they have suppressed the genesis of the incident. The High Court has also commented that the investigation was not conducted in a fair manner.
4. Apart from these infirmities, there is one other major drawback in this case. Manjoor Ahmed who have the F.I.R. putting forward this story has not been examined on the ground that his presence could not be secured as he was abroad. It must be noted that the version given by him in his report is being repeated by all the eye-witnesses. In a case of this nature unless the version given in the F.I.R., is found to be reliable, the same version repeated by these eye-witnesses cannot be accepted out-rightly. At any rate in this case, it is difficult to accept the evidence of the other witnesses who are all relatives and whose version suffers from many infirmities, unless the court is satisfied that the version given in the F.I.R. is true. The High Court has considered in great detail under what circumstances the report was given by Manjoor Ahmed.
5. We do not think that this is a fit case where this Court should interfere exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136. Accordingly both the appeals are dismissed.
1. These two appeals, one filed by P.W.1 Miran Bux and the other filed by the State respectively, are against the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan setting aside the convictions and sentences awarded against the respondents accused.
2. Seven respondents-accused were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302/149, 147 and 148 I.P.C. The trial court convicted all of them and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and various other terms of imprisonment for other offences. The convicted accused preferred an appeal to the High Court. The High Court after a detailed discussion and consideration of the evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses held that the same is not trustworthy and accordingly allowed the appeal setting aside the convictions and sentences. As against the said judgment, the complainant as well as the State have preferred these two appeals.
3. The prosecution case is that one Manzoor Ahmed gave a report to the police on 8th November, 1983 stating that while he and his cousin were working in his meat shop and when the deceased Nazruddin was sitting there at about 8 P.M. the accused armed with Iron rods and hockey-stick came there all of a sudden and questioned the deceased and attacked him with their respective weapons. On the basis of this report the police registered a crime under Sections 147, 148, 307 and 323 I.P.C. The investigation was commenced. Later in the night the deceased Nazaruddin died and an altered F.I.R. was issued. The inquest was held over the dead body and the Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, fond 18 external injuries and one of them was in the head resulting in a fracture. The Doctor opined that the deceased died as a result of intra-cranial haemorrhage. the prosecution relied on the evidence of the eye-witnesses P.Ws 1,6, and 20. P.W.1 is the main witness. he deposed that there was dispute regarding some money between Lallu, A-1 and the deceased and there was a fight between them and on the day of occurrence all the accused came in a body and attacked the deceased. This witness was cross-examined at length. The High Court has examined the evidence of this witness in great detail and pointed out several contradictions and discrepancies. If the evidence of P.W.1 had to be believed there must have been blood on the stones nearby but no blood was found either in the shop or near the shop or on the stones covering the nallah. The High Court pointed out that no explanation has been put forward. All the other eye-witnesses stated to the same effect namely that the deceased was attacked inside the shop but strangely no blood was found. Likewise is the evidence of other eye-witnesses P.W.2 Noor Mohamad, P.Ws 6, 8, 20 and 21 and the same has been considered in detail by the High Court. As rightly observed by the High Court all of them gave the same version in a parrot-like manner. The High Court having discussed their evidence in detail held that they came forward with a version which cannot be relied upon and they have suppressed the genesis of the incident. The High Court has also commented that the investigation was not conducted in a fair manner.
4. Apart from these infirmities, there is one other major drawback in this case. Manjoor Ahmed who have the F.I.R. putting forward this story has not been examined on the ground that his presence could not be secured as he was abroad. It must be noted that the version given by him in his report is being repeated by all the eye-witnesses. In a case of this nature unless the version given in the F.I.R., is found to be reliable, the same version repeated by these eye-witnesses cannot be accepted out-rightly. At any rate in this case, it is difficult to accept the evidence of the other witnesses who are all relatives and whose version suffers from many infirmities, unless the court is satisfied that the version given in the F.I.R. is true. The High Court has considered in great detail under what circumstances the report was given by Manjoor Ahmed.
5. We do not think that this is a fit case where this Court should interfere exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136. Accordingly both the appeals are dismissed.
