LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Monday, December 10, 2018

Sections 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149, 148 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 - Trial court convicted the accused whereas High court reversed the same -Apex court held that We concur with the aforesaid order of acquittal rendered by the High Court, as the present case is ridden with multiple investigative laches and flaws which goes to the root of the matter. Firstly, it is apt to note that out of the seven eye witnesses who participated in the TIP, five of them identified the accused without committing any mistake. - no documentary evidence has been provided to proof that the identity of the accused was kept concealed. Secondly, it is surprising that, although the postmortem report describes that there were only two wounds in the body of the deceased, one being the entry and the other being the exit wound, allegedly a bullet was still recovered from the ashes of the deceased. Thirdly, the prosecution has failed to establish that the bullet allegedly recovered from the ashes of the deceased 20 days later was indeed fired from the pistol recovered from accusedrespondent Wasif Haider. Even, the recovery of pistol is doubtful. Fourthly, as regards to the place of incident, the prosecution failed to ascertain the same with precision. Fifthly, the prosecution failed to examine Ram Chandra, the orderly of the deceased who was also injured in the same incident and had suffered a gunshot injury. Sixthly, the prosecution has also failed to adduce any independent witness. Lastly, it is surprising that although the charges have been framed under Section 307 of IPC, the prosecution has absolutely failed to substantiate the charges by means of evidence. In the instant appeals before us, the prosecution has failed to link the chain of circumstances so as to dispel the cloud of doubt about the culpability of the accused­respondents. It is a well settled principle that a suspicion, however grave it may be cannot take place of proof, i.e., there is a long distance between “may be” and “must be”, which must be traversed by the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt The accused cannot be expected to relinquish his innocence at the hands of an inefficacious prosecution, which is ridden with investigative deficiencies. The benefit of doubt arising out of such inefficient investigation, must be bestowed upon the accused.


                                                          Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana 
                                                               Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1702­1706 OF 2014
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                     … APPELLANT
VERSUS
WASIF HAIDER ETC.            … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
    N.V. RAMANA, J.
1. These appeals by special leave arise out of the common
impugned judgment dated 29.05.2009, passed by the High Court
of Allahabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1419, 1430, 1518 and 898
of 2004, whereby the High Court has reversed the judgment of
conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur in
Sessions Trial No. 164/2002 dated 22.01.2004 under Sections
302 read with 149, 307 read with 149, 148 IPC and Section 7 of
REPORTABLE
1
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932. Whereas the High Court in
Government Appeal no. 5270 of 2005 preferred by the appellantState, has dismissed the appeal against the acquittal of accused
no.1­respondent (Wasif Haider) for offences under Sections 25
and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 4 and 15 of Explosive
Substances   Act,   1908,   while   affirming   the   judgment   dated
3.8.2005   passed   by   the   Additional   Sessions   judge,   Kanpur
acquitting   the  accused   no.1­respondent   (Wasif   Haider)  in
Sessions Trial No. 143 and 144 of 2002.
2. Brief facts as unfolded from the prosecution story are
that, while the complainant (P.W.2­ S.O., P.S. Moolganj, Kanpur)
along with other police personnel was on duty at the parade
crossing, he came to know that a crowd of around 200­300 rioters
were   causing   rampage   and   destruction   at   the   Chaubey   Gola
Temple. Immediately, the complainant accompanied by the police
force   and   A.D.M   (Finance   and   Revenue)­Sri   Chandra   Prakash
Pathak   (hereinafter   referred   as   “the   deceased”),   and   half   a
section   of   Provincial   Armed   Constabulary   [“PAC”]   proceeded
towards   scene   of   occurrence.   Admittedly,   when   the   deceased
along with police personnel were at a distance of around 100­150
paces from Sunehri Mosque on the Nai Sarak, rioters started
2
firing   upon   them   resultantly   injuring   the   deceased   and   his
orderly, Ram Chandra. In order to control the law and order
situation, the police were compelled to fire in their defense. When
the police party reached the mosque, the rioters had already fled
away. Subsequently, when the police party reached Chaubey Gola
Temple where rioters had already looted some houses and had
also committed arson. In the meanwhile, the police also received
the information that the deceased had succumbed to the gunshot
injuries in the hospital. Finally, the F.I.R., Case Crime No. 7 of
2001 came to be registered at 8.05P.M. on 16.03.2001 against
200­300 unknown rioters.
3. On   the   same   night,   after   conducting   the   inquest
proceedings,   the   dead   body   was   sent   for   post   mortem
examination and the investigation commenced. The investigation
officer after recording the statement of witnesses, inspected the
place of occurrence and prepared Site Plan ext. Ka­6. A bullet
which was recovered from the ashes of deceased was sent for
Forensic examination.
4. On   02.08.2001   accused   no.   2­respondent   (Mumtaz
alias  Maulana) was brought to Kanpur by the Delhi police. On
04.08.2001,   accused   no.   1­respondent   (Wasif   Haider)   was
3
arrested. Accused no. 3­respondent (Hazi Atiq) and accused no.
4­respondent   (Safat   Rasool)   were   arrested   on   17.09.2001   and
18.09.2001   respectively   and   thereafter   the   Test   Identification
Parade (hereinafter referred to as “TIP”) was held on 27.09.2001
at   District   Jail,   Kanpur.   Subsequent   to   the   completion   of
investigation, the charge­sheet was submitted.
5. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
It is pertinent to note that in the statements made by the accused
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They claimed that there existed an
inordinate delay in conducting the TIP, as  this time period was
used by the prosecution witnesses to see them at their homes or
places   of   work   to   mark   them   carefully   for   the   subsequent
identification. They stressed on the fact that they were not kept
concealed   in   a   veil (baparda).   The   accused­respondents   have
further stated that, prior to the TIP, the police had taken their
photographs   and   had   shown   it   to   the   other   witnesses.  This
creates a considerable doubt about the genuineness of the TIP.
Further, the accused­respondents have alleged that, they were
wrongfully roped in the case when the police failed to trace the
real culprits. The accused respondents have also put forth that,
although they had clear antecedents, but they were implicated in
4
the crime falsely.
6. By   order   dated   22.01.2004,   the   trial   court,   while
relying upon the prosecution version, rejected the defence story
and convicted the accused persons as under,
ACCUSED CHARGES CONVICTION
[1]. Wasif Haider
[A­1]
[2]. Mumtaz alias
Maulana [A­2]
[3]. Hazi Atiq [A­3]
[4]. Safat Rasool
[A­4]
S. 302/ 149 IPC Life Imprisonment
S. 307/ 149 IPC RI for 5 years
S. 148 RI for 1 year
S. 7 Criminal Law
Amendment Act
RI for 3 months
All of them were acquitted for the charges
under Sections 395, 397, 436 and 153A IPC.
Wasif Haider [A­1]
Acquitted for charges under Sections 25 and
27 of Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 4 and 15
of Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
7. Aggrieved by the abovementioned order of conviction
and sentence, the accused­respondents appealed before the High
Court. The High Court on analysis of evidence found that, not
only there exists various contradictions in the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses but there exists lack of corroboration of the
5
same.   While   passing   the   order   of   acquittal   the   High   Court
observed that the case of prosecution was ridden with flaws in
investigation, most importantly the identification of the accused
was highly suspicious and the TIP was held to be “too good to be
believed”.   Accordingly,   the   High   Court   through   the   impugned
judgment acquitted the accused­respondents and set aside the
aforesaid order of conviction as the prosecution failed to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt.
8. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the High
Court acquitting all the accused, the State of Uttar Pradesh has
preferred these appeals.
9. The learned Counsel, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Goswami, on
behalf of the appellant­State while supporting the prosecution’s
case,   submitted   that   pursuant   to   the   arrest   of   the   accusedrespondents their identification was properly done after taking
due   precautions   and   following   the   procedure.   Moreover,   the
prosecution witnesses had clearly identified the accused persons
in the identification parade and in the court as well. On the issue
of   delay   caused   in   conducting   the   TIP,   the   counsel   also
vehemently   submitted   that,   there   was   no   inordinate   delay   in
conducting the TIP as canvassed by the counsels for the accused6
respondents. The High Court has committed a grave error by not
placing reliance on the TIP as there is nothing on record to vitiate
the results of the same. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted
that since there existed sufficient evidence to prove the culpability
of the accused­respondents, the Sessions Judge had correctly
passed the order of conviction against them and therefore prayed
for setting aside the impugned order.
10. On the other hand, the learned Counsel, Ms. Kamini
Jaiswal, appearing on behalf of the accused­respondents no. 1, 3
and 4, while supporting the order of acquittal rendered by the
High Court, submitted that, the entire prosecution story hinges
on the identification of the accused­respondents, the genuineness
of which in itself is questionable. It was further argued that, when
admittedly the witnesses were at a great distance from the place
of  occurrence, it  was not  plausible  to  identify  specifically  the
accused­respondents, that too in the absence of any particular
hulia or distinguishing marks from amongst a crowd of 200­300
rioters. Further, there was inordinate delay in conducting the TIP
which was fatal for the prosecution.
11. Further, the learned Counsel, Mr. Siddhartha Dave, on
behalf   of   accused­respondent   no.   2   submitted   that   accused7
respondent   no.   2   has   been   dragged   into   the   matter   only   on
account of confessional statement of the co­accused which has
not been corroborated, and no other incriminating evidence is
available on record.
12. Heard learned counsels for the parties. At the outset,
we would like to state that in an appeal against acquittal, the
appellate court would interfere only where there exists perversity
of   fact   and   law   [See  Bannareddy   and   Ors.   v.   State   of
Karnataka   and   Ors.,   (2018)   5   SCC   790].   Further,   the
presumption   of   innocence   is   further   reinforced   against   the
acquitted­accused   by   having   a   judgment   in   his   favor   [See
Rabindra   Kumar   Pal   @   Dara   Singh   v.   Republic   of   India,
(2011) 2 SCC 490 in para. 94].
13. We   concur   with   the   aforesaid   order   of   acquittal
rendered by the High Court, as the present case is ridden with
multiple investigative laches and flaws which goes to the root of
the matter. We shall be addressing the same in seriatim.
14. Firstly,   it   is   apt   to   note   that   out   of   the   seven   eye
witnesses who participated in the TIP, five of them identified the
accused without committing any mistake. As observed by the
8
accused no.3­respondent, Hazi Atiq has big protruding teeth, the
accused no.4­respondent Safat Rasool was suffering from polio
hence had permanent physical disability, but surprisingly this
fact was never mentioned either in the F.I.R. or in the witness
statements.   The   specific   identification   of   the   four   accusedrespondents,   from   a   group   of   200­300   rioters,   with   100%
perfection; without a mention of any distinguishing marks seems
highly improbable considering the distance of the witnesses from
the place of occurrence. Moreover, there existed an inordinate
delay of 55 days in conducting the TIP of the accused no.1 and 2.
Although, the involvement of accused no.3 and 4 was brought to
light on 03.08.2001 itself, the prosecution did not take any effort
to arrest or interrogate them for 6 weeks. But no reasonable
explanation was provided for the aforesaid inordinate delay.
15. Furthermore,   no   documentary   evidence   has   been
provided   to   proof   that   the   identity   of   the   accused   was   kept
concealed.   On   the   contrary,   D.W.3,   Mohd.   Shamim   Siddique,
Record Keeper in the Police Office stated that the general diary
does not mention that the accused no.2­respondent Mumtaz alias
Maulana was kept  baparda. The defence also pleaded that, the
aforesaid inordinate delay was used by the prosecution witnesses
9
to see the accused­respondents at their homes or places of work
to   mark   them   carefully   for   the   subsequent   identification.
Additionally,   accused   no.1­respondent   Wasif   Haider,   in   his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. went to the extent of saying
that, prior to the TIP he was shown to the witnesses and his
photographs and videotapes were prepared. In Mulla v. State of
U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 508 para 55, this court laid down that a TIP
has to be conducted timely, if not, then the delay has to be
explained   and   such   delay   should   not   cause   exposure   of   the
accused. However, in the case at hand, not only there was a delay
in conducting the TIP, but no explanation for the same has been
forthcoming from the prosecution. This creates a considerable
doubt about the genuineness of the TIP.
16. Secondly,  it   is   surprising   that,   although   the   postmortem report describes that there were only two wounds in the
body of the deceased, one being the entry and the other being the
exit wound, allegedly a bullet was still recovered from the ashes of
the   deceased.   The   F.S.L.   report   shows   that   this   bullet   was
charred and blistered. This recovery of bullet from the ashes of
the deceased is irreconcilable with the post­mortem report which
allegedly   states   an   exit   wound,   implying   that   the   bullet   had
10
already left the body. The aforesaid fact raises a suspicion on
both the Post­Mortem report and the F.S.L. report as they are
incompatible with each other.
17. Thirdly, the prosecution has failed to establish that the
bullet allegedly recovered from the ashes of the deceased 20 days
later was indeed fired from the pistol recovered from accusedrespondent Wasif Haider. Even, the recovery of pistol is doubtful.
While, the prosecution case reveals that one .380 bore pistol colt
was recovered from the possession of  the  accused­respondent
Wasif   Haider,   on   the   contrary,   the   evidence   of   P.W.2­S.O.,
Rajendra Dhar Dwivedi reveals that one .320 bore pistol colt was
recovered pursuant to his arrest. Additional contradiction can be
seen in the sanction order wherein two pistols of .380 bore were
shown   to   be   recovered   from   the   possession   of   the   accusedrespondent Wasif Haider.
18. Fourthly,   as   regards   to   the   place   of   incident,   the
prosecution failed to ascertain the same with precision. While the
F.I.R. reveals the place of occurrence to be in front of Sunehri
Masjid, P.W.2, the complainant later improved over his earlier
statement and stated that, the incident actually took place in
Noorani Masjid. On the contrary, the two site plans show the
11
place of incident to be Noorani Masjid.
19. Fifthly,   the   prosecution   failed   to   examine   Ram
Chandra, the orderly of the deceased who was also injured in the
same   incident   and   had   suffered   a   gunshot   injury.   The
prosecution was also unable to prove the injury report of the
above victim. Such a failure is fatal to the prosecution case as his
presence in the place of occurrence is beyond doubt. It has been
placed   on   record   that,   despite   Ram­Chandra   attending   the
proceedings of the trial regularly he was not examined by the
prosecution.
20. Sixthly, the prosecution has also failed to adduce any
independent witness. Even though it is wrong to disbelieve the
evidence   adduced   from   the   official   witnesses,   but   prudence
demands that their evidence needs to tested on the altar of strict
scrutiny. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
evidences adduced by the prosecution witnesses do not inspire
the confidence of this Court.
21. Lastly, it is surprising that although the charges have
been   framed   under   Section   307   of   IPC,   the   prosecution   has
absolutely   failed   to   substantiate   the   charges   by   means   of
evidence. It  is  rather  unfortunate  that  the  courts  below  have
12
failed to  take  note  of the  same.  The trial court  has  erred  in
convicting the respondents for the aforesaid offence, without any
evidence to prove the same.
22. In the instant appeals before us, the prosecution has
failed to link the chain of circumstances so as to dispel the cloud
of doubt about the culpability of the accused­respondents. It is a
well settled principle that a suspicion, however grave it may be
cannot take place of proof, i.e., there is a long distance between
“may   be”   and   “must   be”,   which   must   be   traversed   by   the
prosecution   to   prove   its   case   beyond   reasonable   doubt   [See
Narendra Singh v. State of M.P., (2004)10 SCC 699].
23. This Court in  Kailash   Gour   and   Ors.   v.   State   of
Assam, (2012) 2 SCC 34 has held that, 
“44.  The   prosecution,   it   is   axiomatic,
must   establish   its   case   against   the
accused   by   leading   evidence   that   is
accepted   by   the   standards   that   are
known   to   criminal   jurisprudence
regardless   whether   the   crime   is
committed   in   the   course   of   communal
disturbances or otherwise.  In short, there
can only be one set of rules and standards
when   it   comes   to   trials   and   judgment   in
criminal cases unless the statute provides for
anything specially applicable to a particular
case or class of cases…”
(emphasis supplied)
13
24. In   the   present   case,   the   cumulative   effect   of   the
aforesaid   investigative   lapses   has   fortified   the   presumption   of
innocence in favor of the accused­respondents. In such cases, the
benefit of doubt arising out of a faulty investigation accrues in
favor of the accused.
25. Although   we   acknowledge   the   gravity   of   the   offence
alleged against the accused­respondents and the unfortunate fact
of a senior official losing his life in furtherance of his duty we
cannot overlook the fact that the lapses in the investigation have
disabled the prosecution to prove the culpability of the accused.
The accused cannot be expected to relinquish his innocence at
the hands of an inefficacious prosecution, which is ridden with
investigative deficiencies. The benefit of doubt arising out of such
inefficient investigation, must be bestowed upon the accused. 
26. In   our   opinion,   there   exists   no   perversity   in   the
judgment of the High Court. Further, in the absence of compelling
reasons,   this   Court   is   not   keen   to   entertain   these   appeals
challenging the order of acquittal.
27. We   are   also   not   inclined   to   interfere   with   the
concurrent order of acquittal for offences committed under the
Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act presently before us in
14
Criminal Appeal no. 1706 of 2014. 
28. The   appeals   are   accordingly   dismissed.   Pending
applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
……………………………..J.
(N. V. Ramana)
……………………………..J.
(Mohan M. Shantanagoudar)
NEW DELHI,
DECEMBER 10, 2018.
15