Supreme Court Upholds Conviction of One Accused in Murder Case While Acquitting Two Others. The court found that the evidence of eyewitnesses was credible and established the guilt of one accused while the involvement of the other two was insufficient to sustain a murder charge.

In Favour of Prosecution
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved an appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the acquittal of three accused charged with the murder of Khurshid Mian under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The incident occurred on 2nd August 1978, when Khurshid Mian was attacked by the accused while he was walking in Mohalla Mazar Tat. The motive for the attack was linked to a prior dispute over unpaid rent involving the deceased's father, Banney Mian. The Sessions Court had convicted the accused based on eyewitness testimonies, but the High Court later acquitted two of them, citing reasons related to the credibility of the witnesses. The Supreme Court analyzed the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, including Achhey Mian, PW-1, who was present during the incident, and found their accounts credible despite the High Court's doubts. The court noted that the High Court had improperly relied on a document produced at the appellate stage to discredit the eyewitnesses without allowing them a chance to explain. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of one accused, Saghir, for murder while acquitting the other two for lack of sufficient evidence to prove their common intention to kill. The court sentenced Saghir to life imprisonment and directed the Sessions Judge to ensure the execution of the sentence. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Conviction and Acquittal - Acquittal of two accused under Section 302 IPC set aside, conviction of one accused upheld - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The court found that the evidence of eyewitnesses was credible and established the guilt of one accused while the involvement of the other two was insufficient to sustain a murder charge. The court directed the conviction of one accused under a lesser charge of Section 324 IPC. (Paras 1-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the acquittal of two accused under Section 302 IPC was justified and whether the conviction of one accused was warranted.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Saghir under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment, while acquitting Amir Ahmad and Farid Khan due to insufficient evidence to prove their involvement in the murder.

Law Points

  • Murder
  • Common Intention
  • Eyewitness Testimony
  • Acquittal
  • Conviction
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2004 LawText (SC) (09) 73

Appeal (crl.) 1863-64 of 1996

2004-09-23

K.G. Balakrishnan, B.N. Srikrishna

State of Uttar Pradesh

Farid Khan & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against acquittal in a murder case.

Remedy Sought

State sought to overturn the acquittal of two accused.

Filing Reason

The acquittal of the accused by the High Court.

Previous Decisions

The Sessions Court had convicted the accused based on eyewitness testimony.

Issues

Credibility of eyewitnesses Common intention among accused

Submissions/Arguments

The prosecution argued that the eyewitnesses provided credible accounts of the incident. The defense contended that the eyewitnesses were unreliable due to their criminal backgrounds and the circumstances of their presence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court emphasized the importance of eyewitness testimony and the need for corroboration, while also addressing the issue of common intention among the accused.

Judgment Excerpts

The evidence of the three eye-witnesses proves that A-1 Saghir s/o Zakkan Khan stabbed on the chest of the deceased whereas A-2 Amir Ahmad and A-3 Farid Khan caused injuries on the back and legs of the deceased. The High Court seriously erred in placing reliance on a document which was not produced before the Sessions Court.

Procedural History

The Sessions Court convicted the accused, which was later overturned by the High Court, leading to the State's appeal to the Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 324
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Public Trust in Employment Dispute — Upholds Employees' Rights to Salary and Benefits.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Trade Mark Infringement Case — Continuous Prior Use Not Established by Respondent. Section 34 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 requires continuous use from a date prior to registration; gap in evidence of use after 2013 d...