CASE TITLE:
Shamshad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
DATE OF ORDER:
8 September, 2022.
BENCH:
Hon’ble Mr. Suneet Kumar
Hon’ble Mrs. Jyotsana Sharma
PARTIES:
Appellant: Shamshad
Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh
SUBJECT
Recovery of an item or weapon from a location previously unknown to anyone else, including the investigating officer, has been noted by the Allahabad High Court as evidence supporting the confirmation theory, which is at the core of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act's provisions.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Section 27 - How much of information received from accused may be proved. - Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered inconsequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.
- Section 6(a) - Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction. –– Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 313 - In every inquiry or trial - enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 302 - Punishment for murder - Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
BRIEF FACTS
- When the informant, Abdul Rashid, the accused's father, arrived home, he was met by a large group of individuals.
- The crowd informed him that his own son Shamshad had attacked the informant's wife (Chhoti) and his three children, inflicting injuries on their necks with a "kulhari", while intoxicated.
- The locals witnessed the accused Shamshad fleeing while holding a "kulhari" in his hands.
- Residents of that same village testified that the victim was frequently harassed by the accused, his stepson, and that on the day of the incident, when they went to her house, they witnessed the accused injuring the deceased with an axe.
- He went at them in attack mode when they attempted to step in and stop him. The witnesses attempted to grab him, but he managed to escape and head towards the jungle.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the judgement of the learned Additional District and Session Judge, convicting the accused stands.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The Counsel for the prosecution submitted that the two witnesses were in fact not the eye-witnesses but had been planted by the other party to give credibility to its version, in the District Court.
- PW-4 Abdul Rashid, the deceased’s husband, had testified that when he returned to his home, he found a group of people who told him that his son, Shamshad escaped holding a blood-soaked axe. During his cross-examination, he admitted to not witnessing the incident himself. He did not himself witness anybody fleeing from the scene of crime and filed the FIR, on the basis of things narrated by the people who were present at the scene of the crime. This has come forward in a cross-examination.
- The appellant submitted that the evidence given by PW9 (Ishrar) that along with the Police personnel, he went to the place Ghasi Wala Park, Jungle where the vehicle was stopped and the accused retrieved a blood stained axe, hidden inside the bushes at about 1 pm in the afternoon of 27.08.2009, before him, could not be considered to be reliable as they happened to be closely related to the informant.
- The Appellant further submitted that the claims for PW1 could also not be considered reliable for the same reason.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The Respondent claimed that on the evening of August 26, 2009, at about 10 p.m., the suspect Shamshad murdered his pregnant stepmother and her three children, i.e., his step siblings, by attacking them and inflicting damage on vital areas with an axe.
- Chhote and Sirajuddin, who were PW1 and PW2, and the informant Abdul Rashid, who was PW4, were both witnesses questioned by the prosecution.
- The respondent also questioned PW9-Ishrar, from whose presence the accused took possession of the crime's "kulhari" after making a declaration statement. Ten witnesses were all questioned by the respondent, who also provided the documented evidence Exhibits Ka-1 through Ka41.
- According to the respondent's account, the inquest took place at the hospital's grounds on August 26, 2009, starting at 22:45 that evening and lasting until 6:00 am on August 27, 2009. The dead people's necks, faces, and surrounding areas all had deadly wounds.
- The informant, the accused’s father has given unimpeachable evidence found relevant under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. An incriminating article i.e., weapon of offence was recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement given by the accused during investigation.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The Court considered the fact that on the day of the occurrence, the accused personally found a blood-stained axe hidden in the bushes in front of the police and a witness (PW9-Ishrar), and that this evidence was admissible under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
- The Court therefore affirmed the conviction of the murder suspect who had killed his stepmother when she was pregnant and her three children, i.e., his stepsiblings. The Court noted that PW-4's (the accused's father) testimony, which was one of the most crucial pieces of evidence in this case, inspired confidence, and fell within Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act.
- The Court took note of PW9-Ishrar and PW10-S.I. Sri Ram's testimony that the blood-stained axe was found (at the request of the accused) at a location other than the scene of the crime with regard to the recovery of the weapon.
- The Court remarked, “In this case before us, the evidence of PW9 and PW10 further strengthens the prosecution case in the light of the above provisions of law. In our view the evidence led by the prosecution on this count, is not only admissible and relevant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act but also tantamounts to the evidence of the conduct of an accused which too is relevant,” as it took note of the fact that no reasonable justification was provided by the accused in his defence.
CONCLUSION
The Court held that the appeal lacks merit and needs to be dismissed. It was therefore dismissed by the Court. The Judgement of the trial court is therefore affirmed and the appellant is in jail. He shall serve the sentence provided by the trial court, i.e. imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 and further imprisonment for default.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
