LexAQEEL AHMAD versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 1330 A AQEEL AHMAD v. STATE OF U.P. \ (Criminal Appeal No. 595 of 2007) B DECEMBER 19, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 302 rlw. s. 149 and s. 148 - c Accused armed with weapons entering house of informant - Exhortation by four - Appellant and other fired at informant's son resulting in their death - Conviction of appellant u/s. 302 and imposed death sentence - Conviction of others uls. 302 .... rlw. s. 149 and sentenced to life imprisonment- Accused also D convicted uls. 148 with two years imprisonment - Upheld by High Court however, death sentence of appellant altered to life imprisonment- Correctness of- Held: Special report was sent to Magistrate ·and he received the same on the fourth day of the incident - There was no delay in lodging FIR - Investigation commenced immediately - Even if there was E any lapse on part of investigating officer that would not affect credibility of the prosecution case - Furthermore, number of deaths in a case would not be determinative factor for awarding death sentence - Thus, order of High Court does not suffer from infirmity- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 F - s. 157. According to the prosecution case, dispute arose b~tween the parties as regards the fixation of banner with I " the name of FK. On the fateful day at about 4.00 pm, accused persons-SK, SB, CA, AS, AQ and IR armed with G weapons came to the house of informant-SK's father. ,.. They abused informant and his sons-FK and SH, took out .,;. the banner and burnt it. The companions of SK and SB exhorted, and SK and AQ fired at FK and SH which ,.~ resulted in their death. People from the vicinity came H 1330 - , AQEEL AHMAD v. STATE OF U.P. 1331 there and the accused went away. SA also received A injuries. FIR was lodged at 6.25 pm. Investigation was carried out. The site plan was prepared. The statement of the witnesses-PW 1-informant, PW 2 and 3 was recorded. Accused SK, SB and AQ were arrested. Their statements were recorded and arms were recovered. 8 Accused AQ was convicted u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced to death. Accused IR, CA, AS and SK were convicted for offence punishable u/s. 302 r/w. s. 149 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. They were also convicted u/s. 148 IPC and sentenced to two years imprisonment. Appeals and Reference for confirmation ·of sentence was filed. C High Court dismissed the appeals but altered the death sentence of AQ to life imprisonment. Hence the present appeals. Dismissing the appeals, the court D HELD: 1.1. There is no doubt that forwarding of the report to the Magistrate with reference to Section 157 Cr.P.C. is indispensable and absolute and it has to be forwarded with earliest dispatch which intention is implicit with the use of the word 'forthwith' occurring in Section 157 of the Code which means promptly and without any E undue delay. The real purpose is to avoid possibility of the improvement in the prosecution case and introduction of distorted version by deliberations and consultation and to enable the Magistrate concerned to have a watch on the progress of the investigation. In the F instant case, the High Court noted that the same was received on 20.12.2001. It observed that if there was any lapse on the part of the investigating officer that would not affect the credibility of the prosecution version. [Para 5] (1337-G; 1338-A-C] G Sunil Kumar v State of Rajasthan (2005) 9 SCC 283, Referred to. 1.2. It was submitted that the prejudice is caused because the evidence of PWs 9 and 10 show that there were some deliberations and improvements made. Non H 1332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R. A examination of SA who is supposed to be injured witness also has relevance. It is pointed out that the medical evidence is contrary to the oral testimony. While· the medical report shows two wound and two entries it was \ stated that firing took place once. No question was put 8 to the relevant witnesses on this aspect. Submissions were made regarding nature of the wounds. It was also stated that PW-1 could have used one of the cars which he possessed and there· is no reason as to why he had taken the deceased on scooter. This has also been explained by the prosecution witnesses. [Paras 6, 7 and C 8] (1338-D-F] 1;3. As regard the applicability of s.149 IPC, it is submitted that co-accused included the driver. If they were
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.