CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR versus MOHD. PARVEZ ABDUL KAYUUM ETC

Citation: [2019] 8 S.C.R. 439 · Decided: 05-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 30 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
439
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.
v.
MOHD. PARVEZ ABDUL KAYUUM ETC.
(Criminal Appeal Nos.140-151 of 2012)
JULY 05, 2019
    [ARUN MISHRA AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
ss. 120B, 302, 307, 201/120B – ss. 25(1)(B)(a), 27(1) and 5
of Arms Act, 1959 – s. 3(1), (2), (3) and (4) and s.4 of Prevention of
Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA)– Murder and attempt to murder –  In
two different incidents – Investigation by CBI –  In investigation
found that both incidents were part of same transaction and in
pursuance of common conspiracy with the motive to spread terror
among Hindu community after post-Godhra riots –  4 accused
absconded – Trial of 12 accused –  Conviction by trial court –
Appeal before High Court by accused as well as CBI – However, no
appeal was filed by CBI against A-2, A-3 and A-12 –  High Court
set aside the conviction u/s. 302/120B IPC and s. 3(1) of POTA
against all the accused, while upholding conviction under rest of
the provisions – High Court also reduced the sentence imposed on
A-2 – Appeal to Supreme Court –  Held: There is ample evidence as
to conspiracy leading to attempt of murder of PW-39 and fatal attack
on the deceased – Testimony of the eye-witness is reliable and  is
amply corroborated by medical evidence – High Court adopted
hyper-technical approach in assessing the evidence of the eye-
witness and was moved by minor discrepancies which do not go to
the heart of the matter and shake basic version of prosecution case
–  Prosecution case is also proved by forensic evidence –
Call-records of the accused and recovery of the vehicle used for
the offence and the weapon of offence also support prosecution
case – Confessional statements made by the accused,which have
been recorded after due compliance of s. 32, as well as of s. 52 of
POTA also proves involvement of each and every accused in the
criminal conspiracy – The confessional statements have been duly
corroborated by other evidence – Conviction and sentence of A-1,
A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10 and A-11 u/ss. 3(1), (2) and (3) of
[2019]  8 S.C.R. 439
   439
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
440
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8  S.C.R.
POTA and s. 302 r/w s. 120B IPC is restored – So far as A-2, A-3
and A-12 are concerned, no further interference is required and
their appeals are dismissed.
s. 174A – Absconded accused – Prosecution for the charges
of murder and attempt to murder under the provisions of IPC and
POTA – Also prosecuted u/s. 174A – Trial court convicted him u/s.
174A and acquitted him of all the charges giving him benefit of
doubt – High Court modified the sentence by imposing fine of Rs.
21 lakhs with default clause – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held:
Trial court rightly extended benefit of doubt to the accused – Since
the accused has already served sentence of 17 months and also
paid the fine, no interference is required.
Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002:
s. 32 – Confessional statement – Safeguards provided under
– Discussed.
Evidence:
Medical evidence and ocular evidence – Inconsistency
between – Effect of – Held: In case of such inconsistency, ocular
evidence will prevail – Ocular evidence can be discarded only when
the medical evidence completely improbablises the ocular evidence.
Book – Evidentiary value – Held: Opinion of a person is not
in the realm of the evidence – The opinion in the book may be based
upon surmises, conjectures and suppositions and hence has no
evidentiary value.
Newspapers and magazine reports – Evidentiary value – Held:
Reports in the Newspapers and Magazines do not constitute
evidence – A statement in the Newspaper is merely a heresay and
therefore inadmissible in evidence in absence of maker of the
statement deposing in court to have perceived the fact reported.
Constitution of India:
Art. 32 – Writ petition/PIL – By an organization – Seeking
further investigation in a criminal/murder case – On the basis that
the High Court had acquitted the accused in the criminal case
doubting the investigation – Propriety and maintainability of – Held:
PIL was filed when the criminal case was being heard in the Supreme
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
441
Court – It is apparent that the accused persons were instrumental
in filing the PIL – The appropriate course would have been an
application seeking further or re-investigation by the persons
concerned or by the writ petitioner – The motive for filing the PIL
was oblique, improper and against discipline and it is clearly misuse
of forum of PIL – Even on merit there is n

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.