LexLAL MOHAMMAD MANJUR ANSARI versus THE STATE OF GUJRAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 41 : 2024 INSC 475 Lal Mohammad Manjur Ansari v. The State of Gujrat (Criminal Appeal No. 3524 of 2023) 08 July 2024 [Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Conviction and sentence of the appellant for offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC, if justified. Headnotes† Evidence – Extra-judicial confession – Dying declaration – Reliance upon, when – Murder case wherein prosecution case based on the evidence of eyewitnesses, extra-judicial confession made by the appellant-accused to his employer, and the dying declaration made by the victim to one of the prosecution witness – Though few prosecution witnesses who were eyewitnesses turned hostile, courts below relied upon certain parts of their testimony – High Court disbelieved the testimony of the appellant’s employer and the prosecution witness to whom dying declaration was made – Conviction and sentence of the appellant for offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC – Correctness: Held: Normal rule of human conduct is that a person would confess the commission of a serious crime to a person in whom he has implicit faith – It is unnatural that the appellant-accused would call his employer-prosecution witness with whom he worked barely for five months on the phone and confess, and further call him to the Bus Station – Furthermore, the employer admittedly did not disclose to the police the telephone number from which he allegedly received a call from the appellant – No investigation was made to ascertain the said phone number as also the phone number from which the employer called PSI – It was necessary for the prosecution to collect evidence on these aspects and place it before the Court – Though the employer * Author 42 [2024] 7 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports stated that the appellant again made extra-judicial confession at the Bus Station in the presence of PSI, the prosecution did not examined PSI as a witness – Statement of PSI not recorded during the investigation – Alleged confession made by the appellant before PSI could not be proved against the appellant – Hence, the prosecution’s evidence regarding extra-judicial confession cannot be believed – It was PSI who took the appellant into custody – Hence, PSI was a crucial witness – Vital prosecution witness was withheld from the Court – Moreover, the manner in which the appellant was taken into custody becomes highly suspicious as it was not even recorded in the arrest panchnama that PSI arrested the appellant – Thus, not possible to rely upon the evidence of the employer – Prosecution case regarding the dying declaration made to one of the prosecution witness does not inspire confidence at all – Also, on perusal of the evidence of the hostile prosecution witnesses, nothing in the evidence to be relied upon by the prosecution for connecting the appellant with the murder of the deceased – Appellant’s conviction cannot be sustained – Conviction and sentence of the appellant set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 – Evidence Act, 1872. [Paras 7, 8, 10, 14, 15] List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Evidence Act, 1872. List of Keywords Extra-judicial confession; Dying declaration; Eyewitnesses. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 3524 of 2023 From the Judgment and Order dated 05.03.2013 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in CRLA No. 2436 of 2005 Appearances for Parties Rajat Bhardwaj, Mohd.Ainul Ansari, Manoj Kumar Goyal, Ms. Ankita M.Bhardwaj, Rishabh Goyal, Kaustubh Khanna, Advs. for the Appellant. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Advs. for the Respondent. [2024] 7 S.C.R. 43 Lal Mohammad Manjur Ansari v. The State of Gujrat Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Abhay S. Oka, J. 1. The appellant-accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) by the Sessions Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has confirmed the appellant’s conviction. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. FACTUAL ASPECT 2. The appellant raised a plea of juvenility. By the order dated 10th April 2023, this Court directed the Trial Court to hold an inquiry into the plea of juvenility. Accordingly, an order was made by the learned Trial Judge on 8th April 2023. The learned Trial Judge held that the appellant was not a juvenile in conflict with the law on the date of the commission of the offence. After that, leave w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.