MAQBOOL @ ZUBIR @ SHAHNAWAZ AND ANR. versus STATE OF AP.

Citation: [2010] 7 S.C.R. 1001 · Decided: 08-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 7 S.C.R. ,001 
MAQBOOL @ ZUBIR @ SHAHNAWAZ AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF AP. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 435 of 2008) · 
JULY 08, 2010 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 - Conviction by courts below 
based on evidence of eyewitnesses - Interference with - Held: 
A 
8 
Not called for as the evidence of eyewitnesses and medical C 
evidence supported the case· of prosecution - Entries made 
in a diary recovered during investigation depicted the plan of 
the crime, its commission and result - Concurrent finding of 
courts below that entries in diary provided substantial support 
to the case of prosecution - Thus, prosecution was able to 
D 
prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 
Investigation - Lacunae in - Duty of Investigating Officer 
while investigating a murder case - Held: Investigating Officer 
is expected to perform his duties with greater caution, sincerity 
E 
and by taking recourse to appropriate scientific methods for 
investigating such a heinous crime - Direction to Director 
General of Police, Andhra Pradesh to examine this aspect 
and take action in accordance with law. 
Prosecution case was that on the night of 2nd 
F 
August, 1999, the deceased was coming home along with 
his employee PW-1 and PW-3. The deceased was 
carrying a bag containing cash. When the deceased 
reached near his house, one of the accused persons 
intercepted the deceased and tried to snatch the bag 
G 
from him. The deceased resisted and the accused fired 
a shot at him. The wife of deceased (PW-2) and the 
daughter opened the door and found that deceased was 
lying injured on the ground. The deceased was taken to 
1001 
H 
1002 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010) 7 S.C.R. 
A hospital where he died. The trial Court convicted A-1 
under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC whereas A-2 to A-8 
were convicted under Sections 302/109 and 1208 IPC. 
High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused 
persons. The conviction of appellants under Section 120-
8 B was set aside, however conviction under Section 302 
was maintained. Hence the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. PW1 and PW2 cannot be stated to be 
C interested witnesses and in any case not of the kind that 
they should be disbelieved merely because they were in 
employment with the deceased and/or wife of the 
deceased. The circumstances of a case have to be 
examined in their normal conduct. It is but natural that the 
o deceased employer who was carrying cash would 
normally ask some of his trusted employees to come 
with him. PW1 was working as a salesman. His statement 
clearly showed that he was fully aware about the facts 
of the business and had stated that a lorry of spare parts 
E had come on fateful night at about 10.30 P.M. where PW3 
and another person were also present. Cash of Rs.40,000/ 
- approximately was in the bag, which the deceased was 
carrying. PW1 was walking with him, while PW3 was 
following from behind. He stated that he could easily 
F identify both the persons. This witness had sufficient time 
to recognize the assailant inasmuch as first the assailant 
had an altercation with the deceased. His demand for the 
cash bag containing the cash was resisted by the 
deceased, whereafter, he shot the deceased, snatched 
the bag and then waited for the vehicle-motorcycle to 
G come, on which both A1 and A2 fled away from the site. 
PW2, the wife of deceased clearly stated that on the date 
of the occurrence, she had switched on the tube lights 
and the light fell on the main road. She also confirmed 
that there was illumination from the Nursing Home which 
H was opposite to the house. In tf:le cross-examination, she 
MAQBOOL @ ZUBIR @ SHAHNAWAZ AND ANR. v. 1003 
STATE OF A.P. 
specifically denied the suggestion that she could not see 
A 
the persons who were coming from right side on the road 
and she stated that the out house was adjacent to the 
main road. The incident took place at the distance of 300 
feet from the house of the owner. After hearing the sound, 
PW-2 immediately ran towards the body of the deceased 
B 
and then took him to hospital. Their statements 
apparently appeared to be correct. They did not 
exaggerate ,any facts. Their statements appeared to be 
truthful description of the events that occurred in their 
presence or of what they had the knowledge. [Paras 7, c 
8, 9] [1011-C-H; 1012-A-H; 1013-A-F] 
2.1. The statement of the investigating officer has to 
be read in its entirety. Certainly, the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.