MOHAMMAD MIAN versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2010] 15 S.C.R. 1288 · Decided: 16-12-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1288 
MOHAMMAD MIAN 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 310 of 2006) 
DECEMBER 16, 2010 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. 
PRASAD, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 and s.307 rlw s.34 - Long 
C standing enmity between the parties - Quarrel leading to firing 
of gunshots by accused which ultimately led to death of PW-
1 's father and grievous injury to his brother, PW-2 - Conviction 
of accused-appellants - Justification of - Held: On facts, 
justified - Though there was apparent confusion in the time 
D factor with regard to the special report, the Police official, who 
testified regarding the dispatch of special report to Magistrate, 
was not even remotely cross-examined in this regard and, 
therefore, no advantage can be taken by defence on account 
of this discordance, if any - It must be taken as proved that 
E the special report had been delivered to the Magistrate the 
same day the incident occurred - PW-2 was gravely injured 
in the incident and his presence, therefore, cannot be doubted 
- Presence of PW-1, the author of the FIR, also cannot be 
doubted - Statement of the investigating officer, when 'fead 
F in the background of the site plan, made it clear that PW-1 
was indeed present at the crucial time - The house of the 
complainants was only 100 feet from the house of accused 
and the incident happened about 10 feet away from the house 
of the accused - Presence of all the witnesses was, therefore, 
G natural at the time when the incident happened - Statements 
of PW 1 and 2 that the firing was from a distance of 10 to 12 
steps (about 15 feet) clearly corresponded to the nature of the 
injuries found on the deceased - Trial court had acquitted the 
accused of the charge of murder primarily on the ground that 
H 
1288 
MOHAMMAD MIAN v. STATE OF U.P. 
1289 
the medical evidence did not support the ocular version of the 
A 
incident - The reasons given by the trial court were not well 
considered - Country made weapons had been used and the 
performance of these weapons being unpredictable and 
uncertain, the trajectory of the bullet alone would not be a safe 
basis for assessing the entire evidence more particularly as 
B 
the projectiles could have been deflected from their true path 
by the bones or tissues that came along the way- Conviction, 
thus, upheld. • 
· 
Appellant no.1 owned a fair price shop in the outer 
portion of his house and supplied/sold various items C 
including sugar. The prosecution case was that pursuant 
to an argument over supply of sugar, appellant no.1 fired 
gunshots at PW-1 's brother (PW-2), which rendered him 
grievously injured; that thereafter PW-1 's father pick~d up 
a quarrel with appellant no.1, whereupon at the instance D 
of appellant no.1,. his sons picked up guns and rushed 
to their roof of their house and each of them fired a shot 
at PW-1 's father in quick succession which led to his 
death. 
The trial court held that the charge against the 
accused under s.302/34 could not be made out as the 
medical evidence did not correspond to the ocular 
version, thus, acquitted all the accused of such charge. 
E 
;, The trial court, however, held appellant no.1 guilty under 
F 
Section 307 IPC for having caused the gun shot injury on 
the person of PW-2 and sentenced him to 6 years R.I., but 
acquitted the other accused of that offence as well. 
Aggrieved, the State preferred an appeal assailing the 
acquittal of the accused whereas appellant no.1 filed a G 
separate appeal challenging his conviction and sentence 
under Section 307 IPC. The High Court set aside the 
acquittal orders of the trial Court, convicting all the 
accused under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC 
H 
1290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment. The 
criminal appeal filed by appellant no.1 challenging his 
conviction under Section 307 IPC was also dismissed by 
the High Court. 
8 
In the instant appeals, the appellants contended that 
the High Court had ignored the basic fact that it was 
dealing with an appeal against acquittal in so far as the 
charge of murder was concerned and it could not be said 
that the judgment of the trial court was so perverse 
C r against the evidence that interference was called for. 
The appellants further pleaded that the FIR had not been 
lodged at its purported time but infact much later and then 
ante-timed in the light of the fact that the special report, 
a

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