LexNOORUL HUDA MAQBOOL AHMED versus RAM DEO TYAGI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 [2011] 7 S.C.R. 782 NOORUL HUDA MAQBOOL AHMED v. RAM DEO TYAGI & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 1256 of 2011) JULY 04, 2011 [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 1c s. 227-Application for discharge-Mumbai riots- Suleman Bakery incident of 9.1.1993-Miscreants from rooftop of Suleman Bakery firing shots and pelting stones, bottles and acid bulbs towards police picket set up opposite to it-Wireless message sent to control room-Joint 0 Commissioner of Police (R-1) reached the spot with Special Operations Squads and ordered to arrest the miscreants-In the process twelve persons got injured and eight died-After roits subsided, Commission of Inquiry set up on complaints against police force - In the instant case, FIR lodged against 18 police personnel for offences punishable ulss. 302134 an(f ' E 307134-They filed application for their discharge-Trial court ordered discharge of the nine respondents - High Court confirmed the order in revision-Held: The miscreants were firing from the rooftop of Suleman Bakery - The trial court relied on the statements of the inmates and held that the F police did not enter the building with the intention to kill the inmates - Even after the entry some of the policemen did not fire a single bullet, they were clearly acting in discharge of their duty and, therefore, entitled to the protection u/s 161 of the Bombay Police Act - The trial court found that there was no G justifiable case against the police officials who even in the volatile situation did not open fire at all - The High Cou,rt also examined the truthfulness of the statements and the documents and rejected the revision against the order of discharge passed by the trial court - In the circumstances, H 782 NOORUL HUDA MAQBOOL AHMED v. RAM DEO 783 TYAGI & ORS. there is no reason to take a different view than the one which A has been taken by the High Court - Bombay Police Act - s.161. Criminal Law: Criminal trespass - Common intention - Common object B - Mumbai riots -Suleman Bakery incident - Miscreants firing from the rooftop ofthe building at the police picket - Wireless message sent to control room - Joint Commissioner of Police reached the spot with Special Operations Squads (SO) - Ordered to arrest the miscreants - When in spite of orders, C door of building was not opened by inmates, door ordered to be broken open - In the process, twelve persons got injured and other eight succumbed to injuries - HELD: It cannot be disputed that situation in Mumbai on 9.1.1993 was extremely volatile - This. was evident from the very existence of picket D . in front of Suleman Bakery- Miscreants were firing at police ,picket - Wireless message was sent to Control room and on that basis SOS led by Joint Commissioner of Police (R-1) reached the place - When orders to open the door of the building were not paid any heed, R-1 was perfectly justified E in directing to break open the front door of the building and the police personnel had to enter - Therefore, entry could not . amount to trespass or criminal trespass - There cannot be · any dispute that the members of SOS had duty to quell the riots - Therefore, SOS cannot be said to be an unlawful F assembly - ·Under such circumstances, if in that volatile situation some of the police personnel did not fire a single bullet, they cannot be made vicariously liable for the acts of some others which acts are not shown to be with a common intention or common object of killing the people - The trial G court and the revisional court have rightly taken the view that there could be no cbmmon intention shared on the part of those who did not fire a single bullet. Commission of Inquiry: H 784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R. A Report of Commission - Evidentiary value of - HELD: The 'observations and findings in the report of the Commission are only meant for the information of the Government - The courts are not bound by the finding of the Commission of Inquiry and they have to arrive at their own B decision on the evidence placed before them in accordance with law. In December 1992 and January 1993, communal riots erupted in the city of Mumbai. Police pickets were set up C in sensitive areas. One such area was Suleman Bakery in close vicinity of a Mosque and a Madarasa. The area fell within Dongri Police Station and the police picket was set up diagonally opposite to Suleman Ba
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.