LexSTATE OF HARYANA versus MOHD. YUNUS & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 1 S.C.R. 404 : 2024 INSC 34 State of Haryana v. Mohd. Yunus & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No(S).1307 of 2012) 12 January 2024 [M. M. Sundresh and Prashant Kumar Mishra*, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in convicting A1 only u/s. 323 while acquitting u/s. 302/34, and convicting and sentencing A2 u/s. 302 and 323 read with s. 34; and whether in trial u/s. 302 IPC, it is safe to convict on the basis of the statement of an untrustworthy witness. Headnotes Witnesses – Evidentiary value, when witness not trustworthy: Held: For trial u/s. 302 IPC, if a witness is branded as untrustworthy having allegedly twisted the facts and made contrary statement, it is not safe to impose conviction on the basis of statement made by such witness – When there is an effort to falsely implicate one accused person, statement made by such an eyewitness cannot be relied without strong corroboration – On facts, on account of previous enmity between the parties, accused persons armed with weapons inflicted injuries resulting in death of one and injuries to the informant, his son and the other eye-witness – In appeal, A1 was convicted only u/s. 323 while acquitting u/s. s. 302/34, A2 was convicted and sentenced u/s. 302 and 323 read with s. 34, while A 4 was acquitted of charges and A3 died – Statement of witnesses-informant and other eye-witness were recorded twice, firstly, in the trial against A1, A2 and A3 and secondly, in the trial against A4 – Both the prosecution witnesses are disbelieved in the second trial since their statements were contradictory, the facts were twisted and improvements were made, thus, no reliance can be made upon such statement – Also the recovery of weapons from A1 and A2 was not proved – Thus, not safe to convict A2 for offence u/s. 302/34 IPC on the basis of statement of such [2024] 1 S.C.R. 405 State of Haryana v. Mohd. Yunus & Ors. eyewitness – Judgment of the courts below convicting A2 for offence u/s. 302/34 set aside – However, conviction of A2 for the offence u/s. 323/34 not interfered with – Acquittal of A1 u/s. 302/34 upheld – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302/34, 323/34. [Paras 16 - 22] List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 List of Keywords Witnesses; Untrustworthy; Falsely implicate; Eyewitness; Corroboration; Previous enmity; Conviction; Acquittal; Contradictory; Recovery; Delay in registration of FIR; Sentence; Bail. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.1307 of 2012. From the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.2009 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRLA No.437-DB of 2001. With Criminal Appeal No.1308 of 2012. Appearances for Parties P. N. Puri, Rahul Sharma, Mrs. Reeta Dewan Puri, Ravinder Pratap Singh, Manish Dhingra, Ayush Bhatia, Dr. Monika Gusain, Ashok Mathur, Advs. for the appearing parties. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Four accused persons namely, Mohd. Yunus (A1), Mohd. Jamil (A2), Ghasita (A3) and Akhtar Hussain (A4) were sent for trial for the same incident which occurred on 09.01.1999 causing death of Akbar (deceased) and injuries to Deenu (PW-1), Ahmad (PW-2) and Harun. Initially, accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 were tried in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1999 arising from FIR No. 10 dated 09.01.1999 of Police Station Nuh, Haryana in which they were convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the 406 [2024] 1 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Indian Penal Code, 18601 while acquitting them of the charge under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC. During the pendency of the trial against first three accused, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732 which was allowed by the Trial Court on 02.11.1999. While the first trial was decided on 25.07.2001, when accused Akhtar Hussain was absconding, he was tried separately after he surrendered, and charge sheet was submitted on 01.04.2003. The trial against Akhtar Hussain in Sessions Case No. 112 of 1999 dated 29.08.2003 was decided on 05.10.2004 in which he was acquitted of the charges under Sections 302, 323, 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 2. Akhtar Hussain’s (A4) acquittal was challenged before the High Court which came to be dismissed against which no further appeal has been preferred either by the complainant or by the State. 3. Under the impug
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.