STATE OF M.P. versus WAZIR KHAN & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 15 S.C.R. 297 · Decided: 16-10-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 15 S.C.R. 297 
~ 
STATE OF M.P. 
A 
V. 
' 
WAZIR KHAN & ANR. 
--
(Criminal Appeal No. 1510 of 2004) 
OCTOBER 16, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
•· 
.J 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 r/w 34 - Acquittal by High 
Court - Challenge to - Held: Not sustainable, in vieW: of the c 
discrepancies in evidence -
Credibility of the prosecution 
version was affected by the opinion of Doctor as also several 
other factors such as delayed presentation of FIR and delayed 
• 
despatch to the Elaka Magistrate . 
According to the prosecution, a petrol bomb was 
D 
# 
thrown at the deceased by the accused-Respo.ndent. 
Respondent was convicted by the Trial Court unde(s.302 
r/w s.34 IPC. High Court set as,ide the conviction of 
Respondent holding that the prosecution case was belied 
E 
by the medical evidence and that t~e scenario presented 
by the prosecution was not believable. 
In appeal to this Court, the conviction of Respondent 
was challenged on the ground that the High Court passed 
the order of acquittal in. a very cryptic manner and 
F 
proceeded on basis of the hypothetical answer given by 
the Doctor overlooking the evidence of the eye witnesses. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. There is substance in the stand of the G 
appellant that the judgment of the High Court is very 
Jr 
cryptic. But when fhe materials on record and the 
discrepancies in evidence as pointed out by accused 
297 
H 
298 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 15 ~.C.R. 
A persons are taken into account, the inevitable 
conclusion is that the High Court's ultimate conclusion 
directing acquittal is in order. It is not only the opinion of 
the Doctor Which affects credibility of the prosecution 
version. There are several other factors which were 
8 
highlighted by the trial court- i.e. the delayed presentation 
of the FIR ·and the delayed despatch to the Elaka 
Magistrate. [Para 6] [300-E, Fl 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1510 of 2004. 
·From the final Judgment and Order dated 29.11.2003 of 
the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh Bench at 
Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 1995. 
Siddhartha Dave, Jentiben AO and Vibha Datta Makhija 
for the Appellant. 
Jai Prakash Pandey for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASA VAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the 
appellant-State and learned counsel for the respondents. The 
High Court by its impugned judgment directed acquittal of the 
respondent who faced trial for alleged commission of offence 
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the 
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). 
2. The prosecution version as unfolded during tria·1 in .a 
nutshell is as follows:-
In the night of 3.9.199~ at about 8:45 respondent No. 1 
had thrown a petrol bomb on Saheed Khan (hereinafter 
referred to as 'deceased') after igniting ~he petrol bottle with 
match stick. Aocording to the prosecution Wairkhan tiad a 
petrol _bomb in. his hand. Hanifignited the petrol bomb with 
match stick and Wazirkhan threw the said bottie filled with·petrol 
-\ 
i 
.. 
~ 
' 
-· 
STATE OF M.P. v. WAZIR KHAN & ANR. 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
at $aheed. The bomb burnt instantly which resulted into the 
death of deceased by burning. After filing FIR, charges were 
framed. Respondents were tried and convicted for the offence. 
An appeal Was filed against the order· of conviction. 
A 
Respondents submitted before the High Court that nature of 
evidence adduced against the respondents is not reliable and 
B 
prosecution story itself demonstrates that the story is not 
reliable. Respondents invited attention to the evidence of PW-
2, Ashok. This witness had deposed that Wazirkhan was, 
holding bomb in his hand which was ignited by Hanif by match 
stick and then the said bomb was thrown on deceased Saheed c 
and Saheed started burning. He came out of the shop and 
rushed to inform Abdul Khalil, uncle of Saheed. This witness in 
para 6 has deposed that after climbing the stairs, bomb was 
thrown in the shop. Similar statement was given by PW3 Sattar 
Khan that Wazirkhan had thrown the petrol bomb which hit the 
0 
head of Saheed and he was burnt. He chased the accused but 
he could not catch them. Thereafter he returned back and 
deceased was taken by Matador to hospital. Mehboob Khan 
PW4 had deposed that Hanif had ignited the bomb by match 
stick and thrown at Saheed. This witness had deposed that 
burning petro

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