2007 (12) TMI 548 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction u/s 302/149, 323/149, and 148 IPC.
2. Reliability of prosecution witnesses.
3. Motive for the crime.
4. Non-recovery of weapons.
5. Acquittal of co-accused Daud Khan.
6. Test identification parade necessity.
7. Application u/s 311 CrPC by PW-1.

Summary:

1. Conviction u/s 302/149, 323/149, and 148 IPC:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Jharmal and Juhru and causing hurt to Mubin on 26th October 1991. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by Kannu, brother of the deceased, naming twelve accused. The Sessions Judge found the charges proved against several accused under Sections 148, 323/149, and 302/149 IPC, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for life and fines. The High Court upheld the convictions of most appellants but acquitted Daud Khan.

2. Reliability of Prosecution Witnesses:
The defense argued that the prosecution witnesses were interested and unreliable. However, the court noted that PW-1 Mubin was an injured witness and his testimony, along with that of Kannu (PW-4) and Deena (PW-8), was consistent and corroborated by medical evidence. Minor contradictions in their testimonies were deemed insufficient to discredit their reliability.

3. Motive for the Crime:
The prosecution alleged a land dispute between Majid and the deceased as the motive. The court found that the motive was sufficiently established through the testimonies of the witnesses, despite the defense's contention that the motive was not proven.

4. Non-recovery of Weapons:
The defense contended that the non-recovery of the 'farsa' and 'guns' should discredit the prosecution's case. The court held that non-recovery of weapons does not exonerate the accused when the eye-witnesses' accounts are trustworthy, citing the precedent in Krishna Mochi and Ors. v. State of Bihar.

5. Acquittal of Co-accused Daud Khan:
The defense argued that Jamallu should be acquitted on the same grounds as Daud Khan. The court agreed, stating that Jamallu stands on the same footing as Daud Khan and should be given the benefit of doubt.

6. Test Identification Parade Necessity:
The court noted that since all appellants were named in the FIR, a test identification parade was not necessary.

7. Application u/s 311 CrPC by PW-1:
An application filed by PW-1 under Section 311 CrPC, claiming the innocence of five accused, was rejected by the Trial Judge and upheld by the High Court. The court found that the application, filed nine months after PW-1's deposition, indicated he had been won over and was rightly dismissed.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of Umar Mohammad and others, upholding their convictions, but allowed the appeal of Jamallu, granting him the benefit of doubt and ordering his release unless wanted in connection with any other case.