Text

AHRAR AHMAD V STATE OF UP

---

FACTS OF THE CASE
This appeal is filed in opposition to the conviction ruling dated
12.11.2014 issued by the Additional Sessions Judge of Court No. 3, Bulandshahar in S.T. No.
104 of 2013 (State vs. Nadeem & others), which was based on Case Crime No. 688 of 2012,
Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District-Bulandshahar. In that ruling, both appellants Nadeem
and Ahrar were found guilty of an offense punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34
of the I.P.C., as well as the sentencing order dated 15.11.2014, which imposed a life term of
imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 40,000 each.

They were also ordered to serve a year in prison for failing to pay the fine. The legal heirs of
Asif were ordered to pay the other two-thirds of the fine.
It is important to note that appellant Ahrar Ahmad requested bail in S.L.P. (Criminal) No.
21671 of 2022. However, in an order dated December 14, 2022, the Supreme Court instructed
the High Court to make a final decision and resolve the appeal within nine months. As a
result, this appeal falls under the Supreme Court's accelerated case category. Additionally,
they were ordered to serve a year in prison. The legal heirs of Asif were ordered to pay the
other two-thirds of the fine.
It is important to note that appellant Ahrar Ahmad requested bail in S.L.P. (Criminal) No.
21671 of 2022. However, in an order dated December 14, 2022, the Supreme Court instructed
the High Court to make a final decision and resolve the appeal underneath nine months. As a
result, this appeal falls under the Supreme Court's expedited case classification.
Noticed Mr. Dilip Kumar, learned Senior Counsel with assistance from Mr. Vinod Singh,
Advocates Mr. Mohd Sahibe Alam Khan and Mr. Pushpendra Singh, learned counsel for the
appellant, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the person in question, and
learned AGA for the State.
Paper records are prepared and the Trial Court's record has been obtained.The parties'
knowledgeable counsel helps reexamine and reappraise all of the proof.

According to the FIR, the case's quick facts are as follows:
श्रीमान जी आज दिनांक 14.10.2012 को समय करीब 5बजे शाम मैं आबिद व मेरा छोटा भाई आसिफ पुत्र
अताऊरहमान अहमद निवासी अकबरपुर अपने बहनोई अबसार अहमद पुत्र अल्ताफ अहमद निवासी
मऊखेडा के यहां से दावत खाकर अ (का०फटा) व अकबरपुर वापस आ रहे थे मैं व मेरा बहनोई अबसार एक
मोटर साइकिल पर थे तथा मेरा भाई आसिफ अपनी अलग मोटर साईकिल पर मेरे चाचा मौ० ऊमर पुत्र
मुस्लिम के साथ हमारे अागे आगे थे जब हम लोग भूड के पार बनी बिसा कोलोनी में आसिफ निवासी
अकबरपुर की मोबाइल की दूकान से 10 कदम पहले पहुंचे तो वहां मेरे ही गांव के नदीम व अहरार व दो
अन्य व्यक्ति खडे मिले कि एकदम इन्होने मेरे भाई आसिफ को रोक लिया और उसके साथ गाली गलौच व
मारपीट करने लगे मैंने तुरन्त अपने बहनोई अबसार की मोटर साइकिल रूकवाई तथा मैंने व बहनोई
अबसार ने तथा मेरे चाचा मौ० ऊमर ने उनसे कहा सुनी की ओर मारपीट का कारण पूछा तो मेरे व अन्य
गवाहो के सामने ही मेरे गांव के नदीम व अहरार पुत्रगण हुसैन खां तथा अन्य दो व्यक्तियों ने अपने अपने
हाथों में लिए हथियारों से मेरे भाई को जान से मारने की नियत से गोलियां चला दी जो मेरे भाई को लगी
मैंने अन्य गवाहों की मदद से मुलजिमान को पकडना चाहा तो हवाई फायर करते हुये भाग गये हाथ नहीं
आये मेरा भाई वही लहूलुहान होकर गिर पडा मैंने अपने आपको सभालते हुये गांव के तनवीर को फोन
करवाकर गाडी मगाई और अपने भाई को गवाहो व अन्य लोगो की मदद से सरकारी अस्पताल बु०शहर में
लेकर आया जहां डाक्टरों ने मेरे भाई को मृत घोषित कर दिया मेरा भाई आसिफ मुलजिम नदीम के दादे
मुम्ताज के सामने प्रधानी की चुनाव ल़डा था तभी से ये लोग उससे रंजिश मानते थे और उसे मारने की
फिराक में थे आज मौका मिल गया तो इन्होने मेरे भाई की हत्या कर दी है मेरे भाई की लाश सरकारी

अस्पताल में रखी है रिपोर्ट को आया हूं रिपोर्ट लिखकर कानूनी कारावाई की जाय प्रार्थी आबिद पुत्र
अताऊरहमान गांव अकबरपुर थाना कोतवाली देहात जिला- बु०शहर लेखक अबसार अहमद एस०ओ०
अल्ताफ अहमद गांव मऊखेडा थाना कोतवाली नगर बु०शहर एम 9927523132 नोट- मैं सी/सी प्रमाणित
करता हूं कि तहरीर की नकल चिक पुस्त पर शब्द वा शब्द अंकित है मूल तहरीर संलग्न मूल है।
 का० 821 भूपेन्द्र सिंह थाना- कोतवाली नगर बुलन्दशहर दिनांक 14.10.12"

After preparing the Panchayatnama, the police submitted the deceased person for a post-
mortem evaluation. Following their inquiry, the police obtained blood-stained earth using a
recovery memorandum. They also retrieved a licensed 32-bore revolver, number F.G. 34117,
from convicted Nadeem's home, along with three cartridges inside the revolver's chamber and
five live cartridges in the firearm. By means of a recovery memo, the police also seized the
license that was in the name of the accused, Nadeem Ahmad. The revolver, live cartridges,
and the recuperated bullet were sent to F.S.L. for ballistic analysis.
Following the conclusion of their examination, the police presented their final findings to the
court, which was then forwarded to the Sessions court. On February 18, 2023, Sessions Judge
Bulandshahar filed an allegation against the person charged under Section 302 read with
Section 34 I.P.C. The defendant requested a trial and did not enter a plea of innocence.

ISSUES OF THE CASE –
 Whether there was enough evidence to prove the accused's innocence over probable
cause.
 Whether the appeal in this case focused on the consistency and reliability of the
declarations.
 Whether the accused should be found guilty based only on incidental proof rather than
genuine proof?
 Whether the opposition was successful in raising doubts in the case and whether the
prosecution had fulfilled its burden of proof.
ARGUMENTS FOR THE PETITIONER- It is argued that additionally Tanveer's call logs
demonstrate that he was in his hometown of Akbarpur and did not make any phone calls until
5:51 PM. Both Afsar and Abid individuals it is argued, have not seen the scene of the
incident where the accused are alleged to have been present. Counsel argues that even
Tanveer's call logs demonstrate that no calls were placed on his phone, challenging the
prosecution's claim that the informant called him on the day of the incident. Counsel argues
that there is no documentation demonstrating that Afsar originally invited five to ten people
to his house for a feast at around three o'clock on the day of the incident. According to his
call logs, he was not at home, and the prosecution's theory that the victim and an informant

made their way to Afsar's house to accept an invitation is unsubstantiated. Likewise, there is
no proof that he was present at the location. The next point of contention is that no motive
against the accused has been established by the prosecution.
 The prosecution's argument that the accused, being Mumtaz's grandson, had animosity
toward Asif because the deceased Asif ran against him in the 2000 election has not been
proven. First, it is claimed that PW-1 has explicitly acknowledged that Mumtaz was a
third-degree relative of them. It is also maintained that since Mumtaz passed away in
2006, there would have been no excuse for performing the crime in 2012 if the election
had been campaigned in 2000.
 The motive for running for office 12 years before the incident, when Mumtaz, distant
collateral of the accused, had already passed away in 2006, is completely implausible,
according to learned counsel. The next argument is that, according to the informant, the
incident happened beyond Asif's mobile phone shop, but he was not questioned as a
stand-in witness to back up PW-1 and PW-2, the curious observers. The medical and
occular versions of the prosecution are said to contradict one another.
 It continues to argue that because it is unclear which weapon was used to commit the
crime, the Forensic Science Lab report does not support the prosecution's version. The
learned prosecutor has placed a lot of concentration on this inquiry in order to argue that
it is not proven that the crime was executed using Nadeem's licensed revolver because the
bullet found in the deceased's body was not fired from the revolver that had been located
on him. Additionally, it is argued that accused Ahrar failed to heal.

ARGUMENTS FOR THE RESPONDENT
The appellant's learned counsel has argued
that the FIR was filed after a delay of approximately one hour and forty minutes and that four
people were involved in the crime. However, during the investigation, I.O.-PW-6-S.H.O.-
Jitendra Kalra pointed out that, based on data collected by undisclosed sources and the
statements of the informant and eyewitnesses only two people were determined to have shot
upon the individual who died. The informant provided an annoyed version, according to the
counsel. It is then suggested that the eyewitness's statement is unreliable. In actuality, neither
PW-1, Aabid, nor PW-2, Mohd. Umar, are eyewitnesses.
 It is argued that DW-1, the Nodal Officer, stated in the statement that PW-1 and PW-2
were not present at the scene of the incident based on the call information on their
phones. It is contended that during PW-1's interrogation, a specific question concerning

the cell phone number 9927523132 that he was using at the time of the incident was
asked, and he acknowledged that it was accurate. According to DW-1's statement, the
aforementioned phone was not at the scene of the incident. This witness is said to have
demonstrated that on October 14, 2012, PW-1 was in the village of Akbarpur until 5:15
PM and did not visit the village of Maukheda, where the crime occurred.
 According to the oral testimony, the gunshots were discharged at close range; however,
there is no inversion of the skin wound and no charring or tattooing on injuries nos. 1, 2,
and 7. Additionally, it is argued that the doctor has not provided an explanation for the
causes of injuries nos. 5 and 6. Additionally, it is stated that only 150 mg of food was
discovered in the deceased's stomach, while the prosecution claimed that the deceased
and PWs were returning from an event that Afsar had invited them to. The next
contention is that the DW-1 statement claims that Mustakim, s/o Fakhruddin, a resident of
the village of Chandrawali, provided the information in the police control room at 17:45,
but the police failed to identify this source as a witness.
 Additionally, it is argued that the proof demonstrates that one Ahad Shyam was
responsible for the deceased's hospital admission, in contrast to the accounts of PW-1 and
PW-2, who claimed that after the incident, he called Tanveer on his cell phone and he
came and took the injured person to the hospital. Ajay Kumar, a ward boy, provided the
police with the information via GD No. 40 at 18:39 hours, but the I.O. failed to record
Mustakim's or Ahad Shyam's statements, and even Ajay Kumar's statement was not
recorded as a prosecution witness. This raises serious questions regarding the presence of
PW-1 and PW-2 at the scene.
 Additionally, it contends that PW-5 Shyam Sundar and PW-6 SHO Jitendra Kalra's
statements differ in order to bolster the claim that the I.O. has not signed the
Panchayatnama, that eyewitness statements were not collected for one and a half months,
and that it was unclear from the statements whether there were two or four attackers. It
proceeds to argue that since the licensed revolver was found in an already-open room, it is
unlikely that it was recovered from accused Nadeem.
 The experienced lawyer has further contended that DW-3, a separate witness, stated that
accused Ahrar was reading the "Namaz" in the village of Akbarpur's Jama Masjid at the
exact moment of the alleged crime and was not physically present. Up to 36 residents of
the aforementioned village, according to the counsel, read the "Namaz" at the pertinent
time and provided assertions to SSP, but they were not included in the investigation.

Counsel argues that the discovery of blood-stained earth does not establish the appellant's
culpability.
 According to the prosecution's variant, two firearms were used, but based on PW-3 Dr.
Sachin Kumar's declaration, it is not proven that injuries nos. 1, 2, and 6 were caused by
two different firearms. As a result, the post-mortem does not explain the injuries
attributed to appellant Ahrar Ahmad in the absence of any recovery from him.

JUDGEMENT- After considering all the available information, the Supreme Court
determined that Ahrar Ahmed could not be discovered guilty based solely on the
prosecution's inconsistent proof. The "chain of circumstances" necessary to prove guilt in a
case based only on indirect proof was explained in detail by the Court.
The prosecution was unable to provide an effective and unambiguous link between the
accused and the offense in this instance, the Court found. Although illuminating the factual
proof was insufficient to dispel any reasonable ambiguity regarding the suspect's
contribution, and the witness testimony was found to be incoherent.
The Court reaffirmed the long-standing rule that the prosecution bears the obligation of
confirmation in criminal cases and that the accused is entitled to the presumption of
innocence unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The foundation of criminal justice
is this idea. The ruling emphasized how crucial it is to have a full line of inconsistent proof
when there is no actual proof. Substantial proof must be unmistakable and demonstrate that
the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in order to be admitted.
The Court stated that a comprehensive and error-free investigation is necessary. The proof
presented by the prosecution could be weakened by any investigational shortcomings, such as
the failure to gather or appropriately evaluate important evidence.
The Court emphasized that inconsistent testimony from witnesses may raise questions about
their veracity. Significant inconsistency can raise legitimate concerns about the truthfulness
of witnesses, even though minor inconsistencies might not always result in the rejection of
witness testimony.

---

Detail Information

Title

-

Court

: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT., 2024

Lenght/Sections/Order/Rules

-

Language

English

Case Number/Citation

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4897 OF 2024

Matter(s)

-

Councels

APPEALANT- RAJRSHI GUPTA. RESPONDENT- GOVT. ADVOCATE, BRIJESH SAHAI, GANESH SHANKAR DUBEY, PRATIK J NAGAR, RAJUL BHARGAVA, SIKANDER B KOCHER, SUDHIR KUMAR AGARWAL.

Statement of Responsibility

Huda Zehra, Unity PG College, Lucknow

See Also

File Attachment

Comments

---

You must be logged in to post a comment