# Mahfooz v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 10 ILRA 4
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-10-01
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 2014
- **Bench:** Arvind Singh Sangwan, Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mahfooz-v-state-of-u-p-51184
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Law
-
Appeal
against
conviction
-
Conviction Overturned
-
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 -
Murder - Principle of benefit of doubt -
wrongful
conviction
-
material
contradictions - tainted investigation - fair
trial.

(B) Practice & Procedure - Appellant Spent
17 years of actual sentence and 20 years
of total sentence with remission without a
criminal history, entitled to pre-mature
release, but the case has not been
processed - No proper investigation was
conducted by the police. Acquittal restores
innocence, emphasizing need for rigorous
investigation and fair trials. (Para - 36H)

Appellant was convicted of murder - 17 years of
actual
imprisonment
and
20
years
with
remission - prosecution relied on witness
testimonies that were later found inconsistent -
No substantial evidence to connect appellant to
the crime - tainted investigation. (Para 1-19)

HELD: - Court acquitted Appellant due to
material contradictions in prosecution witnesses'
statement of informant - PW-1 and eye-witness
- PW-6. Appellant's conviction set aside after 17
years due to unreliable witness testimony and
tainted investigation. Appellant entitled to
benefit of doubt. Conviction and sentence set
aside. Appellant released from judicial custody
forthwith. (Para - 36,37,38)

Appeal allowed. (E-7)

## Text

4 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2024) 10 ILRA 4
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
THE HON'BLE MOHD. AZHAR HUSAIN
IDRISI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 2014

Mahfooz ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri S.K. Tripathi, Sri Ajay Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate

(A)
Criminal
Law
-
Appeal
against
conviction
-
Conviction Overturned
-
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 -
Murder - Principle of benefit of doubt -
wrongful
conviction
-
material
contradictions - tainted investigation - fair
trial.

(B) Practice & Procedure - Appellant Spent
17 years of actual sentence and 20 years
of total sentence with remission without a
criminal history, entitled to pre-mature
release, but the case has not been
processed - No proper investigation was
conducted by the police. Acquittal restores
innocence, emphasizing need for rigorous
investigation and fair trials. (Para - 36H)

Appellant was convicted of murder - 17 years of
actual
imprisonment
and
20
years
with
remission - prosecution relied on witness
testimonies that were later found inconsistent -
No substantial evidence to connect appellant to
the crime - tainted investigation. (Para 1-19)

HELD: - Court acquitted Appellant due to
material contradictions in prosecution witnesses'
statement of informant - PW-1 and eye-witness
- PW-6. Appellant's conviction set aside after 17
years due to unreliable witness testimony and
tainted investigation. Appellant entitled to
benefit of doubt. Conviction and sentence set
aside. Appellant released from judicial custody
forthwith. (Para - 36,37,38)

Appeal allowed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Singh
Sangwan, J.)

1. This appeal is preferred against the
judgment of conviction dated 21.05.2013,
passed by Additional Sessions Judge/
Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kannauj in
Sessions Trial No. 25 of 2008 (State Vs.
Mahfooz) vide which the appellant was
held guilty of offence punishable under
Section 302 of I.P.C. as well as the order of
sentence of the same date vide which the
accused-appellant
was
awarded
life
sentence along with fine of Rs. 25,000/-
and in case of default in payment of fine, to
undergo further sentence of five months.

2. Heard Sri Ajay Shankar, the legal
aid counsel who addressed the argument on
behalf of the appellant in the main appeal
and learned AGA for the State.

3. The Trial Court's record is received
and paper books are ready. With the
assistance of learned counsel for the
parties, the entire evidence is re-scrutinized
and re-appreciated.

4. Brief facts of the case, as per the
complaint given to the police Ex.Ka-1, is as
under :

"सेवा में,

श्रीमान कोतवाल

साहब कन्नौज,

श्रीमानजी,
10 All. Mahfooz Vs. State of U.P.
5

ननवेदन है नक प्रार्थी सुभाष कहार पुत्र सन्ना कहार
ग्रा० मनलकापुर र्थाना कन्नौज का है मेरा बडा भाई नदनेश मछली
बेचने का धंधा करता है आज नद० 19.10.06 को भाई मछली
बेचने वंशीपुरवा गया र्था तर्था वंशीपुरवा बाजार में व ग्रांव के नरेश
भंगी पुत्र शम्भू के शार्थ बाजार गया र्था मेरा भाई मछली बेचकर
जल्दी चला आया मै व नरेश भी खरीददारी करके वापस आ रहे र्थे
परमदेव मनन्दर महाचन्रापुर के पास समय करीब साढे पांच बजे ग्रांव
अहमदपुर रौनी के महफूज पुत्र हवलदार तर्था मुद्दू ने भाई को रोक
कर मछली के पैसे मांगे मना करने पर मुद्दू ने भाई को पकड़ नलया
तभी महफूज ने हार्थो में नलए तमंचा से गोली मार दी भाई की
तत्काल मौत हो गयी मैने व नरेश ने घटना को देखा व मुल्जीमान
को पहचाना है हमारे शोर गुल पर ग्रा० महचरापुर के काफी लोग
आ गये तर्था गांव वालो ने मुद्दू को पकड़ने में हल्की फुल्की चोट
लगी नजससे बाद में उसकी भी मौत हो गयी महफूज तमंचा फरहाते
भाग गया सूचना को आया ह ूँ। काययवाही करने की कृपा करे।
नद० 19.10.06
प्रार्थी नन० अं० सुभाष
सुभाष पुत्र सन्ना कहार
नन० ग्रा० मनलकापुर
र्था० नज० कन्नौज

प्रदर्श क-1"

5. The police, thereafter, registered the
chik
F.I.R.
and
prepared
the
Panchayatnama of deceased-Dinesh as well
as deceased-brother of the appellantMuddu. The dead bodies were sent to the
post-mortem and as per the post-mortem
report of Dinesh, the following injuries
were found :

"Ante-mortem Injuries

1. Fire Arm W.O.E. Gutter
shaped 8.0 cm x 1.0 cm x chest cavity deep
over left side upper part of chest involving
axillary
(ant.)
fold
margins
inverted
lacerated and relymosed. On dissection left
side IIIrd fractured, left pleura & lung,
diaphragms, liver & intestines lacerated,
chest and abdominal cavity full of blood
with faecal matter. One bullet recovered
from abdominal cavity Direction - left to
right & downwards and backwards."

6. Postmortem of Muddu was also
conducted and as many as seven injuries on
the head, abdomen and the nature of
lacerated
wound,
multiple
contusion,
abrasions on the entire body were found.

7. However, no F.I.R. was registered
with regard to murder of Muddu, the real
brother of the appellant. Thereafter, the
police conducted the further investigation,
recorded
statement
of
prosecution
witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and
submitted the charge-sheet against the
appellant.
Thereafter,
the
case
was
committed to the Court of Sessions and the
following charges were framed :

"मै डा० मंजू ननगम सत्र न्यायाधीश कन्नौज आप
अनभयुक्त महफूज को ननम्न आरोप से आरोनपत करती ह ूँूँः-

यह नक नदनांक 19.10.2006 को समय करीब
5.30 बजे शाम स्र्थान बरमदेव मंनदर के पास वहद ग्राम महचन्दापुर
र्थाना कोतवाली कन्नौज नजला कन्नौज के अंतगयत वादी के भाई
नदनेश की मृत्यु काररत करने के आशय से तमन्चे से गोली मारकर
मृत्यु काररत करके हत्या कर दी। इस प्रकार आपने भारतीय दण्ड
संनहता की धारा 302 के अंतगयत दण्डनीय अपराध काररत नकया
जो सत्र न्यायालय के संज्ञान के अंतगयत है।

आरोप अनभयुक्त को सुनाया व समझाया गया।
अनभयुक्त ने आरोप को इन्कार नकया एंव नवचारण की मांग की।

नदनांक - 08.04.2008
ह०अप०
(डा० मंजू ननगम)
सत्र न्यायाधीश, कन्नौज।
एतद्वारा मैं आपक ननदेश देती ह ूँ नक आपका परीक्षण उक्त आरोप
के नलए सत्र न्यायालय वारानकया जाय।
नदनांक - 08.04.2008
ह०अप०
(डा० मंजू ननगम)

सत्र न्यायाधीश, कन्नौज।"

8. Subhash appeared as PW-1 and his
statement read as under :
6 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"19.10.06 की घटना है। मेरा भाई ददनेर् घर से
मछली बेचने के दलये वंर्ीपुरवा के बाजार गया था। उसके साथ मैं
तथा गांव के नरेर् भी गये थे। जब मेरा भाई मछली बेचकर वापस
घर आ रहा था। तो महाचन्दापुर के आगे बृहमदेव मदन्दर के पास
पहुचा तो वहां पर हादजर अदालत मुदजजम महफूज तथा मद्दू दमले।
मै अपने भाई के 20-25 कदम पीछे चल रहे थे। मेरे साथ
नरेश भी था। र्ाम के साढे 5 बजे का समय था। इन लोगो ने मेरे
भाई से पैसे मांगे। पैसे ददये नही तो मद्दू ने मेरे भाई को पकड़ दलया
तो महफूज ने अपने हाथ में दलये तमंचे से गोली मार दी जो मेरे भाई
के बगल में लगी। तो मैने तथा नरेर् ने घटना देखी व दचजलाये तो
महचन्दापुर के तथा आस पास के लोग आ गये दजन्होने मद्दू को
पकड़ दलया उसे मारा पीटा दजससे उसकी मौत हो गई। महफूज
तमंचा लहराता हुआ भाग गया। घटना की तहरीर मैनें एक व्यदि से
बोलकर दलखाई थी जो मैनें बोला था वो उसने दलखा था पढवाकर
सुनकर उस पर अपना दनर्ानी अंगूठा लगाया था। गवाह को तहरीर
कागज सं० 4A/2 पढकर सुनाया गया तो गवाह तहरीर पर अपने
दनर्ानी अंगूठा की तस्दीक करता है। प्रदर्श क-1 डाला गया। तहरीर
लेकर थाने गया वहां मेरी ररपोटश दलखी गई। मेरे भाई की गोली लगने
से मौके पर ही मृत्यु हो गई। ररपोटश दलखने में पुदलस मौके पर आई
थी। मृतको का पंचायातनामा मेरे सामने भरा गया था। दरोगाजी ने
अन्य लोग को पंच दनयुि दकया था। पंचायतनामा कागज सं०
8A/1व 8A/2 व 10A/1 व 10A/2 पर मेरे दनर्ानी अंगूठा
है। इस पर क्रमर्ः प्रदर्श क-2 व क-3 डाला गया। लार्ो को
कपड़ो में सीलमोहर कर पुदलस के सुपुदश कर वास्ते कराने पोस्टमाटशम
भेज ददया था।"

9. In cross examination, this witness
stated that his brother used to sell fish and
used to bring the same in the market on a
bicycle. He further deposed as under :

"घटना वाले ददन मै मछली खरीदने अपने भाई के
साथ नही गया लेदकन बाजार भाई के साथ गया था। मछली खरीद
कर मेरे भाई करीब ददन के 12 बजे घर आ गया था। जब मेरा भाई
घर पर आया तब मै घर पर मौजूद था। मदजलकापुर से वंर्ीपुरवा
पदिम ददर्ा में है। यह करीब 2-1/2 Kmदूर है। मदजलकापुर से
वंर्ीपुरवा पहुचने में साइदकल से पौन या करीब 1 घण्टा लगता है।
घटनास्थल से वंर्ापुरवा पदिम ददर्ा में करीब 1 Km दूर है। मेरे
गांव से अहमदपुर रौनी उत्तर ददर्ा में एक-सवा km दूर होगा।
घटना स्थल से अहमदपुर रौनी उत्तर ददर्ा में करीब 2-1/2 Km
दूर है। घटना वाले ददन मेरा भाई ददनेश एक बजे ददन में घर से
बाजार गया था। मै मृतक ददनेश एक बजे ददन में घर से बाजार
गया था। मै मृतक ददनेश के साथ नही गया था। बदकक उनके
बाद बाजार गया था। मै दो बजे बाजार गया था। पौने दो बजे
करीब मेरा भाई बाजार पहुच गया होगा। "

10. In further cross examination, he
stated that he had no knowledge whether
Mahfooz had any money dispute with his
brother or that he had demanded money
from his brother as this fact is not
mentioned in the F.I.R. He further stated
that the bullet was fired from a very close
range. The public had caught hold of
Muddu and, thereafter, the mob killed him
by giving beatings and then they brought
the dead body near the place where his
brother was murdered. About five hundred
people gathered at the spot. He further
stated that he has no knowledge when
appellant Mahfooz was arrested and only
one firearm injury was caused.

11. Dr. Narendra Kumar (PW-2), who
conducted the post-mortem of Muddu and
Dinesh deposed as under :

"साक्षी डा० नरेन्र कुमार वररष्ठ परामर्शदाता डा० राम
मनोहर लोदहया अस्पताल फर्रशखाबाद ने आज दद. 16.3.10 को
सर्पथ साक्ष्य ददया दक-

दद० 20.10.06 को मैं दजला दचदकत्सालय
फर्रशखाबाद में बतौर वररष्ठ परामर्शदाता तैनात था। इस ददनांक को
मेरी पोस्टमाटशम हेतु ड्यूटी लगी थी। उस ददन समय 2.00 पी.एम.
पर मुद्दू S/O अज्ञात R/O अहमदपुर (Sic) P.S. कोत०
कन्नौज दज० कन्नौज की की बाडी सवशमुहर एक सीजड बंडल में
प्राप्त हुई। दजसे S.H.O. कन्नौज द्वारा भेजा गया था दजसे C.P.
No. 230 बंकेर् कुमार व C.P. 362 महावीर लेकर आए थे।
मेरे द्वारा समय अपराह्न 2.45 बजे र्व परीक्षण दकया गया। मृतक
की आयु करीब 36 वर्श थी। मृतक औसत कद काठी का था।
मृत्यु पूवश चोटे

र्व के र्रीर पर आई चोटों का मृत्यु पूवश का दववरण
दनम्नवत है।

1. बहुसंख्यीय फटे घाव दसर चेहरे तथा बांए कान के
ऊपर दजसका आकार 6 सेमी x 1 सेमी से लेकर 3 सेमी x 1.5
सेमी तथा हड्डी तक गहराई के घाव थे। दवच्छेदन करने पर बाई
10 All. Mahfooz Vs. State of U.P.
7
टेम्पोरल, पैराइटल, मैदन्डबल तथा मैदससलरी हड्डी टुकडों में टूटी
हुई थी। मैनेन्जीज व ब्रेन भी फटे हुए थे।

2. बहुसंख्यीय खरोंच के साथ नीलगू चोटें जो गदशन
पर सीने पर दोनों तरफ तथा पेट पर पाई गई दजनका आकार 22.0
Cm x 11.0 Cm से लेकर 15.0 Cm x 3.0 Cm तक
था। दवच्छेदन करने पर दाई ओर की दूसरी से दसवीं तक पसदलयां व
बाई ओर तीसरी से नौंवी तक पसदलयां टूट हुई थी। स्टनशम भी टूटी
दमली। दोनों तरफ प्लूरा फेफडों तथा लीवर स्पलीन फटे हुए दमले।
सीने तथा पेट की कैदवटी खून से भरी दमली।

3. नीलगू चोट आकार 18.0 Cm x 3.0 Cm
दाई जांघ के सामने पाए गए।

4. नीलगू चोट जो संख्या में आठ थी। बाई जांघ पर
सामने और बाहर के दहस्से पर पाई गई दजनका आकार 16.0
Cm x 3.0 Cm से 12.0 Cm x 2.5 Cm तक था।

5. बहुसंख्यक खरोच के साथ नीलगू चोटें दोनों
चूतड़ के पीछे दजनका आकार 15.0 Cm x 10.0 Cm से
13.0 Cm x 4.0 Cm था।

6. खरोंच सदहत नीलगू चोट आकार 5.0 Cm x
3.0 Cm बांए हाथ के पीछे की ओर।

7. नीलगू चोट 6.0 Cm x 4.0 Cm दाए हाथ
के पीछ था।

दवच्छेदन से पूवश र्व की दर्ा अााांखे बंद मुुँह
थोडा खुला हुआ सूखा जमा खून दसर पर व चेहरे पर दमला हुआ
था। पेट थोडा फूला हुआ था तथा र्रीर पर डस्ट मौजूद थी। पी.एम.
स्टेदनंग दडवेन्डेन्ट पाटश पर मौजूद थी तथा राइगर मादटशस ऊपर दलम्ब
से जा चुकी थी तथा लोअर दलम्ब पर मौजूद थी।

आंतररक परीक्षण

दसर तथा ग्रीवा ऊपर बताया जा चुका है। करोदट का
आधार फ्रैसचर पाया गया। रीढ तथा वदटशब्रा सामान्य, स्पाइनल काडश
नही खोला गया। थोरेसस, वाजस, कादटशलेज, ररब्स प्लूरा ऊपर बताए
जा चुके है। पैरीकादडशयम में हीमेटोमा पाया गया। हृदय खाली था।
पैरीटोदनयम हीमेटोमा कैदवटी खून से भरी हुई । आमार्य खून से
दमला हुआ, पेस्टी फूड 200 M.L. पाया गया दजसमें एजकोहल
की गंध पाई गई। बडी आंत गैसयुि, फीकल मेटर के साथ जगह
जगह हीमोटोमा पाया गया। जननांग सामान्य व सरकमसाइज्ड दमला।

मेरी राय में मृत्यु का कारण मृत्यु पूवश आई चोटों से
रि बहने व र्ाक के कारण हुई। र्व परीक्षण की ररपोटश की एक
कापी एक संलग्नक के साथ S.P. फतेहगढ को भेजी गई। एक प्रदत
दजसके साथ एक सीलड बंडल था दजसमें बदनयाइन एक अंडरदवयर
एक पैन्ट एक टोटल तीन कपडे जो र्व पर पाए गए थे S.H.O.
कोतवाली कन्नौज को भेजे गए।

एक प्रदत सी.एम.ओ. फर्रशखाबाद को भेजी गई। यह
पी.एम.आर. कागज सं. 7A/1 मेरे द्वारा र्व दवच्छेदन के समय ही
तैयार की गई थी जो मेरे लेख व हस्ताक्षर में है। इस पर प्रदर्श क-4
डाला गया।

उसी ददन 2.00 PM पर ही मृतक ददनेश S/O
सन्ना R/O मदलकापुर P.S. कोत० कन्नौज की Dead बाडी
S.H.O. कन्नौज द्वारा भेजी गई थी दजसे का० 230 लोकेर्
कुमार व 362 महावीर ही लेकर आए थे उि का र्व दवच्छेदन मेरे
द्वारा 3.30 P.M. पर दकया गया था मृतक की उम्र करीब 30
वर्श थी। मृतक की कद काठी औसत थी।

दर्ा- आंखे तथा मुुँह थोडा खुला व पेट थोडा फूला
हुआ था। पीछे की ओर P.M. स्टेदनंग मौजूद थी। राइगर मादटशस
ऊपर तथा दोनों दलम्बस पर मौजूद थी। सीने में बाई ओर सूखा जमा
खून मौजूद था।

मृत्यु पूवश आई चोटें

1. गोली के घुसने का घाव गटर के आकार का 8
Cm x 1.0 Cm x चेस्ट कैदवटी तक गहरा था। सीने पर बाई
ओर ऊपरी दहस्से पर एदग्जशलरी फोजड तक मौजूद थी। दकनारे अन्दर
को झुके हुए फटे हुए तथा इकाई कोस्ट था। दवच्छेदन पर बाई ओर
की तीसरी पसली टूटी थी बांए प्लूरा, फेफडा, डायफ्राम दलवर तथा
छोटी व बडी आंते फटी पाई गई। चेस्ट तथा एब्डादमन कैदवटी खून
व फीगस मैटर से भरी थी। एक गोली एब्डादमन कैदवटी से ररकवर
की गई। घाव की ददर्ा बाई ओर से दाई ओर नीचे की ओर तथा
पीछे की ओर थी।

अााांतररक परीक्षण-

1. दसर तथा गदशन सामान्य

2. थोरेसस में उपरोि के अलावा बाकी सब
सामान्य।

3. एब्डादमल उपरोि के अलावा आमार्य में
लगभग 120 ग्राम पेस्टी फूड मौजूद पाया गया। बाकी सब सामान्य
था।

मेरी राय में मृत्यु का कारण मृत्यु पूवश आई आग्नेयास्त्र
से आई चोटों से होने वाले हेमरेज, र्ाक के कारण हुई थी।
पी.एम.आर. कागज सं० 9A मेरे द्वारा र्वदवच्छेदन के समय ही
तैयार दकया गया था जो मेरे लेख व हस्ताक्षर में हैं। प्रदर्श क-5
डाला गया। इस र्व परीक्षण की ररपोटश की एक प्रदत एस.पी.
फतेहगढ को आठ संलग्नक सदहत भेजी गई तथा एक प्रदत मय एक
सीजड बंडल दजसमें मृतक के कपडे र्टश एक, बदनयान एक, पेन्ट
एक, अंडरदवयर एक, मोजा एक जोडा, पीले कंग की धातु का एक
छजला कुल छः आइटम S.H.O. कन्नौज को भेजे गए।
8 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

सीलबंद एक दलफापा दजसमें एक गोली थी एस.पी.
फतेहगढ को भेजा गया तथा र्व परीक्षण ररपोटश की एक प्रदत
सी.एम.ओ. फतहेगढ को भेजी गई।

x x x x By Defence Sri Ramendra
Singh Katara Ad.

दोनों र्व परीक्षण हेतु एक साथ लाए गए थे। मृतक
मुद्दू के मृत्यु पूवश चोटों में भाले की चोट नही हो सकती है बदजक
सररया की चोट हो सकती है।

मृतक मुद्दू व ददनेर् की मृत्यु लगभग एक ही समय में
हुई होगी। इसज क-5 में र्व परीक्षण के समय मैनें सररया की चोट
से आंतररक अंगों का चुटदहल होना नही पाया गया। प्रदर्श क-5 में
भाले की चोट बाह्य तथा आंतररक चोटों में मैनें नही पाई। र्व
परीक्षण से लगभग 24 घंटे पूवश चोटें आना संभव है। मृतक ददनेर्
के र्व पर जो चोट मैनें दर्ाशई है उस चोट के अलावा कोई अन्य
चोट नही पाई गई थी। मृतक ददनेर् का मुह थोडा खुला हुआ था यह
जर्ररी नही है दक उसके दचजलाने से खुला रह गया हो। ददनेश के
बाह्य चोट में कादलमा मौजूद नही थी। घाव के पास बार्रद की
कोई दुगशन्ध नही थी। ददनेर् के जो घाव है दकतनी दूर से फायर दकया
गया हो यह मैं नही बता सकता। ददनेर् का परीक्षण बाद में दकया
गया। चोट नं० 2 मुद्दू की एब्रेदडड कन्टूजन है। कोई कट नही पाया
गया। मुद्दू की चोट नं० 1 के कारण ही मृत्यु होना संभव है। "

12. PW-3, SI Bhagwat Singh Hundal,
stated that on 19.10.2006, the investigation
was handed over to him and he prepared
the Panchayatnama of Muddu at about 6.45
PM
which
was
witnessed
by
Prabhashchand, Gajodhar, Ram Pratap,
Radheyshyam and Subhash. Thereafter, he
prepared the challan (Ex.Ka-6) and sent a
letter to Chief Medical Officer (Ex. Ka-7
and 8) for conducting post-mortem of
Muddu. He also stated that he has given a
letter to Chief Medical Officer to give the
cause of death vide Ex.Ka-9 to Ex.Ka-11.

In
further
examination,
this
witness stated that on the same day, he
prepared the Panchayatnama of deceased
Dinesh at about quarter to 8.00 PM.

13. S.H.O. V.P. Singh (PW-4) stated
that the panchayatnama of deceased Muddu
and Dinesh was conducted by SSI B.S.
Hundal and site plan was prepared which is
Ex.Ka-12. He further stated that accusedMahfooj was not arrested till 23.11.2006
and further investigation was handed over
to S.H.O. T.P. Singh.

14. Raj Kumar Srivastava (PW-5)
stated that he was posted as Constable
Moharrir and on receiving the complaint,
he registered Chik F.I.R. (Ex.Ka-13) and
prepared G.D. which is Ex.Ka-14. He
stated that the complainant came at 6.40
PM on 19.10.2006 for registration of the
case.

15. Naresh (PW-6) stated that he along
with Dinesh and Subhash were coming
from the market. He was 20-25 steps
behind when he saw that Dinesh and
Mahfooz were having altercation. Muddu
was also along with Mahfooz. He and
Subhash were 20-25 feet behind. In the
meantime, Mahfooz fired upon Dinesh who
died. People caught hold of Muddu and
gave him beatings, however, Mahfooz
escaped from the spot.

16. In cross examination, this witness
stated that he is working as Sweeper in
Delhi and he has been brought to the Court
by Subhash. He pleaded ignorance about
the time when deceased-Dinesh had taken
the fish to the market and further stated that
he had not seen Muddu prior to the incident
though he knew Mahfooz. He further stated
that he did not remember the date of
incident and also stated that he do not know
about the shops abutting the shop of
Dinesh, where people sell fish. He further
stated that Muddu and Subhash had a
scuffle at the spot and on the date of
incident, he did not meet any other person
except Dinesh and Subhash as people were
busy in planting potato and groundnuts
crops. He stated that at the place of
incident, only three persons were present.
10 All. Mahfooz Vs. State of U.P.
9
He further stated when accused person
fired and then he had seen towards the
place of incident. He stated that three shots
were fired by the accused person and
deceased-Muddu did not receive any
firearm injury because he was running.
This witness stated that he had not seen any
empty cartridge at the spot and deceased
- Muddu ran towards North of the place
of incident. He pleaded ignorance about
the colour of the clothes worn by the
deceased. He also pleaded ignorance as to
who had come to report the matter to the
police. However, he stated that the police
came at the spot after about half an hour.
He further stated that due to firing he ran
away from the spot. He denied the
suggestion that he along with Subhash
had killed Muddu and he had gone to
Delhi to save his skin. He further pleaded
ignorance that he has no knowledge
whether Muddu was killed by Subhash or
any other person as after 4 days of the
incident, he had gone to Delhi.

17. Tejpal Singh (PW-7) stated that he
conducted the further investigation of the
case
and
obtained
the
Non-bailable
warrants of Mahfooz which is Ex.Ka-15
and
thereafter
the
investigation
was
transferred to S.H.O. Dayanand.

18. Thereafter, the statement of the
appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was
recorded, in which all the incriminating
evidence was put to him. He denied all the
allegations and stated that due to party
faction he had been falsely implicated in
the present case. No defence evidence was
led.

19. Thereafter, the Trial Court vide
impugned
judgement
convicted
the
appellant and sentenced him to life
imprisonment as mentioned above.

20. Counsel for the appellant has
argued that strangely two persons were
murdered i.e. Dinesh who is brother of the
informant and Muddu who is the brother of
the accused-appellant, however, despite the
fact that the panchayatnama of Muddu was
conducted, his post-mortem was conducted
as per the statement of PW-2 but despite a
cognizable offence being committed, no
F.I.R. was registered regarding the murder
of Muddu and defence set up by appellant
is that PW-1 and PW-6 murdered Muddu
and police did not register F.I.R. to save
them.

21. It is next argued that the Trial
Court has disbelieved the statement of
Naresh (PW-6). The reason for disbelieving
this witness is that he is not an eye-witness,
therefore, he has not given any statement to
the
Investigating
Officer
during
investigation. This witness has stated that
immediately after the incident, he had gone
to Delhi and returned after six years and,
therefore, the Trial Court has disbelieved
the statement of this witness. Counsel
submits that however the perusal of the
statement of PW-6 proves that even PW-1
is also not an eye-witness. Counsel submits
that perusal of statements of PW-1 and
PW-6 reveals that both of them stated that
they were 20-25 feet behind the deceased,
Dinesh. As per PW-1, Muddu caught hold
of Dinesh and Mahfooz fired from country
made pistol and PW-6 stated that Muddu
and Dinesh had first altercation with each
other and they were fighting with each
other.
Therefore,
there
is
material
contradictions in the statements of both the
witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-6.

22. It is next argued that the statement
of PW-6, which is disbelieved by the trial
court, otherwise proves the innocence of
the appellant as both PW-1 and PW-6 have
10 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
stated that after firing upon Dinesh, mob
gathered and caught hold of Muddu,
brother of the appellant and by giving him
beatings, he was also murdered.

23. Learned counsel argues that it has
come in the statement of PW-1 that about
500 persons gathered at the spot, who gave
beating to Muddu, causing multiple injuries
on his entire body, proves that it was
Muddu who committed the murder and that
is why he was beaten to death.

24. Learned counsel submits that this
fact is also proved from the statement of
PW-6- Naresh as he has stated in the crossexamination that at the spot, Muddu and
Subhash had a scuffle with each other and
thereafter, a shot was fired resulting into
death of Dinesh. It is also argued that even
this witness also stated that Muddu tried to
escape but was overpowered by people and
was beaten to death whereas the appellant-
Mahfooz was never apprehended at the
spot.

25. Learned counsel thus submits that
though PW-6 is disbelieved by the trial
court for a different reason, however, the
material contradiction in the statements of
informant- PW-1 and PW-6 show that a
dispute occurred between deceased Muddu,
brother of the appellant and deceased-
Dinesh, brother of the informant and by
firing upon Dinesh, he was murdered and
later on, the mob gathered and caught hold
of Muddu and he was beaten to death. PW6 even stated that only three persons were
there at the spot. It is thus argued that the
case of the prosecution is highly suspicious
about both PW-1 and PW-6.

26.
Learned
counsel
has
further
submitted that even PW-1, in the complaint
given to the police Ex.Ka.1 stated that Muddu
was also given beatings by the mob and he
was also murdered, however, no FIR was
registered in this regard by the police which
also shows that the police has not conducted a
fair and impartial investigation. Learned
counsel has referred to the statement of PW-1
where he has stated on the date of incident, his
brother- Dinesh had gone to the market at
about 1:00 PM whereas he had gone to market
at about 2:00 PM. It is argued that this fact
also proves that PW-1 is also not an eyewitness.

27. Counsel has next argued that no
recovery of any firearm was effected from the
appellant and in fact no recovery of any
weapon was effected during investigation. It is
also argued that even the empty cartridges
were not recovered by the police or were not
sent for forensic examination.

28. It is submitted that it has come in
the statement of PW-2 that there was no
tattooing or blackening on the entry wound
i.e. injury no.1, caused by firearm. It is
submitted that the occular version of the
prosecution do not corroborate the medical
version as PW-1 has stated that from pointblank range, the fire was shot upon
deceased- Dinesh but as per the statement
of PW-2, Dr. Narendra Kumar, it is not
proved.

29. Learned counsel has next argued
that PW-3 who prepared the Panchayatnama
of both the deceased persons i.e. Muddu,
brother of the appellant and Dinesh, brother
of the informant, stated that at the first
instance,
he
has
prepared
the
Panchayatnama of Muddu at about 18:45
PM and then the dead body was sent for
post-mortem examination. Thereafter, he
prepared the Panchayatnama of Dinesh at
about
8:00
PM
after
preparing
the
Panchayatnama of deceased Muddu.
10 All. Mahfooz Vs. State of U.P.
11

30. It is also argued that in the similar
way as per the statement of PW-2, Dr.
Narendra Kumar, who conducted the postmortem of both the deceased persons i.e.
Muddu and Dinesh, however, at the first
instance he conducted post-mortem of
Muddu and prepared a report at about 2:45
PM on 20.10.2006 i.e. after four days of the
incident and found as many as seven
multiple injuries on the body of Muddu.
This witness stated that on injury no.1,
there was multiple fractures on the
temporal, parietal, mandible and maximal
bones and even the membranes of brain
were torn. Similarly, there was some other
injuries on the neck, chest, stomach of the
dead body and all the ribs were broken.
There was injuries on the legs and back as
well. It is further argued that this witness
also stated that on the same day, he
conducted the post-mortem of Dinesh and
found a single entry wound in the chest
cavity of Dinesh. In cross-examination, this
witness stated that both Muddu and Dinesh
have died at almost same time and there
was no blackening or tattooing on the
injury sustained by Dinesh and no smell of
gun powder was there.

31. It is thus argued that the
prosecution has failed to prove whether
Muddu was murdered prior to murder of
Dinesh or subsequent thereto, as no eyewitness of the vicinity was examined by the
prosecution to prove this fact especially
when PW-6 has been disbelieved by the
trial court.

32. Learned counsel submits that in
fact the appellant was not present at the
spot and he was arrested after one year of
incident on 13.10.2007 and no recovery of
firearm was effected from him, therefore,
his presence at the spot is not proved by the
prosecution as no scientific investigation
was conducted to prove his presence at the
spot.

33. Learned counsel submits that PW7- Tejpal Singh, SHO stated that the
incident pertains to 16th October 2006 and
as per PW-7, the appellant was arrested
after one year on 13.10.2007, by one SHO,
Dayanand
Singh,
however, Dayanand
Singh was never examined as witness
though he concluded the investigation and
submitted the charge-sheet.

34. It is thus argued that the entire
investigation by the police is tainted as no
FIR was registered regarding the murder of
Muddu, the arrest of the appellant was
made after one year, no weapon of offence
was recovered, PW-6, eye-witness has
already been disbelieved by the trial court
and
statement
of
doctor
does
not
corroborate the version of PW-1- informant
that from point blank range fire was shot
upon the deceased and therefore, the
appellant be acquitted.

35. It is worth noticing that the
appellant is in custody since 13.10.2007 i.e.
for a period of 17 years of actual sentence
and 19 years of total sentence including
remission.
This
appeal
is
being
prosecuted by the High Court Legal
Services Committee, by appointing a
Legal Aid Counsel and the appellant has
no criminal history and despite this case
is being falling under the policy of the
Government for premature release, as per
the information supplied by the State
Counsel, is not being processed by Jail
Authorities.

36. After hearing counsel for the
parties and on re-appreciation of the entire
evidence, we find merit in the present
appeal for the following reasons:
12 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

A.
There
are
material
contradictions
in
the
statement
of
informant-PW-1 and eye-witness- PW-6.

B. The prosecution has failed to
explain why no FIR was registered with
regard to murder of Muddu, brother of the
appellant, who according to PW-6 had a
scuffle with deceased - Dinesh at the place
of incident when, deceased Dinesh, brother
of informant, was fired by the appellant and
murdered.

C. It is the case of the prosecution
that many people at the spot caught hold of
Muddu and gave him merciless beatings
with sticks and iron rods which resulted
into breaking of all the bones of his body,
he was murdered at the spot but no police
action was taken despite a cognizable
offence was committed.

D. The appellant was never
arrested at the spot and was arrested after
one year of incident and no firearm was
recovered from him.

E. The police did not recover any
empty cartridge at the spot and never sent it
for forensic examination.

F. As per PW-1, the firearm
injury was caused to deceased Dinesh from
point blank range whereas the statement of
PW-2- Doctor who conducted the postmortem reflects that no blackening or
tattooing was found which show that the
fire was shot from a distance.

G. As per the I.O., PW-3, he first
prepared the Panchayatnama of Muddu,
brother of appellant, and then of Dinesh,
brother of the informant. Even PW-2, Dr.
Narendra Kumar who conducted the postmortem stated that he first conducted the
post-mortem of Muddu and then of Dinesh,
which raises a suspicion that Muddu was
murdered prior to murder of Dinesh and in
the absence of any FIR or investigation
being conducted regarding death of Muddu
who was beaten to death by the mob at the
spot, it is apparent that no proper
investigation was conducted by the police.
Therefore, the appellant is entitled to be
given benefit of doubt.

H. Lastly, the appellant is in
judicial custody for 17 years of actual
sentence and 20 years of total sentence with
remission, having no criminal history, as
per the State police is entitled to pre mature
release but is case was never processed.

37. In view of above, we allow this
appeal and set aside the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of
sentence.

38. The appellant who is in judicial
custody be released forthwith, if he is not
involved in any other case.

39. Record and proceedings of the
Trial Court be transmitted to it forthwith.

40. The fee of Sri Ajay Shankar,
learned legal aid counsel, be released by
the
High
Court
Legal
Services
Committee.
----------
(2024) 10 ILRA 12
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

First Appeal From Order Defective No. 129 of
2024

Ms. Supreme Transport Co., Lucknow
 ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Suman Devi & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Afaq Zaki Khan