TITLE - This case is related to the muder and tha assault as mentioned in the Indian penal code 1860.

CASE NAME - Mohd. Muslim Vs State Of Uttar Pradesh

CITATIAON -Criminal appeal No. 1089 of 2011

COURT -Supreme Court of India

BENCH -V. Ramasubramanian, Pankaj Mithal

DECIDED ON - 15 June 2023

CASE LAWS - Meharaj Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1994

BRIEF FACTS -

1. On April 8, 1995, the incident took place under the purview of police station Mangalore.

2. There was enmity between the accused-appellants and Salim Ahmad's deceased father, Altaf Hussain, over a land dispute. 

3. The Consolidation Officer was already hearing the case pertaining to the aforementioned land dispute. 

4. Altaf Hussain was attacked by the accused appellants with a tabal and an axe while en route to attend proceedings concerning the land dispute that were ongoing before the Consolidated Officer. 

5. Two people, Tahir, son of Md. Saddiq, and Md. Afzal, son of Niyaz Ahmad, came from behind and attempted to capture the accused after the deceased raised the alarm, but they were able to flee.

6. The suspect left A blanket and a bicycle at the crime scene. 

7. Salim Ahmad, the deceased's son, filed the FIR on August 4, 1995, at about 9:50 a.m. 

8. The inquest report, site plan, one pair of rubber shoes, a slipper, a blanket, and a bicycle were all prepared by the investigating officer, Anil Kumar. 

9. Om Veer Singh, a sub-inspector, wrote a letter to the chief medical officer requesting a post-mortem report. 

10. In the interim, Dr. Sudhir Kumar Dhaundhiyal, who conducted the post-mortem report, passed away.

11. However, the FIR contained accusations of ante-timing and interpolation. The time alterations from 1:50 PM to 9:00 AM and PM being converted to AM were obvious evidence of tampering in the original FIR. The Defence maintained that this modification cast doubt on the FIR's veracity. 

12. The FIR is important evidence in a criminal case, particularly in a murder case, the court emphasised. The Fir's interpolation and ante-timing undermine its evidentiary value and raise questions about its legitimacy. The court cited a prior instance when it said that these flaws in the FIR might cause it to lose its admissibility as evidence and grant the accused the benefit of the doubt. 

13. The court also drew attention to additional inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony and material. The deceased's son and nephew's actions were regarded abnormal because they made no effort to save their father or offer medical assistance. Instead, they hurried to file the FIR. 

14. Furthermore, the alleged possessions of the accused-appellants discovered at the site were not presented to the court, and there were no reliable eyewitnesses to the incident.

ISSUES - 

1) Whether the accused was found guilty of the murder under IPC 1860 Section 302?

2) Is the evidence that was presented to the Honourable Court reliable?

3) How verified was the FIR filed against the sentenced parent and son?

4) What was the post-mortem report?

ARGUMENTS-

Appellant’s Side:

1) Based to the knowledgeable attorney, the FIR contained interpolation and had been ante-timed.

2) The deceased's son and nephew were riding alongside him on their own cycles and were a little behind him, but none of them attempted to protect the deceased from the attack or render medical aid; instead, they hurried to file a police report against the accused-appellant.

3) That questions regarding the accused appellant's involvement in the crime were raised by the lack of independent eyewitnesses and the witnesses' inconsistent accounts.

4) Only Tahir was there, but even though he wasn't probed, Afzal's account as an eyewitness was inconsistent.

Prosecution’s side:

1) Property dispute that existed between Altaf Hussain, the dead, and the accused-appellants, and that the accused had animosity towards the deceased as a result of this conflict.

2) The prosecution asserts that Altaf Hussain was allegedly assaulted while the accused-appellants were present at the crime scene.

3) The son and nephew of the deceased, who were allegedly present at the incident, are called upon to testify on behalf of the prosecution.

4) Axe and a tabal, which the prosecution claims were used in the attack on the deceased, were found on the accused-appellants.

According to the prosecution, the accused-appellants had a reason to want to hurt the deceased because of the ongoing land conflicts.

RATIO -

●  The accused appellants, a father and a son, received a life sentence after being found guilty of a crime under section 302 of the IPC.

●  The incident falls under the jurisdiction of Police Station Mangalore.

●  The accused-appellant and the dead, Altaf Hussain, allegedly beat him with a tabal over a land dispute. and axe while riding his bike.

●  After leaving the scene, the accused-appellants left their blanket and bicycle behind.

●  Salim Ahmad, the Informant, used the complaint as the basis for both a written complaint and a First Information Was Registration.

HELD -

When deciding this murder case under Section 302 of the IPC 1860, the Honourable Supreme Court took into account:

The FIR uses interpolation to shift the time from 1:50 PM to 9:00 AM. As a result, questions were raised concerning the FIR's veracity and admissibility as evidence.

There aren't enough reliable eyewitnesses, and there are conflicting witness accounts and actions from the deceased's son and nephew.

Because they were not shown in court or identified by the accused, the recovery of the alleged objects belonged to the accused-appellants was not properly proven.

The court also took note of the deceased's relatives' strange behaviour and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove the accused appellants' guilt.

The court found inadequate evidence to prove the guilt of the accused-appellants based on the overall observation and questioned the presence of the deceased's son and nephew at the scene. As a result, the court granted the accused appellants the benefit of the doubt and declared them innocent, vacating their conviction and imprisonment.