Blog

Case title: Shahid Ali vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Case no.: SLP (Criminal) No(s). 9454 of 2021

Decided on: 11.03.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The case involves an incident that occurred on March 17, 2016, during a marriage ceremony in village Katena Sikeriya, District Firozabad. The informant of the case, Gulab Ali, who was the chowkidar of the village, lodged an FIR at Police Station Jasrana. The FIR stated that during the marriage ceremony of Nizamuddin’s daughter, Ishfaq Ali (the deceased) was shot by Shahid Ali (the appellant) resulting in a fatal injury to his neck, leading to his immediate death at the scene.

The FIR also mentioned a previous enmity between the deceased and the accused. It was reported that many people witnessed the incident due to the large gathering at the marriage ceremony. The FIR was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at PS Jasrana, District Firozabad. Following the incident, the Station House Officer, Lokendra Pal Singh, conducted an investigation, inquest on the deceased’s body, and prepared an inquest report. The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Nitin Jaggi, a Medical Officer, on March 18, 2016. The investigation also led to the recovery of a weapon and cartridge(s) from the appellant.

Additionally, another FIR was registered against the appellant under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act on April 8, 2016. The case was then committed to the court of Sessions, charges were framed, and a trial ensued. The prosecution presented 12 witnesses, including formal witnesses, medical officers, and eye witnesses, who initially supported the prosecution case but later turned hostile during the trial.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

The legal provisions involved in the case include:

Indian Penal Code (IPC):

Section 302: Pertains to punishment for murder.

Section 304 Part I: Deals with punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Section 304 Part II: Deals with punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder but done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death.

Arms Act, 1959:

Sections 25/27: Relate to the illegal possession and use of firearms, ammunition, or explosives, and the punishment for the same.

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

The appellant argued that there was no evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had the intention to kill the deceased. They claimed that the celebratory firing was not aimed at causing harm.

The appellant sought the benefit of doubt, emphasizing that the intention to kill was not established, and therefore, they should not be convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for murder.

The appellant’s defence focused on the argument that their actions, while resulting in the death of the deceased, did not amount to murder under Section 302 of the IPC but rather fell under the category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:

The respondents in the case SLP(Crl.) No. 9454 of 2021 contended that the appellant could be held guilty of the offense under Section 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC, as opposed to under Section 302 of the IPC. They argued that the evidence on record supported the conviction of the appellant for the offenses alleged under the FIR. The respondents also presented the testimony of witnesses and documentary evidence to support their contention that the appellant was guilty of the charges.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

Shahid Ali appealed a conviction and sentence for the murder of Ishfaq Ali during a marriage ceremony. The prosecution presented witnesses and evidence, including the post-mortem report, recovery of the weapon, and testimonies of formal witnesses. Despite witnesses turning hostile, the Trial Court found the appellant guilty, leading to his conviction under Section 302 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. The High Court upheld the decision. However, the Supreme Court, upon review, considered the lack of clear evidence establishing the appellant’s intention to kill the deceased. The Court allowed the appeal in part, granting the appellant the benefit of doubt and altering the conviction from murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC, leading to a modified sentencing and the appellant’s release. This case underscores the importance of establishing intent in criminal cases and the application of appropriate legal provisions based on the evidence presented.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement reviewed by – Ayush Shrivastava

Click here to read the Judgement