Site icon Legal Vidhiya

Shahid Ali vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh, 2024

Admin
Spread the love
CITATIONSLP(Crl) No. 9454/2021 II
DATE OF JUDGMENT11 March, 2024
COURTSupreme Court of India
APPELLANTShahid Ali
RESPONDENTThe State Of Uttar Pradesh
BENCHHon. Vikram Nath and Hon. Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.

INTRODUCTION

The case under consideration involves an appeal stemming from a judgment of conviction and order dated 23.02.2018, passed by the Sessions Judge, Firozabad, in a matter titled ‘State of U.P. v. Shahid Ali’. The appellant was convicted and sentenced for offences under Section 302 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The appeal was subsequently challenged before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which upheld the conviction. The central question in this appeal revolves around the nature of the offence, specifically whether the appellant could be held guilty under Section 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC as opposed to Section 302 IPC. The case involves an incident during a marriage ceremony where the appellant allegedly shot the deceased, leading to his demise. Eyewitness testimonies play a crucial role in the case, with several witnesses turning hostile during the trial. The Court’s deliberation focuses on whether the celebratory firing by the appellant during the marriage ceremony constituted an act so imminently dangerous as to cause death or severe bodily injury likely to cause death. The judgment delves into the complexities of intent, prior enmity, and the legal implications of such actions, ultimately leading to a nuanced decision regarding the appellant’s guilt and the appropriate sentencing.

RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE

The case under consideration is an appeal arising from a judgment of conviction and order dated 23.02.2018, in which the appellant was convicted and sentenced for offences under Section 302 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 302 IPC and 5 years rigorous imprisonment under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal against this judgment on 04.04.2019. 

The case pertains to an incident that occurred during a marriage ceremony on 17.03.2016, where the appellant allegedly shot the deceased, resulting in his death. An FIR was lodged by PW1 – Gulab Ali, the chowkidar of village Katena Sikeriya, District Firozabad, at Police Station Jasrana. The FIR revealed previous enmity between the deceased and the accused. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses and placed on record documentary evidence. However, during the trial, all the eyewitnesses turned hostile, and the Trial Court convicted the appellant based on the evidence on record. The High Court affirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.

THE ISSUES IN THE CASE ARE:

  1. Whether the Appellant could be held guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC as against Section 302 IPC?
  2. Whether the Appellant’s act of engaging in celebratory firing during a marriage ceremony could be construed to be an act so imminently dangerous so as to, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death?
  3. Whether there was any evidence on record to suggest that the Appellant aimed at and/or pointed at the large crowd whilst engaging in such celebratory firing, or there existed any prior enmity between the Deceased and the Appellant?
  4. Whether the Appellant’s act of opening fire in a crowded place without taking reasonable measures for safety, which led to the unfortunate demise of the Deceased, amounts to ‘culpable homicide’ within the meaning of Section 299 IPC i.e., punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC?
  5. Whether the conviction and sentence of the Appellant under Section 302 IPC should be set aside and the Appellant should be convicted for an offence under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, with a sentence equivalent to the period already undergone?

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The appellant in this case, Shahid Ali, has raised the following contentions:

  1. The appellant has contended that the Trial Court and the High Court erred in convicting him under Section 302 IPC, and that he should be held guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC instead.
  2. The appellant has argued that there was no evidence to suggest that he aimed at and/or pointed at the large crowd whilst engaging in celebratory firing during the marriage ceremony.
  3. The appellant has further contended that there was no prior enmity between him and the deceased, and that the prosecution’s version of events cannot be accepted in the absence of any such evidence.
  4. The appellant has also argued that he was entitled to the benefit of doubt, and that the act of firing a gun in a crowded place without taking reasonable measures for safety, which led to the unfortunate demise of the deceased, amounted to ‘culpable homicide’ within the meaning of Section 299 IPC.
  5. The appellant has further contended that the sentence imposed upon him by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court was excessive, and that a sentence equivalent to the period already undergone would be appropriate in the circumstances.
  6. The appellant has also argued that the conviction and sentence awarded to him under section 25 & section 27 of the Arms Act remains unaltered.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The respondent in this case is the State of U.P., represented by the prosecution. The respondent’s contentions in this case are as follows:

  1. The respondent argues that the appellant, Shahid Ali, was rightly convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Judge, Firozabad, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and 5 years rigorous imprisonment under sections 25 and section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The High Court also dismissed the appellant’s appeal against this conviction and sentencing.
  2. The respondent argues that the appellant could be held guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC, and not under Section 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC. The respondent contends that the appellant’s act of engaging in celebratory firing during a marriage ceremony was an imminently dangerous act that caused the death of the deceased.
  3. The respondent argues that the incident occurred during a marriage ceremony where the appellant shot Ishfaq Ali, resulting in his demise. The respondent further argues that the FIR revealed previous enmity between the deceased and the accused, and a large number of people witnessed the incident.
  4. The respondent argues that the police investigation, inquest, post-mortem, and recovery of the weapon and cartridge from the appellant provide sufficient evidence to convict the appellant under Section 302 IPC.
  5. The respondent argues that the witnesses initially supported the prosecution case, but later turned hostile during the trial. However, the respondent contends that the witnesses’ initial statements and other evidence provide sufficient proof of the appellant’s guilt under Section 302 IPC.
  6. The respondent argues that the Trial Court and the High Court have correctly analysed the evidence and convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The respondent contends that the appellant’s act of opening fire in a crowded place without taking reasonable measures for safety, which led to the unfortunate demise of the Deceased, amounts to ‘culpable homicide’ within the meaning of Section 299 IPC i.e., punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

JUDGEMENT

The appeal was partially allowed, resulting in a reduction of the appellant’s sentence to a period of seven years. This reduction is made without any alteration in the fine amount imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court. It is acknowledged without reservation that the appellant discharged a firearm in a densely populated area, namely, during a marriage ceremony, without taking adequate safety precautions. This action tragically led to the death of the deceased. In light of the circumstances, the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) have been set aside. Instead, the appellant is convicted for an offence under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. Given that the appellant has already served approximately eight years of incarceration, the court has decided to impose a sentence equivalent to the period already undergone.

Furthermore, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act remain unaltered. Consequently, unless required in any other case, the appellant is to be released forthwith. Therefore, the appeal has been allowed in part, with any pending applications being disposed of accordingly.

ANALYSIS

Witness testimonies formed a central part of the case. Despite being crucial to establishing the sequence of events leading to the deceased’s death, all eye witnesses turned hostile during the trial. When witnesses turn hostile, it means they either refuse to testify truthfully or retract their previous statements, undermining the prosecution’s case. This phenomenon is not uncommon in criminal trials, especially in cases involving serious offenses or when witnesses fear reprisals or have vested interests. This created scepticism regarding the reliability of the prosecution’s case, which heavily relied on eyewitness accounts. It suggests potential intimidation, coercion, or manipulation that may have influenced the witnesses’ testimonies. Moreover, the witnesses’ reluctance to cooperate hampers the court’s ability to ascertain the truth and dispense justice fairly. The prosecution heavily relies on witness testimonies to establish the sequence of events and prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 

The prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt to such a high degree that there is no reasonable doubt left in the minds of the judges regarding the defendant’s culpability. In the referenced case of Kunwar Pal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, the Supreme Court contended with a situation similar to the one at hand, involving the question of intent and culpability in a fatal shooting incident. The court’s observation highlights the importance of establishing intent beyond a reasonable doubt in cases involving charges of homicide. The court’s analysis reflects a nuanced understanding of the legal principles surrounding the burden of proof and the concept of benefit of doubt. It emphasizes that while the intention to kill must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain a conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC, the absence of such intent does not absolve the accused of responsibility for their actions. 

The court acknowledges the inherent danger associated with carrying and using firearms, particularly in public settings like marriage ceremonies. It underscores the need for individuals to exercise responsibility and caution when handling firearms, emphasizing that guns are not meant to be used frivolously or recklessly. Furthermore, the court’s observation highlights the societal awareness of the risks posed by firearms, irrespective of the individual’s specific intent. It suggests that carrying a gun with live cartridges inherently implies an acknowledgment of the potential harm it can cause. Therefore, individuals must be held accountable for their actions, even if they did not specifically intend to cause harm.

In the case of Bhagwan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, the Supreme Court revisited the principles established in Kunwar Pal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, particularly regarding the culpability of individuals involved in celebratory firing incidents. While both cases involved celebratory firing at a marriage ceremony, the court noted crucial differences in the appellant’s actions and intentions. Contrary to the prosecution’s version, the evidence showed that the appellant did not aim the gun at any specific individual but rather towards the roof, resulting in what the court described as an “unfortunate case of misfiring.”

However, despite the absence of direct intent to harm a specific individual, the court held the appellant accountable for his reckless actions. By carrying a loaded gun at a crowded place without taking reasonable safety measures, such as firing into the air or towards the sky, the appellant demonstrated a lack of regard for the safety of others. The court emphasized that the appellant should have been aware of the potential risks associated with firing a gun in close proximity to a crowd, as even a single shot could cause multiple gunshot injuries.

In light of these considerations, the court concluded that the appellant’s actions amounted to culpable homicide under Section 299 IPC, punishable under Section 304 Part 2 IPC. This decision highlights the court’s recognition of the principle that individuals must be held accountable for the foreseeable consequences of their actions, even if those consequences were not specifically intended. It underscores the importance of exercising caution and responsibility when handling firearms, especially in public settings, to prevent harm to others.

CONCLUSION

The case presented a complex legal scenario involving the tragic death of an individual due to celebratory firing during a marriage ceremony. The appellant, Shahid Ali, was initially convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959, based on the evidence presented by the prosecution. However, the case raises significant doubts regarding the reliability of the prosecution’s case, particularly due to all the eyewitnesses turning hostile during the trial. The central issues in the case revolve around the appellant’s intent, the nature of his actions, and the appropriate legal consequences. The courts deliberated on whether the appellant’s actions constituted culpable homicide under Section 299 IPC or fell under the purview of Section 302 IPC, considering the absence of direct evidence of intent to cause harm to the deceased. Additionally, the court scrutinized the circumstances surrounding the incident, including the presence of prior enmity between the parties and the appellant’s failure to take reasonable safety measures while handling firearms in a crowded place.

While acknowledging the seriousness of the appellant’s actions and the tragic outcome, the court opted to reduce the appellant’s sentence to a period already undergone, emphasizing the need for accountability and caution when handling firearms in public settings. The case underscores the importance of upholding the principles of justice, fairness, and accountability in legal proceedings. It highlights the complexities involved in adjudicating cases where the evidence is circumstantial or where witnesses turn hostile, necessitating a meticulous examination of facts, legal precedents, and societal norms to arrive at a just and equitable outcome.

REFERENCES

Cases

  1. State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Sahid Ali Khan civil appeal no. 5872-5873 of 2015
  2. Kunwar Pal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand criminal appeal no. 1643 of 2013
  3. Bhagwan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand AIR 2020 SC 1436

Acts

  1. The Indian Penal Code, 1860
  2. The Arms Act, 1959
  3. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

This Article is written by Smriti Gupta student of Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

PDF 📄
Exit mobile version