| Case Number | Writ Petition (Criminal) No 439 of 2021 |
| Date of Judgment | 10th February, 2022 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Petitioner | Sharafat Ali Khan |
| Respondents | State of U.P. And Anr |
| Bench | Hon’ble Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath |
Facts of the case
The case involved a land dispute, which led to clashes between the two groups. One person was killed in the encounter and Sharafat Ali was charged with murder.
In the case of Sharafat Ali v. State of UP, the petitioner, Sharafat Ali, a resident of Uttar Pradesh, was accused of allegedly killing one Mohammad Anwar, who was charged with an offense under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was also sentenced to life imprisonment in 2005.
After serving 17 years, 9 months and 26 days in prison, he asked for early release. However, the state government rejected his request considering the records of the district magistrate and the superintendent of police, which said that early release could not tolerate possible outrage in favor of the victim. Additionally, the order stated that the appellant had an “extreme disposition” and was likely to reoffend. Sharafat Ali, however , appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging his conviction and sentence.
The Supreme Court has carefully examined the evidence presented in the case. It considered witness testimony, forensic reports and other relevant factors to determine whether Sharafat Ali has been convicted beyond reasonable doubt and the Supreme Court overturned his verdict in this case.
ISSUE
- Whether the prosecution had been able to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
ARGUMENTS
- Petitioner’s Argument: The Petitioner (Sharafat Ali Khan) argued that his fundamental rights had been grossly violated as a result of the actions of the state authorities. The State’s action violated petitioner’s right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21.
The petitioner also alleged that he was involuntarily detained by the State authorities. It was emphasized that such actions were not only illegal but also amounted to a flagrant disregard of the appellant’s constitutional rights.
Another important aspect of the petitioner’s case was the excessive force used by the state authorities during the arrest of the petitioner. The petitioner argued that excessive force was not limited to his physical integrity which he used violates his bodily integrity but also his fundamental rights under the Constitution.
In view of the aforesaid violations, the plaintiff sought equitable relief and relief from the court. This includes seeking to remedy violations of his fundamental rights, and to hold public officials accountable for their actions.
- Respondent’s Argument: The respondents’ argument in this case would depend on the specific nature of the legal dispute. Without detailed information on the specifics of the case, it is difficult to accurately summarize the respondents’ case. Generally, however, the respondents’ case will likely reflect their position on the issues raised in the case, with relevant legal considerations, precedent, and evidence that it is true supports.
The respondent may attempt to defend or counter the statements made by Sharafat Ali. This may include presenting evidence, citing relevant laws and regulations, and providing legal arguments to support their position. The specifics of the respondents’ argument may be set forth in pleadings, affidavits, motions or legal documents filed with the court.
JUDGMENT
A bench of Supreme Court Justices DY Chandrachud, Suryakant and Wickrama Nath held that it was common sight as if the injuries were caused at the behest of the state government which is common in all murder cases. There was nothing in it about the appellant, whether he had any other criminal history, his conduct and behavior in prison that would determine whether he would pose a danger to the public upon his release
Finding this, the Supreme Court set aside the state order and asked the appellant to reconsider the petition, as it was in order when he was convicted in 2005. The Bench added that it considered the petition as fresh, and the order has to be considered appropriate to the facts and circumstances. And conduct in custody after conviction, potential danger to society, etc. A time limit of two months from the date of judgment by court A, to bring the action to an end.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Supreme Court in Sharafat Ali v. State of U.P. It is an important decision that reaffirms the importance of the right to a fair trial and the power of the trial court to call and examine witnesses in accordance with the law. The judgment contributes significantly to the development of criminal law in India and is likely to have a significant impact on the administration of justice in the country.
REFERENCES
%20rejection,resentment%20among%20the%20side%20of
- https://www.google.com/amp/s/factly.in/review-sc-holds-that-provisions-under-rera-would-prevail-over-that-of-sarfaesi-in-case-of-conflict-between-the-two/amp/
- https://supremecourtonline.in/sharafat-ali-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-2022-scej-0290-2022-plronline-9102/
This Article is written by Apoorva Anand of Lloyd Law College, 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.
0 Comments