JAIKAM KHAN vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.434­436 OF 2020 JAIKAM KHAN  ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH      .... RESPONDENT(S) WITH  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.442 OF 2020 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.437­439 OF 2020 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 440­441 OF 2020  J U D G M E N T   B.R. GAVAI, J.  1. The   present   appeals   arise   out   of   the   common judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the th High   Court   of   Judicature   at   Allahabad   dated   18   May, 2018, in Reference No.01 of 2016 and, Capital Case No.602 of   2016   and   Capital   Case   No.844   of   2016,   thereby 2 nd confirming the judgment and order of conviction dated 2 th January, 2016 and the order of death sentence dated 11 January, 2016 awarded to original accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr.   Vide the th said impugned judgment dated 18   May, 2018, the High Court   has,   however,   allowed   the   appeal   of   the   original accused   No.2­Nazra   and   set   aside   the   conviction   under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”) and the death penalty awarded to her.  2. Being aggrieved, Criminal Appeal Nos. 434­436 of 2020 are filed by Jaikam Khan (Accused No.3); Criminal Appeal Nos. 437­439 of 2020 are filed by Sajid (Accused No.4); and Criminal Appeal Nos. 440­441 of 2020 are filed by Momin Khan (Accused No.1); whereas Criminal Appeal No. 442 of 2020 is filed by Ali Sher Khan, the first informant (P.W.1) (hereinafter referred to as “P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan”) being aggrieved by the order of acquittal of original accused No.2­Nazra.  3 3. Appellant­Momin Khan (A­1), deceased Shaukeen Khan, P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan and Kallu Khan are the four sons   of   deceased   Mausam   Khan   (father,   aged   about   85 years) and deceased Asgari (mother, aged about 80 years). Deceased   Shanno   (aged   about   30   years)   is   the   wife   of deceased Shaukeen Khan, whereas deceased Samad (aged about 8 years) is the son of deceased Shaukeen Khan and deceased   Muskan   (aged   about   15   years)   is   the   niece   of P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan.  4. Appellant­Jaikam Khan (A­3) is the first cousin of deceased Shaukeen Khan, appellant­Momin Khan (A­1) and P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan.   Appellant­Sajid (A­4) is the son of appellant­Jaikam Khan (A­3).  Original Accused No.2­Nazra, who was convicted by the trial Court and acquitted by the High Court, is the wife of appellant­Momin Khan (A­1). 5. It   is   the   prosecution   case   that   deceased Shaukeen Khan and P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan were not in good terms   with   Momin   Khan   (A­1)   and   his   wife   Nazra   (A­2). Therefore, deceased Mausam Khan (father) had separated all   the   brothers   and   allotted   their   respective   share   of 4 properties.   The houses of each one of them were in one compound.  Deceased Mausam Khan (father) owned a brick­ kiln.  In the beginning, appellant­Momin Khan (A­1) used to run the brick­kiln, but he did not give the money earned by him from the brick­kiln to deceased Mausam Khan (father) and his elder brother, deceased Shaukeen Khan.  Therefore, deceased Mausam Khan (father) had dispossessed Momin Khan   (A­1)   from   the   brick­kiln.     Thereafter,   deceased Mausam Khan and P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan were running the brick­kiln with the help of his brother deceased Shaukeen Khan.  Jaikam Khan (A­3) and Sajid (A­4) were jealous with their growing business and so a case was also lodged for laying   bricks   over   the   disputed   land.     Thereafter   enmity arose between them, and the younger brother Momin Khan (A­1)   joined   the   company   of   his   uncle’s   son   i.e.   Jaikam Khan (A­3) and Jaikam Khan (A­3)’s son Sajid (A­4).  rd 6. On   the   fateful   day   of   the   incident,   i.e.,   23 January, 2014, at around 8.30 p.m., P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan and   his   brother­in­law,   P.W.2­Jaan   Mohammad,   were present at home i.e. the place of incident.   At that time, 5 Momin   Khan   (A­1)   with   his   wife   Nazra   (A­2)   along   with Jaikam Khan (A­3) and Sajid (A­4) came armed with knives and   assaulted   Mausam   Khan   (father),   Asgari   (mother), Shaukeen   Khan   (brother),   Shanno   (sister­in­law),   Samad (nephew)   and   Muskan   (niece)   and   killed   them   brutally. P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan and his brother­in­law, P.W.2­ Jaan Mohammad,   somehow   managed   to   save   their   lives.     On hearing the cries of the deceased and others, many villagers gathered and all four accused fled from the spot through the back­door.  7. Immediately   after   the   incident,   P.W.1­Ali   Sher Khan and P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad went to Police Station Narora, District Bulandshahr.   On the basis of the report given by P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan, a First Information Report (F.I.R.)   came   to   be   registered   for   the   offence   punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.  Upon completion of the investigation, a charge­sheet came to be filed before the concerned Judicial Magistrate.   The case was committed to the court of Sessions.   6 8. The trial Judge framed charges for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC and under Sec­ tion 25/4 of the Indian Arms Act, 1878 (hereinafter referred to as “the Arms Act”).  The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial nd judge   vide   judgment   and   order   dated   2   January,   2016 convicted all the four accused for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced them to th death vide order dated 11  January, 2016.  The appellants­ accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were also convicted for the offence punishable   under   Section   25/4   of   the   Arms   Act   and awarded rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years with a fine of Rupees Five Thousand and in case of default, they were to undergo additional imprisonment for a term of three months.   th 9. The   trial   judge   vide   the   said   order   dated   11 January, 2016 also made a reference under Section 366(1) of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,   1973   (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) to the High Court vide Reference 7 No.1   of   2016   for   confirmation   of   the   death   sentence awarded by it.   10. Being aggrieved thereby, all the four accused pre­ ferred appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court vide the impugned judgment,   dismissed   the   appeals   of   appellants­   accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and confirmed the death sentence awarded to them.  However, the Division Bench of the High Court al­ lowed the appeal of the accused No.2­Nazra and acquitted her of the charges under Section 302/34 of the IPC.  11. Being   aggrieved   thereby,   Momin   Khan   (A­1), Jaikam Khan (A­3), Sajid (A­4) and P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan are before this Court in the present appeals.    12. We   have   heard   Smt.   Nitya   Ramakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant­ Momin   Khan   (A­1)  as   well   as   acquitted   original   accused No.2­Nazra, Shri Dama Seshadri Naidu, learned counsel for appellants­Jaikam Khan (A­3) and Sajid (A­4), Shri Anant Agarwal, learned counsel for appellant­ P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan and   Shri   Vinod   Diwakar,   learned   Additional   Advocate 8 General   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   respondent­State   of Uttar Pradesh.    13. Smt.   Nitya   Ramakrishnan,   learned   Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant­Momin Khan (A­1) would submit that the entire case rests on the ocular testimony   of   P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan   and   P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad, who are said to have witnessed the incident from   the   kitchen   and   the   cattle­shed   of   the   house respectively.  She submits that both of them are interested witnesses.     It   is   submitted   that   the   High   Court   has disbelieved the evidence of these two witnesses insofar as original accused No.2­Nazra is concerned.  She submits that when   the   ocular   testimony   of   P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan   and P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad was found to be not trustworthy and reliable by the High Court with respect to accused No.2­ Nazra, the High Court fell in grave error in convicting the other accused on the basis of the very same ocular evidence. 14. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the prosecution   has   placed   on   record   three   site­plans   at Exhibits Ka­51, Ka­52 and Ka­45.  It is, however, submitted 9 that in none of the site­plans, the location of the kitchen and   the   bathroom   (which  is   supposed   to  be   adjacent   to cattle­shed) has been shown. She submits that as such, there is a serious doubt, as to whether P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan and   P.W.2­   Jaan   Mohammad   have   really   witnessed   the incident.  She further submits that even if the prosecution case is to be believed, immediately after the occurrence of the   incident,   many   villagers   had   assembled   at   the   spot, however,   though   the   statements   of   such   witnesses   were recorded,   the   prosecution   has   not   examined   a   single witness. She, therefore, submits that an adverse inference needs   to   be   drawn   on   account   of   non­examination   of independent   witnesses,   though   they   were   very   much available.   Learned   Senior   Counsel   further   submits   that 15. both P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan and P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad have admitted in their evidence that they were possessing mobile phones.   She submits that in normal circumstances, after such   a   dastardly   incident   had   occurred,   P.W.1­Ali   Sher Khan and P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad would have informed the 10 Police about it on their mobile phones.  She submits that, however, the same has not been done by them.   She further submits that though after recording of the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the wife of Jaikam Khan (A­3) had filed an   application   for   producing   the   Call   Detail   Records (hereinafter referred to as “C.D.Rs.”) of P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan and   P.W.2­Jaan   Mohammad,   the   said   application   was rejected by the trial judge.   She submits that if the said C.D.Rs. would have been placed on record, they would have established the genuineness of the prosecution’s case.  16. She further submits that the recovery of clothes as well as the recovery of weapons are all farcical.   She submits that from the materials placed on record, it is clear that the prosecution has not come to the Court with clean hands.     It   is   submitted   that   as   per   the   Arrest Memo/Panchnama (Exhibit Ka­49), the Investigating Officer (I.O.) had received an information that accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were standing at Rajghat Square to go somewhere. On the basis of the said information, the I.O. reached the said square   and   found   the   said   accused   at   that   spot.     She 11 submits that according to the prosecution, at around 2.00 th a.m. in the morning on 24  January, 2014, the said three accused were arrested.  It is submitted that it is improbable that the accused, after committing such a heinous crime, would   remain   in   such   a   close   vicinity   of   the   place   of occurrence.     She   further   submits   that   the   arrest   of   the accused No.2­Nazra, which is shown at around 6.40 a.m., is also farcical.   Learned   Senior   Counsel   would   further   submit 17. that the trial court has grossly erred in convicting all the four accused and the High Court has erred in maintaining and confirming the death sentence against the accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4. She submits that in any case, neither the High Court nor the trial Court has given any reasons justifying the award of capital punishment.  She submits that there is not even a whisper, as to why there is no possibility of the accused being reformed or rehabilitated and as to why there is   no   other   alternative   than   to   award   the   capital punishment.   12 18. Shri   Dama   Seshadri   Naidu,   learned   counsel appearing on behalf of Jaikam Khan (A­3) and Sajid (A­4), submits that insofar as the said accused are concerned, the prosecution story is totally unbelievable.   He submits that deceased Mausam Khan and Zafar Khan are the sons of Shakoor Khan.  Jaikam Khan (A­3) is the son of Zafar Khan. He   submits   that   from   the   evidence   of   the   prosecution witnesses, it is clear that there was a partition amongst Zafar Khan and deceased Mausam Khan long time ago. Not only that, but there was a further partition amongst the two branches of the family.  He submits that the testimonies of these two witnesses, i.e., P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan and P.W.2­ Jaan   Mohammad,   would   reveal   that   there   is   no   enmity between deceased Mausam Khan, deceased Shaukeen Khan and P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan on one side and Jaikam Khan (A­ 3) and Sajid (A­4) on the other.  The alleged enmity was with Momin Khan (A­1), who belonged to the branch of deceased Mausam Khan.  He submits that, as such, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove any motive insofar as accused Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned.  13 19. Learned counsel submits that even the evidence of P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad was not trustworthy.  Perusal of his evidence would reveal that he does not know anything about the family holdings.   20. Shri Naidu further submitted that the recovery of clothes and weapon is totally farcical.  He submits that it is totally impossible that the accused Nos. 3 and 4, who are not the members of the family of Momin Khan (A­1), would keep their bloodstained clothes at the house of Momin Khan (A­1) after committing the crime.   Learned counsel further submits   that   though   fingerprints   were   taken   from   the recovered   articles,   the   fingerprint   expert’s   report   is   not placed on record and, therefore, an adverse inference needs to   be   drawn   against   the   prosecution.     Learned   counsel further   submits   that   all   Forensic   Science   Laboratory (“F.S.L.” for short) reports are marked during examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C., which is not permissible.   He submits that, in any case, the said reports are inconclusive. Shri Naidu would further submit that since P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan   and   P.W.2­Jaan   Mohammad   are   related   witnesses, 14 their evidence will have to be scrutinized with greater care and circumspection and it will not be safe to pass an order of conviction on their sole testimony without there being any corroboration. 21. Shri Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional Advocate General   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   respondent–State   of Uttar Pradesh submitted that both the trial court and the High Court have concurrently, on the appreciation of the evidence, convicted the accused. He submits that no error could be noticed in the concurrent findings.   He submits that merely because kitchen and bathroom are not shown in the site­plans, it cannot be a ground to disbelieve the ocular testimony   of   P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan   and   P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad.   He submitted that the evidence of these two witnesses is corroborated by the F.I.R. Learned counsel submitted that merely because 22. there   are   certain   discrepancies   in   the   evidence   of   the witnesses, it cannot be a ground to disbelieve the ocular testimonies of the witnesses, which are otherwise cogent, reliable and trustworthy.   He, therefore, submits that no 15 interference is warranted in the appeals preferred at the behest of accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and the same deserve to be dismissed.  23. Shri Anant Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan, would submit that when the   Additional   Sessions   Judge   on   the   basis   of   correct appreciation   of   evidence   convicted   accused   No.2­Nazra, there was no reason for the High Court to reverse the same. 24. The learned counsel for respective parties, while supporting   their   contentions,   have   placed   reliance   on various decisions of this Court.  With the assistance of the learned counsel for the 25. appellants, we have scrutinized the entire evidence in depth. Since   the  conviction  of   the  accused  appellants   is  largely based on the ocular testimonies of P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan and P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad, we find that it will be appropriate to reproduce relevant part of their examination­in­chief:  Examination­in­chief of P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan “My father had brick­klin and due to the same   brick­klin,   the   accused   ­persons present in court namely Jaikam Khan, 16 Shajid, Nazra too bore enmity. Nazra is wife of Mobin. Jaikam Khan is Mobin’s cousin and Sajid is Mobin’s nephew from his taau family.  The incident is of 23th January, 2014 and it was about 8.30 pm. on that day, my   sister’s   husband   namely   Jaan Mohammad had come at about 2 o’ clock in   afternoon   and   was   present   at   the house itself at the time of the incident. At the  time  of  the  incident,  my father Mausam   Khan,   my   mother   Asgari,   my brother Shaukeen Khan, his wife Sanno and his elder brother Saukeen Khan’ son Samad   and   my   niece   Muskan,   my brother­in­law   Jaan   Mohammad   and   I were present at the house. Momin Khan, his wife Nazra, Jaikam Khan and his son Shajid entered our compound at about 8.30 pm from the direction of the house of Momin Khan. When I saw them, I was in the kitchen room. All these accused persons   were   holding   knives   in   their hands.   These   four   attacked   my   father with knife who was sleeping in veranda and when they attacked my father then I was   witnessing   it   from   kitchen   room. Hearing hue and cry raised by father, my niece Muskan came running then these four   accused   persons   present   in   court ran  behind   her   and   cut  her   also  with knife holding in their hands. My mother and nephew Samad were also there in the   same   veranda   where   Muskan   was attacked.   These four accused persons cut these two also with knives. Hearing this hue and cry, when my elder brother Saukeen came downstairs from upstairs, the accused persons killed him also near 17 the   gate.   My   sister­in­law   Sanno,   who had come downstairs hearing hue & cry, was killed by them going upstairs. My sister­in­law Sanno seeing the incident occurring downwards (sic.) ran away. My brother­in­law   Jaan   Mohammad   was hiding anywhere in the house saving his life   and   he   had   also   witnessed   the incident. The accused persons had fled away after committing the incident. I due to fear could not save the dead persons. After   the   incident,   I   alongwith   my brother­in­law   Jaan   Mohammad   had gone to the police station and lodged the report   at   the   police   station.   The complaint which was given by me at the police station is available on the file and the   same   is   before   me   today   which   I myself had written down and had given at the police station. It was marked as Ext. ka­1. All six persons had died on the spot.   The accused persons present in   court   had   committed   all   murders before me which was witnessed by me while hiding.” Examination­in­chief   of   P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad “1   ­   The   incident   took   place   on 23.01.2014. on the day of the incident, I had come to the house of my father­in­ law Mausam Khan at Pilkhana village at 2 p.m. During the time of the incident, I was present at the house of my father­ in­law Mausam Khan. The incident took place   at   around   8   pm.   I   know   the accused persons who are present in the court namely Jaikam Khan, Sabid Khan, Momeen Khan and Naazra. I had firstly 18 seen the accused persons at the house of my father­in­law Mausam Khan at the verandah. That time I had come out of bathroom and first time I had seen the accused   persons   from  the  place  where the   buffaloes   are   tethered   and   is adjacent to bathroom. All these accused persons   were   holding   knife   and chhuriyan (small knife) in their hands. It would be a distance of 10­15 steps from where I had seen them for the first time. During the time of the incident, inverter powered   light   was   on.   I   had   seen   the accused   persons   in   the   light   of   the inverter.  2 ­ My father­in­law Mausam Khan was offering   Namaz   on   the   cot   at   the verandah. All the accused persons who are present in the court started inflicting blows   of   knives   and   chhuriyan   (small knife) on Mausam Khan and murdered him. When hearing the voice of Mausam Khan, Muskan came out, then these four persons ran behind her and these four accused   persons   killed   her   in   the verandah.   After   this   they   killed   my mother­in­law   Asgari   and   Samad. Hearing   their   outcry,   Shaukeen   Khan came   down   from   the   roof.   These   four persons   caught   Shaukeen   Khan   and killed him too. When hearing the outcry of   Shaukeen   Khan,   his   wife   Shanno came   down   then   these   four   accused persons ran behind her on the roof and these four killed her too after going up on the roof. I had seen all this incident under the shade of the place where the buffaloes   are   tethered  and   is  near   the bathroom. After committing the incident, 19 these   four   accused   persons   had   run away   from   there.   After   these   accused persons had run away I came out from the   place   where   I   was   hiding   and   my brother­in­law Ali Sher and I had raised alarm   after   coming   out   of   the   house. People of the village had arrived on the alarm raised by us. We went inside the house and saw that all the people had died. 3   ­   There   was   a   dispute   over   kiln between Momeen Khan and my father­ in­law Mausam Khan. Momeen wanted to   run   the   kiln   but   my   father­in­law Mausam   Khan   was   not   willing   to   give kiln   to   Momeen.   2­3   years   before   the incident, Momeen had run the kiln and he had not given statement of accounts to   Mausam   Khan.   Mausam   Khan   had taken the charge of kiln from Momeen and for the same reason he was angry. 4   ­   Accused   Sajid   is   the   nephew   of accused Momeen. Jaikam is the cousin brother of Momin. Nazra is the wife of Momin. The four accused are from the same group.” 26. It could thus be seen that according to P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan, all the four accused entered the compound of his house at about 8.30 p.m.   According to him, he saw them when he was in the kitchen.   All the accused were holding knives in their hands.   According to him, firstly, 20 they attacked his father Mausam Khan, who was sleeping in the veranda.  He was witnessing the same from the kitchen room.  Hearing a hue and cry raised by his father, his niece Muskan came running and then these four accused ran behind her and cut her also with knives holding in their hands.   His mother Asgari and nephew Samad were also there in the same veranda where Muskan was attacked. The accused cut them also with knives.   Hearing the hue and cry, his elder brother Shaukeen Khan came downstairs from upstairs and the accused killed him also near the gate.  His sister­in­law Shanno, who had come downstairs hearing the hue   and   cry,   was   also   killed   by   them   going   upstairs. According   to   him,   his   brother­in­law,   P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad, was hiding elsewhere.  He further stated that all the accused had fled away after committing the murder. After the incident, he along with his brother­in­law, P.W.2­ Jaan Mohammad, had gone to the police station and lodged the report.   27. According to P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad, on the day rd of the incident i.e. 23  January, 2014, he had come to the 21 house  of his  father­in­law Mausam Khan at 2 p.m.   He stated that the incident took place at around 8 p.m.  He had seen the accused at the house of his father­in­law Mausam Khan   in   the   veranda.     That   time,   he   had   come   out   of bathroom and first time he had seen the accused from the place where the buffaloes are tethered, which is adjacent to the bathroom.  All the accused were holding knives in their hands.  According to him, his father­in­law Mausam Khan was   offering   Namaz   on   the   cot   in   the   veranda.     All  the accused started inflicting blows of knives on Mausam Khan and   murdered   him.   After   hearing   the   voice   of   Mausam Khan, Muskan came out, then the accused ran behind her and killed her in the veranda.   Thereafter, they killed his mother­in­law Asgari and Samad.  On hearing their outcry, Shaukeen Khan came down from the roof.   The accused caught Shaukeen Khan and killed him too.   After hearing the cries of Shaukeen Khan, his wife Shanno came down, then the accused ran behind her on the roof and killed her too after going up on the roof.  22 28. Both   P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan   and   P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad are witnesses, who are closely related to the deceased   as   well   as   the   accused   No.1­Momin   Khan.   No doubt that, merely because the witnesses are interested and related witnesses, it cannot be a ground to disbelieve their testimony.  However, the testimony of such witnesses has to be scrutinised with due care and caution.  Upon scrutiny of the evidence of such witnesses, if the Court is satisfied that the evidence is creditworthy, then there is no bar on the court in relying on such evidence.   29. For this proposition, we may refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of  Piara Singh and 1 others v. State of Punjab :    “4. ….It is well settled that the evidence of interested or inimical witnesses is to be scrutinised with care but cannot be rejected merely on the ground of being a partisan evidence. If on a perusal of the evidence the court is satisfied that the evidence is credit­worthy there is no bar in the Court relying on the said evidence. …..” 1 (1977) 4 SCC 452 23 30. We may also refer to the following observations of 2 this Court in the case of  Anil Phukan  v.  State of Assam :   “3.  This case primarily hinges on the testimony of a single eyewitness Ajoy PW 3.  Indeed, conviction can  be  based  on the testimony of a single eyewitness and there is no rule of law or evidence which says   to  the   contrary   provided   the   sole witness passes the test of reliability. So long as the single eyewitness is a wholly reliable witness the courts have no diffi­ culty in basing conviction on his testi­ mony alone. However, where the single eyewitness is not found to be a wholly reliable witness, in the sense that there are   some   circumstances   which   may show that he could have an interest in the prosecution, then the courts gener­ ally insist upon some independent cor­ roboration of his testimony, in material particulars, before recording conviction. It is only when the courts find that the single eyewitness is a wholly unreliable witness that his testimony is discarded in toto and no amount of corroboration can cure that defect. It is in the light of these settled principles that we shall ex­ amine the testimony of PW 3 Ajoy. 4.  Ajoy PW 3, on his own showing, is the nephew of the deceased. He had ac­ companied the deceased to the place of occurrence when the latter went to re­ cover the loan from Anil, appellant. This 2 (1993) 3 SCC 282 24 witness, therefore, is a relative of the de­ ceased   and   an   interested   witness.   Of course,   mere   relationship   with   the deceased is no ground to discard his testimony, if it is otherwise found to be   reliable   and   trustworthy.   In   the normal course of events, a close rela­ tion   would   be   the   last   person   to spare the real assailant of his uncle and   implicate   a   false   person.   How­ ever, the possibility that he may also implicate   some   innocent   person along with the real assailant cannot be ruled out and therefore, as a mat­ ter   of   prudence,   we   shall   look   for some   independent   corroboration   of his testimony, to decide about the in­ volvement   of   the   appellant   in   the crime. Since, there are some doubtful aspects in the conduct of Ajoy PW 3, it would not be safe to accept his evi­ dence without some independent cor­ roboration, direct or circumstantial .” [Emphasis supplied] 31. Undisputedly,   both   P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan   and P.W.2­Jaan   Mohammad   are   witnesses,   who   are   closely related to the deceased and the accused No.1­Momin Khan. Therefore, we find that it will be necessary to scrutinise their evidence with more care, caution and circumspection. 25 32. Even if the evidence of P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan and P.W.2­Jaan   Mohammad   is   taken   at   its   face   value,   the accused have murdered six deceased at different places. As per the admission given by P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan, the house of the accused No.1­ Momin Khan is 15 steps away from the place where he was hiding in the compound. According to him, there are a total of 5 rooms in the house where the incident took place. He has stated in his cross­examination that Shaukeen Khan was murdered in the   Angan   of the house and his father Mausam Khan was murdered in the veranda.     His   niece   Muskan   was   also   murdered   in   the veranda.     His   mother­Asgari   and   nephew   Samad   were murdered in the room which is 15 steps away from the kitchen, whereas deceased Shanno was murdered in a room upstairs. He has further admitted that the aforesaid room cannot   be   seen   from   the   kitchen   and   the   door   of   the aforesaid room opens towards south.   33. It   will   be   relevant   to   refer   to   P.W.1­Ali   Sher Khan’s deposition in his cross­examination.   26 “Site map was prepared by the police on my pointing. There is a courtyard in my house.   There   is   a   room   built   in   the South of the courtyard whose door opens in the courtyard. The room which I have told in South is a kitchen. The door of this kitchen opens in North. There is a gate in Western wall of the courtyard.” 34. It   would   further   be   relevant   to   refer   to   the following deposition of P.W.9­Brahmesh Kumar Yadav, i.e. the I.O.    “I had prepared site­map on the day of occurrence on 24.1.14. I had prepared the site­map of the scene of occurrence at the instance of the case­complainant. I do not remember at what time I started to  prepared   the   site­map.   I  don’t   even remember   how   much   time   I   took   to prepare the site­map. I don’t remember at   what   time   I   stopped   preparing   the site­map.   I   don’t   remember   whether   I had   marked   case­complainant’s   hiding place   in   the   site­map   or   not.   This   is correct   to   state   that   the   place,   from where the case­complainant has stated 27 to hide and see the accused persons, is not   shown   in   the   site­map.   I   had prepared the site­map of the scene of” 35. A perusal of the evidence of the P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan and the evidence of P.W.9­Brahmesh Kumar Yadav would   reveal   that   the   first   site­plan   (Exhibit   Ka­51)   was prepared   by   P.W.9­Brahmesh   Kumar   Yadav   on   P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan’s pointing out the details.  28 36. It will be appropriate to reproduce all the three site­plans, which are as under:  “ 29 30 31 ” 37. It could thus be seen that all the three site­plans (Exhibits Ka­51, Ka­52 and Ka­45) have been prepared by 32 P.W.9­Brahmesh Kumar Yadav, the I.O. The first site­plan th (Exhibit Ka­51) was prepared on 24   January, 2014.   The th second   site­plan   (Exhibit   Ka­52)   was   prepared   on   28 January, 2014 and the third site­plan (Exhibit Ka­45) was th prepared on 29  January, 2014.    38. The   first   site­plan   (Exhibit   Ka­51)   shows   the places where the dead bodies of the deceased were found. Serial No.1 in the said site­plan is the place where the dead body of deceased Shaukeen Khan was found. Serial No.2 is the spot where the dead body of deceased Mausam Khan was found.  Serial No.3 is the spot where the dead body of deceased Shanno Begam was found. Serial No.4 is the spot where the dead body of deceased Muskan was found.  Serial No.5 is the spot where the dead body of deceased Asgari was found.     Serial  No.6   is   the   spot   where   the   dead   body   of deceased Samad was found. The arrow marks in the said site­plan show the direction in which the accused fled away from the rear gate.  It is to be seen that in the said site­plan, the room on the southern side is not shown.   33 39. The   second   site­plan   (Exhibit   Ka­52)   is   with regard to the recovery of weapons made at the instance of the accused from the field of the deceased Shaukeen Khan.   40. The   third   site­plan   (Exhibit   Ka­45),   which   is drawn in connection with Case Crime No.26 of 2014 under Section 25/4 of the Arms Act, also shows the places from where the weapons alleged to have been used in the crime, were recovered at the instance of the accused.  41. In the last two site­plans at Exhibit Ka­52 and Exhibit Ka­45, a room has been shown on the southern side.  42. According to the evidence of P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan, the   room   in   which   he   hid   himself   in   the   south,   is   the Kitchen.  As per his evidence, the door of the kitchen opens to the north, whereas as per the third site­plan (Exhibit Ka­ 45),   the   gate   of   the   said   room   on   southern   side,   opens towards west.   As per the version of P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad, he 43. has   witnessed   the   incident   from   the   place   where   the buffaloes are tethered, which is adjacent to the bathroom. 34 Though   the   bathroom   is   not   shown   in   the   site­plan, believing it to be adjacent to the place where buffaloes are tethered, it will be in the south­west corner.  44. As per  the testimonies  of P.W.1­Ali  Sher Khan and   P.W.2­Jaan   Mohammad,   firstly   Mausam   Khan   was assaulted   and   done   away   with   in   veranda,   whereas deceased Shaukeen Khan was done away with in the court­ yard.  Deceased Muskan, Asgari and Samad were assaulted in the rooms, which are in the middle portion of the house. According to these witnesses, Shanno Begam was assaulted upstairs. If the version of these two witnesses is compared with the site­plans, then the position that emerges would reveal that P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan, at the most, could have witnessed   the   assault   on   deceased   Shaukeen   Khan, whereas P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad could have witnessed the assault on deceased Mausam Khan and deceased Shaukeen Khan.  However, since from the perusal of the first site­plan (Exhibit Ka­51), it could be seen that the dead­bodies of deceased   Muskan,   Samad,   and   Asgari   were   inside   the house, and the dead­body of deceased Shanno Begam was 35 upstairs, it is difficult to believe that these two witnesses could   have   also   seen   the   accused   assaulting   Shanno Begam, Muskan, Asgari and Samad.     It is further to be noted   that   P.W.9­Brahmesh   Kumar   Yadav   in   his   cross­ examination has  admitted that P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan and P.W.2­Jaan   Mohammad   had   not   told   him   about   their hideouts and that is why it was not mentioned in the site­ plan.  We   are   therefore   of   the   view   that   these   two 45. witnesses cannot be considered to be wholly reliable to base an order of conviction solely on their testimonies.   46. It   will   be   relevant   to   refer   to   the   following observation of this Court in the case of  Vadivelu Thevar & 3 another v. The State of Madras : 

3 (1957) SCR 981 36

As already discussed hereinabove, we are of the 47. view that though P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan could have witnessed the assault on deceased Shaukeen Khan and P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad could have witnessed the assault on deceased Shaukeen Khan and deceased Mausam Khan, it is difficult to believe that they could have witnessed the assault on the other four deceased persons.  We are also of the view that the said witnesses cannot be said to be wholly unreliable. They would fall in the category of ‘neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable’ and as such, we are of the view that a 37 greater degree of care and caution would be required and a corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct   or   circumstantial,   would   be   necessary   to   pass   an order of conviction.    48. We, therefore, find it necessary to consider the other circumstances relied on by the prosecution.  The other circumstances,   on   which   the   prosecution   relies,   are   as under: A. Arrest   of   the   accused   immediately   after   the incident;  B. Recovery   of   the   weapons   alleged   to   have   been used in the crime at the instance of the accused. C. Recovery  of  the   bloodstained   clothes   alleged   to have been worn by the accused while committing the crime. D. Motive. We   will   now   deal   with   the   evidence   placed   on behalf   of   the   prosecution   with   regard   to   each   of   the circumstances.  A.  Arrest   of   the   accused   immediately   after   the incident: 49. Insofar as the arrest of accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 is concerned,   P.W.9­Brahmesh   Kumar   Yadav   (I.O.),   states 38 that, on the basis of written complaint, Crime No.25 of 2014 came   to   be   registered   for   the   offence   punishable   under Section 302/34  of the  IPC.   He stated that thereafter, he immediately reached at the complainant’s house along with the force.  It was crowded there.  He recorded the statement of the complainant­P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan.   He stated that when they were at the scene of occurrence with the police force, they received information through informer that the accused   of   the   aforesaid   case   were   present   at   Rajghat Chauraha looking for a chance to go somewhere.  Relying on this information, when they reached at Rajghat Chauraha, three   persons   were   there   in   the   passenger   shed.     The informer went away after showing those three men and they th arrested them at 2.00 a.m. in the morning of 24  January, 2014.  They revealed their names as Momin Khan, Jaikam Khan and Sajid.  According to him, the accused stated that they had committed those six murders in association with Nazra and all the accused told them that they had thrown away the weapons with which they had committed the crime and they could get those recovered.   His further evidence 39 states about the recovery of those weapons, with which we will deal later in this judgment.  He further states that when they   were   returning   to   the   police   station   with   accused, leaving a few policemen behind at the scene of occurrence, accused   No.2­Nazra,   met   at   Rajghat   Chauraha,   seeing whom Momin Khan (A­1) said that she was his wife.   She was arrested at 6.40 a.m. and everyone was presented at th the police station at 6.50 a.m. on 24  January, 2014.   P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan, in his cross­examination, 50. states that he does not know how far the road of Rajghat is from his house.  He further states that he cannot say even by guessing.   51. P.W.2­Jaan   Mohammad   admitted   in   his   cross­ examination that the house of deceased Mausam Khan is at a distance of one furlong from Rajghat road.   He further clarified that by one furlong he means half kilometre.   52. It is thus difficult to believe that accused Nos. 1, 3   and   4   were   waiting   at   Rajghat   square,   which   is   at   a distance   of   hardly   half   a   kilometre   from   the   place   of occurrence, waiting for the Police to come and arrest them. 40 The alleged informer has neither been named nor has he been examined.  It is further difficult to believe that accused No.2­Nazra was wandering in the village and coincidently at 6.40   a.m.,   crossed   paths   with   P.W.9­   Brahmesh   Kumar Yadav (I.O.), when he was returning to the police station along with other accused.   53. In this respect, it will also be relevant to refer to the testimony of P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad. “When we went to the police station to get the report written, Momin and Nazra, as well as Jaikam and Sajid were present at the police station.” It   is   thus   clear   admission   of   P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad  that when he  and  P.W.1­Ali Sher  Khan had gone to the police station to give the written report, Momin Khan (A­1), Nazra (A­2), Jaikam Khan (A­3) and Sajid (A­4) were already present there in the police station.  According rd to the prosecution, the crime is registered on 23  January, 2014 at 10.00 p.m. when both P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan and P.W.2­Jaan   Mohammad   were   present.     If   the   version   of P.W.2­Jaan   Mohammad,   that   all   the   four   accused   were present at the police station when they had gone to lodge 41 the FIR, is to be believed, then the arrest of the accused th Nos. 1, 3 and 4 at 2.00 a.m. on 24   January, 2014 and arrest of accused No.2 at 6.40 a.m. on the same day, to say the least, is mysterious.   B. Recovery of the weapons alleged to have been used in the crime at the instance of the accused. Insofar as the recovery of the weapons alleged to 54. have been used in the crime at the instance of the accused is concerned, the prosecution has relied on the arrest­cum­ recovery memo, which is at Exhibit Ka­49.  55. We have already dealt with this aspect in the said memo with regard to the arrest of the accused.  The relevant part of the said memo reads thus: “The aforesaid three persons were asked about the incident, Momeen Khan told that he had dispute with his father over partition.   In   the   beginning   he   used   to run   kiln,   later   on   it   was   given   to Shaukin   Khan.   The   means   of   his livelihood   came   to   an   end,   he   was   in trouble.   Jaikam   and   Sajid   had   enmity with his brothers. Thus he took help of Jaikam and Sajid and killed his parents and   family   of   Shaukin   in   a   planned manner   after   inflicting   serious   injuries over their neck, head and mouth. They had   thrown   the   knives   at   the   back   of 42 house and field with which they caused the death. Accused told that they could get   the   weapon   used   in   murder recovered.   We   came   to   the   house   of Shaukin at Village Pilkhana along with all the aforesaid accused in the hope of recovery of weapon used. All the three accused   live   in   the   same   compound. Momeen   walked   forward,   entered   the middle house where his mother used to sleep   and   took   out   a   daav   having wooden   handle   around   7   fingers   and blade around 1 balisht 1 finger that was bloodstained from the rubbish beneath staircase. He handed over the weapon at around 3 am and told that he caused death with it.   Field unit is on the spot, photographs   were   clicked.   Recovery   of weapon was made in presence of public witnesses   Khemkaran   s/o   Tara   Singh, Vilal   s/o   Usman   Khan   r/o   Pilkhana. Another accused Jaikam s/o Jafar Khan walked forward into the field at the back of his house and got a knife measuring 1 balisht   6   fingers   handle   recovered   in presence   of   aforesaid   witnesses   at around 3:15 o'clock and stated that he caused   death   with   the   same.   Its photograph was clicked and fingerprint taken   and   after   sometime   fingerprint team   went   away.     After   much   time accused   Sajid   walked   into   the   field behind the house of Shaukin and took out   a   knife   measuring   1   balisht   5 fingers.   Its   blade   is   fitted   with   plastic arc. He got it recovered and stated that he   caused   death   with   it.   The   three aforesaid knives were bloodstained. Thus blade was wrapped into a cotton, kept in separate clothes, sealed and stamped on 43 the spot and sample seal was prepared. Memo   was   dictated   by   me   to   H.C.P. Sadar Singh in electric and torch light and documents were prepared.” Though the memo shows that the said recoveries were made in the presence of public witnesses, no public witness has been examined to support the same.  It will be relevant to refer to  the  celebrated  judgment of  the   Privy Council in the case of   Pulukuri Kottayya and others v. 4 King Emperor “…..On normal principles of construction their Lordships think that the proviso to S. 26, added by s. 27, should not be held to nullify the substance of the section. In their Lordships' view it is fallacious to treat   the   “fact   discovered”   within   the section   as   equivalent   to   the   object produced; the fact discovered embraces the   place   from   which   the   object   is produced   and   the   knowledge   of   the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user, or the past history,   of   the   object   produced   is   not related to its discovery in the setting in which   it   is   discovered.   Information supplied by a person in custody that “I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of   my   house”   does   not   lead   to   the discovery   of   a   knife;   knives   were discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is 4 AIR 1947 PC 67 44

56. As   already   discussed   hereinabove,   since   no public   witness   has   been   examined   to   support   the   said memo,   the   statement   made   therein   will   have   to   be scrutinised with greater caution and circumspection.   All the statements made therein with regard to the confession of   committing   the   crime   would   not   be   admissible   in evidence.    Only such information, which distinctly relates to the discovery of facts will be admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the   Evidence   Act”).     The   evidence   of   P.W.9­Brahmesh Kumar Yadav (I.O.) would reveal that immediately after the F.I.R. was lodged, he had come to the spot of incident for further investigation. According to him, the accused Nos. 1, th 3 and 4 were arrested at around 2.00 a.m. on 24  January, 2014.   Even according to him, the police party was very 45 much there at the spot.   One of the alleged recoveries is from the room where deceased Asgari used to sleep. The other two recoveries are from open field, just behind the house   of   deceased   Shaukeen   Khan,   i.e.,   the   place   of incident.   It could thus be seen that the recoveries were made from the places, which were accessible to one and all and   as   such,   no   reliance   could   be   placed   on   such recoveries. C. Recovery   of   the   bloodstained   clothes   alleged   to have been worn by the accused while committing the crime.   The   recovery   memo   of   bloodstained   clothes 57. (Exhibit   Ka­34)   also   makes   for   an   interesting   reading. Perusal of the aforesaid memo shows that the police party along with three sons and two daughters of the accused No.1­Momin   Khan   and   accused   No.2­Nazra   came   to   the house of the accused No.1­Momin Khan.   At that place, Hina @ Yasmeen, daughter of accused No.1­Momin Khan and   accused   No.2­Nazra,   in   the   presence   of   her grandparents,   viz.,   Akhlaq   and   Shakila   and   neighbours 46 Jabbar and Kishan Chandra and other villagers unlocked her house and took out her things.  At that time, Maumin saw some clothes under the bed in the room.  On seeing the clothes, many villagers identified and told that the clothes were the same which Momin Khan (A­1) and others had rd worn in the evening of 23  January, 2014.  The clothes were identified   separately,   in   which   Momin   Khan   (A­1)   was wearing jeans of blue colour and blue shirt having black and white squares, Jaikam Khan (A­3) was wearing kurta of cream   colour   and   printed   readymade   sweater   of   brown colour, Sajid (A­4) was wearing pants of light black colour and printed shirt of light yellow, red black colour and Nazra (A­2) was wearing printed salwar kurta of light red colour.   58. As   per   the   prosecution   witnesses,   the   accused had run away from the rear gate of the compound, which is towards north.  As per the evidence of P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan, the house of Momin Khan (A­1) is at a distance of 10­15 steps away from the place of the incident.  According to the prosecution   witnesses,   immediately   after   the   incident occurred, many villagers had gathered at the spot.  In these 47 circumstances, it is again a mystery as to how all the four accused fled from the spot, came back at the said spot, changed their clothes and again went away. It is also a mystery as to how the accused Nos. 3 and 4, who are not residing in Momin Khan’s (A­1) house, had changed their clothes and kept them at Momin Khan’s (A­1) house. This coupled   with   the   fact   that   the   F.S.L.   reports   are inconclusive,   creates   a   great   shadow   of   doubt   on   the genuineness of the said recovery.   In any case, the said clothes   are   not   recovered   on   the   memorandum   of   the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and as such, the said circumstance could not have been used against the accused. D. Motive 59. No doubt that, in case of direct evidence and the ocular   testimony   of   the   eye­witness   being   found   to   be trustworthy, reliable and cogent, it will not be necessary for the prosecution to prove the motive for the crime.  However, in the present case, as we have already held hereinabove, that the testimony of the eye­witnesses could not be said to 48 be wholly reliable, the motive aspect would be a relevant factor.   60. As per the prosecution version, the main motive behind the crime was with regard to the dispute over the management of the brick­kiln between the accused No.1­ Momin Khan on one hand and deceased Mausam Khan, deceased Shaukeen Khan and P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan on the other hand. In the F.I.R., P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan has stated that   the   accused   Nos.   3   and   4   were   jealous   with   his business and a case was also lodged for laying bricks over the land.  It is further stated that since then, enmity grew between the family and younger brother Momin Khan (A­1) joined the company of his uncle’s son Jaikam Khan (A­3) and Jaikam Khan’s (A­3) son Sajid (A­4).  No doubt, that the F.I.R. is not a substantive piece of evidence, however, it will be   relevant   for   scrutinising   the   credibility   of   the   first informant.     Though   in   his   cross­examination,   P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan has stated that Momin Khan (A­1) had a rift with him, the reason for Momin Khan’s (A­1) rift with his parents and brothers was, due to him not giving an account of the 49 money   earned   from   brick­kiln   to   them.     He   has   further stated that his father, deceased Mausam Khan, had relieved Momin Khan (A­1) from the duty of brick­kiln in 2010 and since then Momin Khan (A­1) bore enmity against him. He has further stated that due to the same brick­kiln, accused Nos.   2,   3   and   4,   viz.,   Nazra,   Jaikam   Khan   and   Sajid respectively, too bore enmity against him.   In   his   cross­examination,   P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan 61. has clearly admitted that it is Momin Khan and family who had dispute with him over the property of brick­kiln.  The said dispute was over details of accounts.  He has admitted that accused Nos. 3 and 4 had nothing to do with regard to brick­kiln of his father deceased Mausam Khan.  It will be relevant to refer to the original hindi version of the evidence of P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan, which is as under:   “ यह बबात सहह ह कह जयकम व सबाजजद कबा मेरमे जपितबा ममौसम खबान समे भट्टबा कमे लमेनमे कबा नहहह थबा |” 62. P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan has categorically admitted in his cross­examination that the shares in the agricultural land between his father deceased Mausam Khan and Zafar 50 Khan, father of Jaikam Khan (A­3), were separate.  He has further admitted that the names of Zafar Khan and his four sons have been entered in the records and he has seen that Khatauni was recorded in the name of Zafar’s sons, Jaikam Khan and Yameen.   63. It will also be relevant to refer to the admission of P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad in his cross­examination, which is as under: “It is correct that Jaikam Khan and Sajid Khan   had   no   dispute   with   Mausam Khan.   It   is   also   correct   that   Jaikam Khan   and   Sajid   Khan   had   no partnership in the Kiln of Mausam Khan and Alisher.” 64. It could thus be seen that the alleged motive, if any,   is   attributable   to   the   accused   No.1­Momin   Khan. P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan   and   P.W.2­Jaan   Mohammad   have admitted   that   Jaikam   Khan   (A­3)   and   Sajid   (A­4)   had nothing   to   do   with   the   brick­kiln   business   of   deceased Mausam Khan.  They have further admitted that there was no   dispute   with   regard   to   brick­kiln   amongst   his   father deceased Mausam Khan on one hand and accused Nos. 3 51 and 4 on the other hand.   It is further to be noted that even according to P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan, the dispute between his father deceased Mausam  Khan  and accused No.1­Momin Khan with regard to brick­kiln took place in the year 2010. Though   P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan   states   in   his   cross­ examination   that   heated   exchanges   regarding   brick­kiln took   place   between   Momin   Khan   (A­1)   and   his   father deceased Mausam Khan, during last 3­4 years, no incident, which would cause provocation to lead to such dastardly act, has been brought on record.     On the contrary, he admitted in his cross­examination that though quarrel took place   between   his   father   deceased   Mausam   Khan   and Momin Khan (A­1), no quarrel took place between Momin Khan   (A­1),   deceased   Shaukeen   Khan   and   himself.     He further   admitted   that   decisions   were   taken   through   the relatives but Momin Khan (A­1) did not accept it.   65. It could thus be seen that with regard to Jaikam Khan   (A­3)   and   Sajid   (A­4),   the   prosecution   has   utterly failed to prove any motive and has also failed to prove any strong motive insofar as Momin Khan (A­1) is concerned.   52 66. The   matter   does   not   end   at   this.   There   are various   other   inconsistencies   and   lacunae   in   the prosecution case.   67. According   to   P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan   and   P.W.2­ Jaan Mohammad, a large number of villagers had gathered at   the   spot   after   the   incident.     However,   none   of   the independent   witnesses   have   been   examined   by   the prosecution.  Since the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution   are   interested   witnesses,   non­examination   of independent witnesses, though available, would make the prosecution   version   doubtful.     Reference   in   this   respect could be placed on the following observations of this Court in   the   case   of   State   of   Rajasthan   v.   Teja   Singh   and 5 others : “5. In regard to the next argument of the appellant's counsel that the High Court was wrong in assuming that other vil­ lagers were sitting with PWs 6, 7 and 9, assuming that it is an error even then there can be no doubt as could be seen from the prosecution case that other vil­ lagers whether sitting with PWs 6, 7 and 9 or not did rush to the scene of occur­ rence,   therefore,   it   is   clear   that   apart 5 (2001) 3 SCC 147 53 from the said eyewitnesses produced by the   prosecution   many   other   villagers would have at least seen the last part of the occurrence including the escape of the accused and the accused not being strangers   to   the   villagers   could   have been  easily  identified by  them.  By not examining those independent witnesses, the prosecution has failed to produce the available independent corroborative evi­ dence to support the evidence of inter­ ested witnesses, namely, PWs 6, 7 and 9 because   of   which   the   High   Court   was justified   in   drawing   adverse   inference against the prosecution…”  68. The evidence of  P.W.9­Brahmesh Kumar  Yadav (I.O.) would show that though fingerprints were taken at the spot, the fingerprint expert’s report is not placed on record. Similarly, his further evidence would reveal that though he had come to the spot with the dog squad, report of the dog squad is also not placed on record.   In our view, the said also casts a doubt with regard to the genuineness of the prosecution case.   69. Apart from that, it could be seen that, though it is the   assertion   of   P.W.1­Ali   Sher   Khan   and   P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad that they together had gone to the police station to lodge the report, the same has been contradicted by the 54 evidence of P.W.4­Manveer Singh, who was the Constable Clerk at the police station.   He has stated in his evidence thus: “The complainant had come at the police station with the written complaint. Only Alisher   had   come   to   me   at   the   Police Station with the written complaint.  No other one had come.” 70. Coupled with the fact that though P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan and P.W.2­Jaan Mohammad, had mobile phones, they had not informed the Police on phone, also casts a serious doubt with regard to the genuineness of the prosecution case.     71. Insofar   as   the   reliance   placed   by   Shri   Vinod Diwakar, learned AAG on the burden not being discharged by the accused and no explanation given by them in their Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement is concerned, it is trite law that   only   after   the   prosecution   discharges   its   burden   of proving   the   case   beyond   reasonable   doubt,   the   burden would shift on the accused.   It is not necessary to reiterate this   proposition   of   law.     It     will   suffice   to   refer   to   the 55 following observations of this Court in the case of   Joydeb 6 Patra and others v. State of West Bengal : 

6 (2014) 12 SCC 444 56 been   proved   the   burden   in   regard   to such facts which was within the special knowledge of the accused may be shifted to the accused for explaining the same. Of course, there are certain exceptions to the said rule e.g. where burden of proof may  be imposed  upon the   accused  by reason of a statute.”” In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the said submissions.   72. While   coming   to   the   conclusion   that   the prosecution   has   failed   to   bring   home   the   guilt   of   the accused   beyond   reasonable   doubt,   we   are   at   pains   to observe the manner in which the present case has been dealt with by the trial court as well as by the High Court, particularly, when the trial court awarded death penalty to the accused and the High Court confirmed it.   The trial court and the High Court were expected to exercise a greater degree of scrutiny, care and circumspection while directing the accused to be hanged till death.  73. Though there are serious infirmities on various counts in the judgment of the trial court, we refer to only one paragraph of the said judgment: 57 “The above mentioned recovery of blood­ stained clothes of the  accused Momin, Jaikam, Sajid and Nazra also proves the involvement of them in the crime. The above recovery also indicates to this fact that the entire episode of the murders was   a   pre­planned   one   and   that   a comprehensive strategy was chalked out for it. All  the  accused gathered at  the house   of   the   accused   Momin   prior   to committing   the   murders.   They   already knew   that   on   committing   murders   by sharp   weapons,   the   splashes   of   blood would hurl at their clothes because of which, if they don’t change their clothes, they would be not be able to hide their crime during being absconded. That is why,   they   had   already   managed additional clothes for them in the house of the accused Momin. After committing the crime, they as per the planning, went to Momin’s  house, changed their clothes and ran away. Opening the lock of their home by sons and daughters of Momin on the third day of the occurrence also indicates   that   either   Momin’s   all   sons and daughters were at home at the time of the occurrence and they left from the house   with   the   accused   after   the occurrence or Momin’s and Nazra’s kids were   not   at   all   present   there   in   the house at the time of occurrence and that all   the   kids   were   sent   to   their   grand­ parent’s house prior to the occurrence. Since the crime was committed in a well and pre – planned way, it seems more probable that the kids were sent to their grand­parent’s   home   prior   to   the occurrence.   If   this   probability   is accepted,   the   arrest   of   the   accused 58 Nazra   after   the   occurrence,   and   the arrest of the remaining three accused viz Momin, Sajid and Jaikam at the Rajghat Chauraha at 2.00 ‘O’ clock at night not taking place but in the morning at 6.30 ‘O’ clock becomes important. It indicates that   Nazra,   after   the   occurrence,   was gone to her kids for meeting them and delivering   them   the   keys   of   home. Thereafter,   as   per   the   pre­planned program,   she   had   to   reach   the   same Rajghat Chauraha, where the remaining three accused had already been arrested at   night.   All   the   accused   may   have planned to gather at the same Chauraha and   run   away   together   from   here   and that   is   why,   they   kept   on   waiting   for Nazra at the same place till 2.00 o’ Clock at night. It is impossible because of this reason also that if the occurrence took place around 8.30 pm, the three accused Momin, Zaikam and Sajid had sufficient time after perpetrating this crime, to run away   very   far.   However,   standing   at Rajghat Chauraha till 2.00 am, indicates that they were waiting there for Nazra to come.” 74. To say the least, we are shocked at the aforesaid finding.  The narration makes for an interesting reading as a story.       However,   all   the   observations   are   nothing   but conjectures   and   surmises,   without   there   being   any evidentiary support to them.   It is really surprising, as to how the Additional Sessions Judge could have dealt with 59 the present case in such a casual manner when he was considering the question of life and death of four accused.    75. At this stage, we would like to remind ourselves as well as all the Courts in the country the golden principle to   be   followed   in   criminal   jurisprudence.     This   Court, speaking through legendry H.R. Khanna, J., in the case of The State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, Baljit Singh and 7 Karam Singh  observed thus: “23. A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and phantasy. It con­ cerns   itself   with   the   question   as   to whether   the   accused   arraigned   at   the trial is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of differ­ ent human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion   about   the   guilt   of   the   ac­ cused charged with the commission of a crime,   the   court  has   to  judge  the  evi­ dence by the yardstick of probabilities, its   intrinsic   worth   and   the   animus   of witnesses. Every case in the final analy­ sis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every rea­ sonable doubt should be given to the ac­ cused, the courts should not at the same time   reject   evidence   which   is   ex   facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanci­ ful or in the nature of conjectures.” 7 (1974) 3 SCC 277 60 We are amazed by the manner in which the High 76. court has dealt with the present matter.  It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of the High Court with regard to the recovery of clothes.   “It has been urged that in order to prove the   recovery   of   the   clothes,   no independent witness was produced. It is correct   that   the   prosecution   only produced the formal witness to prove the recovery,   but   on   the   other   hand   the disclosure   of   this   fact   about   the   room having been opened by the keys provided by Hina, the daughter of accused Momin was not rebutted by the defence which could have been done by producing Hina in order to deny any such recovery.” 77. The finding is not only contrary to the well settled law interpreting Section 27 of the Evidence Act but also attempts to put a burden on the accused, which does not shift   unless   prosecution   has   proved   the   case   beyond reasonable doubt.   78. The   following   observations   of   the   High   Court would also fall in the ambit of conjectures and surmises: “There is yet another dimension which deserves   mention   namely,   with   the 61 multiple   nature   of   injuries   and   six persons   being   slaughtered simultaneously, the same cannot be an act of a single assailant. The presence, therefore, of the three assailants Momin, Jaikam and Sajid cannot be ruled out as there is no doubt that such nature of assault in the natural course of things would be carried out by more than one person.” 79. Another finding of the High Court, which makes for   an   interesting   reading   and   is   foreign   to   criminal jurisprudence is thus: “The   question   of   motive   in   relation   to Jaikam and Sajid may not be immediate and they being a separate family may be correct. This however by itself may not be sufficient to dilute the connection of Sajid and Jaikam with Momin. However on this count, we find that the trial court has raised a presumption about jealousy amongst   the   families   on   account   of Mausam   Khan   having   developed   his business   and   augmented   his   earnings through   a   brick   klin.   This   part  of   the discussion   of   the   trial   court   does   not find   sufficient   corroboration   from   the evidence   on   record,   and   therefore,   the motive appears to be remote and not a very strong motive. This, however, does not   mean   to   say   that   there   was   no connection with Jaikam and Sajid with Momin, who did appear to be on friendly terms and this fact is reflected from the statement of the witnesses particularly, 62 PW­1   and   PW­2,   where   they   have indicated an attitude of vengeance being present for certain reasons. Thus even though   a   strong   motive   may   not   have been established and the reasonings of the trial court may be a little stretched, yet the same would not wipe out their presence   particularly   when   the   ocular testimony   to   establish   their   presence when the offence was committed.” 80. Further,   it   can   be   seen   that,   the   very   same Judges of the High Court refused to believe the very same evidence   of   prosecution   witnesses   in   respect   of   accused No.2­Nazra.  The High Court observed thus: “The   arrest   of   Smt.   Nazra   has   been shown   from   a   public   place   in   the morning at about 6.40 am whereas Smt. Nazra claims to be present at the police station   with   her   children.   There   is   no independent   witness   of   her   arrest.   On cross­examination,   PW­9   the investigating officer  has  stated that he does not remember as to whether Smt. Nazra was at the police station with her children or not. He however denies her arrest at the police station. PW­2 in his cross­examination   on   20.03.2015   has stated that  when he went to the police station   for   lodging   of   the   first information report, then Momin, Jaikab, Sajid and  Nazra were all present at the police   station.   This  testimony   of   PW­2 corroborates his presence at the  police station   with   PW­1   informant   who   has 63 admitted  having   gone   to   the   police station   with   his   brother­in­law   PW­2. The story of arrest of Nazra at 6:40 am the  next   day   morning   in   these circumstances   as   set   up   by   the prosecution is therefore clearly doubtful. This aspect further adds to the doubts expressed above.” We ask a question to ourselves, if the arrest of 81. the accused No.2­Nazra was from a public place, was the arrest of the accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 from any other place than   the   place   from   where   the   accused   No.2­Nazra   was apprehended.   If according to the High Court, there is no independent witness of her arrest, is there any independent witness for arrest of accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4.   If on the basis   of   evidence   of   P.W.2­Jaan   Mohammad,   who   has deposed in his cross­examination, that, when he went to the police station for lodging the F.I.R.,  he found Momin Khan (A­1),   Jaikam   Khan   (A­3),   Sajid   (A­4)   and   Nazra   (A­2) present in the police station, which, according to the High Court, is corroborated by the testimony of P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan and, therefore, the story of arrest of Nazra (A­2) at 6.40 a.m. was found to be unbelievable, then how was it different from the arrest of accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4, which 64 th was shown to be at 2.00 a.m. on 24   January, 2016, i.e., much after the time of lodging the F.I.R.   The High Court further goes on to have an academic discussion with regard to the possibility, preponderance of probability, a scientist conducting   his   experiments   with   great   care,   choosing between two or more possibilities, and preponderates of one over the other, etc.  The law, however, that is fully settled, is that, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.   82. We   may   gainfully   refer   to   the   following observations   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Anand Ramachandra Chougule v. Sidarai Laxman Chougala 8 and others : “10 .  The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the allegations beyond all reasonable doubt. In contradistinction to the same, the accused has only to create a doubt about the prosecution case and the probability of its defence. An accused is not required to establish or prove his defence beyond all reasonable doubt, unlike the prosecution. If the accused takes a defence, which is not improbable and appears likely, there is ma­ terial in support of such defence, the ac­ 8 (2019) 8 SCC 50 65

We,   therefore,   find   that   the   prosecution   has 83. utterly failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction and death sentence imposed on the accused is totally unsustainable in law.    66 Insofar as the appeal filed by the P.W.1­Ali Sher Khan   with   regard   to   acquittal   of   accused   No.2­Nazra   is concerned, it is sans any merit.   84. In the result: (a) Criminal Appeal Nos. 440­441 of 2020 filed by Momin   Khan   (Accused   No.1);   Criminal   Appeal Nos.   434­436   of   2020   filed   by   Jaikam   Khan (Accused No.3); and Criminal Appeal Nos. 437­ 439   of   2020   filed   by   Sajid   (Accused   No.4)   are allowed; (b) Momin   Khan   (Accused   No.1),   Jaikam   Khan (Accused   No.3)   and   Sajid   (Accused   No.4)   are directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other offence.  (c) Criminal Appeal No. 442 of 2020 filed by P.W.1­ Ali Sher Khan, is dismissed. 85. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. All pending applications shall also stand disposed of.    86. Before   we   part   with   the   judgment,   we   must appreciate the valuable assistance rendered by  Smt. Nitya 67 Ramakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of accused No.1 as well as acquitted original accused No.2, Shri   Dama   Seshadri   Naidu,   learned   counsel   for   accused Nos. 3 and 4, and Shri Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh. …….…....................., J.                              [L. NAGESWARA RAO] …….…....................., J.                                                  [B.R. GAVAI] …….…....................., J.                                             [B.V. NAGARATHNA] NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 15, 2021