THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH HOME DEPARTMENT SECRETARY vs. WASIF HAIDER

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1702­1706 OF 2014 TATE OF TTAR RADESH PPELLANT S    U  P                     … A ERSUS V W ASIF  H AIDER  E TC .            … R ESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T   N.V. R AMANA , J.   1.   These appeals by special leave arise out of the common impugned judgment dated 29.05.2009, passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1419, 1430, 1518 and 898 of 2004, whereby the High Court has reversed the judgment of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur in Signature Not Verified Sessions Trial No. 164/2002 dated 22.01.2004 under Sections Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2018.12.10 14:54:14 IST Reason: 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149, 148 IPC and Section 7 of 1 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932. Whereas the High Court in Government Appeal no. 5270 of 2005 preferred by the appellant­ State, has dismissed the appeal against the acquittal of accused no.1­respondent (Wasif  Haider)  for  offences under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 4 and 15 of Explosive Substances   Act,   1908,   while   affirming   the   judgment   dated 3.8.2005   passed   by   the   Additional   Sessions   judge,   Kanpur acquitting   the  accused   no.1­respondent   (Wasif   Haider)  in Sessions Trial No. 143 and 144 of 2002.   Brief facts as unfolded from the prosecution story are 2. that, while the complainant (P.W.2­ S.O., P.S. Moolganj, Kanpur) along   with   other   police   personnel   was   on   duty   at  the   parade crossing, he came to know that a crowd of around 200­300 rioters were   causing   rampage   and   destruction   at   the   Chaubey   Gola Temple. Immediately, the complainant accompanied by the police force   and   A.D.M   (Finance   and   Revenue)­Sri   Chandra   Prakash Pathak   (hereinafter   referred   as   “ the   deceased ” ),   and   half   a section   of   Provincial   Armed   Constabulary   [“PAC”]   proceeded towards   scene   of   occurrence.   Admittedly,   when   the   deceased along with police personnel were at a distance of around 100­150 paces from Sunehri Mosque  on  the  Nai  Sarak, rioters  started 2 firing   upon   them   resultantly   injuring   the   deceased   and   his orderly,  Ram   Chandra.   In  order   to  control  the   law   and   order situation, the police were compelled to fire in their defense. When the police party reached the mosque, the rioters had already fled away. Subsequently, when the police party reached Chaubey Gola Temple where rioters had already looted some houses and had also committed arson. In the meanwhile, the police also received the information that the deceased had succumbed to the gunshot injuries in the hospital. Finally, the F.I.R., Case Crime No. 7 of 2001 came to be registered at 8.05P.M. on 16.03.2001 against 200­300 unknown rioters. 3.   On   the   same   night,   after   conducting   the   inquest proceedings,   the   dead   body   was   sent   for   post   mortem examination and the investigation commenced. The investigation officer after recording the statement of witnesses, inspected the place of occurrence and prepared Site Plan ext. Ka­6. A bullet which was recovered from the ashes of deceased was sent for Forensic examination. 4.   On   02.08.2001   accused   no.   2­respondent   (Mumtaz Maulana) was brought to Kanpur by the Delhi police. On alias   04.08.2001,   accused   no.   1­respondent   (Wasif   Haider)   was 3 arrested. Accused no. 3­respondent (Hazi Atiq) and accused no. 4­respondent   (Safat   Rasool)   were   arrested   on   17.09.2001   and 18.09.2001   respectively   and   thereafter   the   Test   Identification Parade (hereinafter referred to as “ TIP ”) was held on 27.09.2001 at   District   Jail,   Kanpur.   Subsequent   to   the   completion   of investigation, the charge­sheet was submitted.    The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. It is pertinent to note that in the statements made by the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They claimed that there existed an inordinate delay in conducting the TIP, as  this time period was used by the prosecution witnesses to see them at their homes or places   of   work   to   mark   them   carefully   for   the   subsequent identification. They stressed on the fact that they were not kept concealed   in   a   veil   ( baparda ).   The   accused­respondents   have further stated that, prior to the TIP, the police had taken their photographs   and   had   shown   it   to   the   other   witnesses.  This creates a considerable doubt about the genuineness of the TIP. Further, the accused­respondents have alleged that, they were wrongfully roped in the case when the police failed to trace the real culprits. The accused respondents have also put forth that, although they had clear antecedents, but they were implicated in 4 the crime falsely. 6.   By   order   dated   22.01.2004,   the   trial   court,   while relying upon the prosecution version, rejected the defence story and convicted the accused persons as under, 

7.   Aggrieved by the abovementioned order of conviction and sentence, the accused­respondents appealed before the High Court. The High Court on analysis of evidence found that, not only there exists various contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses but there exists lack of corroboration of the 5 same.   While   passing   the   order   of   acquittal   the   High   Court observed that the case of prosecution was ridden with flaws in investigation, most importantly the identification of the accused was highly suspicious and the TIP was held to be “ too good to be believed ”.   Accordingly,   the   High   Court   through   the   impugned judgment acquitted the accused­respondents and set aside the aforesaid order of conviction as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 8.   Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the High Court acquitting all the accused, the State of Uttar Pradesh has preferred these appeals. 9.   The learned Counsel, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Goswami, on behalf of the appellant­State while supporting the prosecution’s case,   submitted   that   pursuant   to   the   arrest   of   the   accused­ respondents their identification was properly done after taking due   precautions   and   following   the   procedure.   Moreover,   the prosecution witnesses had clearly identified the accused persons in the identification parade and in the court as well. On the issue of   delay   caused   in   conducting   the   TIP,   the   counsel   also vehemently   submitted   that,   there   was   no   inordinate   delay   in conducting the TIP as canvassed by the counsels for the accused­ 6 respondents. The High Court has committed a grave error by not placing reliance on the TIP as there is nothing on record to vitiate the results of the same. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that since there existed sufficient evidence to prove the culpability of   the   accused­respondents,   the   Sessions   Judge   had   correctly passed the order of conviction against them and therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 10.   On the other hand, the learned Counsel, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, appearing on behalf of the accused­respondents no. 1, 3 and 4, while supporting the order of acquittal rendered by the High Court, submitted that, the entire prosecution story hinges on the identification of the accused­respondents, the genuineness of which in itself is questionable. It was further argued that, when admittedly the witnesses were at a great distance from the place of   occurrence,   it   was   not   plausible   to   identify   specifically   the accused­respondents, that too in the absence of any particular hulia  or distinguishing marks from amongst a crowd of 200­300 rioters. Further, there was inordinate delay in conducting the TIP which was fatal for the prosecution. 11.   Further, the learned Counsel, Mr. Siddhartha Dave, on behalf   of   accused­respondent   no.   2   submitted   that   accused­ 7 respondent   no.   2   has   been   dragged   into   the   matter   only   on account of confessional statement of the co­accused which has not been corroborated, and no other incriminating evidence is available on record.  12. Heard learned counsels for the parties. At the outset, we would like to state that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court would interfere only where there exists perversity of   fact   and   law   [ See   Bannareddy   and   Ors.   v.   State   of Karnataka   and   Ors . ,   (2018)   5   SCC   790].   Further,   the presumption   of   innocence   is   further   reinforced   against   the acquitted­accused   by   having   a   judgment   in   his   favor   [ See Rabindra   Kumar   Pal   @   Dara   Singh   v.   Republic   of   India , (2011) 2 SCC 490 in para. 94].    We   concur   with   the   aforesaid   order   of   acquittal 13. rendered by the High Court, as the present case is ridden with multiple investigative laches and flaws which goes to the root of the matter. We shall be addressing the same in  seriatim . 14.   Firstly ,   it   is   apt   to   note   that   out   of   the   seven   eye witnesses who participated in the TIP, five of them identified the accused   without   committing   any   mistake.   As   observed   by   the 8 accused no.3­respondent, Hazi Atiq has big protruding teeth, the accused no.4­respondent Safat Rasool was suffering from polio hence had permanent physical disability, but surprisingly this fact was never mentioned either in the F.I.R. or in the witness statements.   The   specific   identification   of   the   four   accused­ respondents,   from   a   group   of   200­300   rioters,   with   100% perfection; without a mention of any distinguishing marks seems highly improbable considering the distance of the witnesses from the place of occurrence. Moreover, there existed an inordinate delay of 55 days in conducting the TIP of the accused no.1 and 2. Although, the involvement of accused no.3 and 4 was brought to light on 03.08.2001 itself, the prosecution did not take any effort to  arrest  or   interrogate   them   for   6  weeks.   But  no   reasonable explanation was provided for the aforesaid inordinate delay.  15.   Furthermore,   no   documentary   evidence   has   been provided   to   proof   that   the   identity   of   the   accused   was   kept concealed.   On   the   contrary,   D.W.3,   Mohd.   Shamim   Siddique, Record Keeper in the Police Office stated that the general diary does not mention that the accused no.2­respondent Mumtaz  alias Maulana was kept   baparda . The defence also pleaded that, the aforesaid inordinate delay was used by the prosecution witnesses 9 to see the accused­respondents at their homes or places of work to   mark   them   carefully   for   the   subsequent   identification. Additionally,   accused   no.1­respondent   Wasif   Haider,   in   his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. went to the extent of saying that, prior to the TIP he was shown to the witnesses and his photographs and videotapes were prepared. In  Mulla v. State of , (2010) 3 SCC 508 para 55, this court laid down that a TIP U.P. has  to be  conducted   timely,  if   not,   then  the   delay   has   to   be explained   and   such   delay   should   not   cause   exposure   of   the accused. However, in the case at hand, not only there was a delay in conducting the TIP, but no explanation for the same has been forthcoming   from   the  prosecution.   This  creates  a  considerable doubt about the genuineness of the TIP. 16.   Secondly,   it   is   surprising   that,   although   the   post­ mortem report describes that there were only two wounds in the body of the deceased, one being the entry and the other being the exit wound, allegedly a bullet was still recovered from the ashes of the   deceased.   The   F.S.L.   report   shows   that   this   bullet   was charred and blistered. This recovery of bullet from the ashes of the deceased is irreconcilable with the post­mortem report which allegedly   states   an   exit   wound,   implying   that   the   bullet   had 10 already left the body. The aforesaid fact raises a suspicion on both the Post­Mortem report and the F.S.L. report as they are incompatible with each other.   Thirdly,  the prosecution has failed to establish that the 17. bullet allegedly recovered from the ashes of the deceased 20 days later was indeed fired from the pistol recovered from accused­ respondent Wasif Haider. Even, the recovery of pistol is doubtful. While, the prosecution case reveals that one .380 bore pistol colt was   recovered   from   the   possession   of   the   accused­respondent Wasif   Haider,   on   the   contrary,   the   evidence   of   P.W.2­S.O., Rajendra Dhar Dwivedi reveals that one .320 bore pistol colt was recovered pursuant to his arrest. Additional contradiction can be seen in the sanction order wherein two pistols of .380 bore were shown   to   be   recovered   from   the   possession   of   the   accused­ respondent Wasif Haider.   Fourthly ,   as   regards   to   the   place   of   incident,   the 18. prosecution failed to ascertain the same with precision. While the F.I.R. reveals the place of occurrence to be in front of Sunehri Masjid, P.W.2, the complainant later improved over his earlier statement and stated that, the incident actually took place in Noorani Masjid. On the contrary, the two site plans show the 11 place of incident to be Noorani Masjid. 19.   Fifthly ,   the   prosecution   failed   to   examine   Ram Chandra, the orderly of the deceased who was also injured in the same   incident   and   had   suffered   a   gunshot   injury.   The prosecution was also unable to prove the injury report of the above victim. Such a failure is fatal to the prosecution case as his presence in the place of occurrence is beyond doubt. It has been placed   on   record   that,   despite   Ram­Chandra   attending   the proceedings of the trial regularly he was not examined by the prosecution. 20.   Sixthly , the prosecution has also failed to adduce any independent witness. Even though it is wrong to disbelieve the evidence   adduced   from   the   official   witnesses,   but   prudence demands that their evidence needs to tested on the altar of strict scrutiny. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the evidences adduced by the prosecution witnesses do not inspire the confidence of this Court. 21.   Lastly , it is surprising that although the charges have been   framed   under   Section   307   of   IPC,   the   prosecution   has absolutely   failed   to   substantiate   the   charges   by   means   of evidence.   It   is   rather   unfortunate   that   the   courts   below   have 12 failed   to   take   note   of   the   same.   The   trial   court   has   erred   in convicting the respondents for the aforesaid offence, without any evidence to prove the same.   In the instant appeals before us, the prosecution has 22. failed to link the chain of circumstances so as to dispel the cloud of doubt about the culpability of the accused­respondents. It is a well settled principle that a suspicion, however grave it may be cannot take place of proof, i.e., there is a long distance between “ may   be ”   and   “ must   be ”,   which   must   be   traversed   by   the prosecution   to   prove   its   case   beyond   reasonable   doubt   [ See Narendra Singh v. State of M.P. ,  (2004)10 SCC 699].  23.   This   Court   in   Kailash  Gour   and  Ors.   v.  State  of , (2012) 2 SCC 34 has held that,  Assam “44.   The   prosecution,   it   is   axiomatic, must   establish   its   case   against   the accused   by   leading   evidence   that   is accepted   by   the   standards   that   are known   to   criminal   jurisprudence regardless   whether   the   crime   is committed   in   the   course   of   communal disturbances or otherwise.   In short, there can only be one set of rules and standards when   it   comes   to   trials   and   judgment   in criminal cases unless the statute provides for anything specially applicable to a particular case or class of cases…” (emphasis supplied) 13 24.   In   the   present   case,   the   cumulative   effect   of   the aforesaid   investigative   lapses   has   fortified   the   presumption   of innocence in favor of the accused­respondents. In such cases, the benefit of doubt arising out of a faulty investigation accrues in favor of the accused. 25.   Although   we   acknowledge   the   gravity   of   the   offence alleged against the accused­respondents and the unfortunate fact of a senior official losing his life in furtherance of his duty we cannot overlook the fact that the lapses in the investigation have disabled the prosecution to prove the culpability of the accused. The accused cannot be expected to relinquish his innocence at the hands of an inefficacious prosecution, which is ridden with investigative deficiencies. The benefit of doubt arising out of such inefficient investigation, must be bestowed upon the accused.  26. In   our   opinion,   there   exists   no   perversity   in   the judgment of the High Court. Further, in the absence of compelling reasons,   this   Court   is   not   keen   to   entertain   these   appeals challenging the order of acquittal.   We   are   also   not   inclined   to   interfere   with   the 27. concurrent order of acquittal for offences committed under the Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act presently before us in 14 Criminal Appeal no. 1706 of 2014.   28.   The   appeals   are   accordingly   dismissed.   Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. ……………………………..J. ( ) N. V. Ramana ……………………………..J. ( Mohan M. Shantanagoudar ) N EW  D ELHI , D ECEMBER  10, 2018. 15