Allahabad HC Rejects Death-Penalty Plea, Leaves Life Term Intact For Man Convicted Of Killing Constable And Taking His Service Weapon

In brief

The question

1. Whether the trial court’s findings and acquittals disclosed an exceptional error warranting interference in the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction.

The court held

The Court held that the impugned judgment disclosed no patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error.

It also directed

It declined to enhance the sentence or interfere with the acquittals and dismissed the criminal revision.

01Facts

The revisionist, the informant, challenged the Sessions Court’s judgment convicting Mohd. Azam Ghosi under Sections 302 and 392 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment and seven years’ rigorous imprisonment, respectively.

¶ 4–5, 10

The trial court had acquitted him of charges under Sections 148 and 307/149 IPC and acquitted the other accused of all charges.

¶ 4–5, 10

The prosecution alleged that, during an armed attack, Constable Hans Raj Yadav was killed and his service weapon was taken.

¶ 6, 11

The revisionist sought the death penalty for Mohd. Azam and conviction under Section 396 IPC and other associated provisions.

¶ 6, 11

No counsel appeared for the revisionist, and the High Court decided the revision on the record and merits.

¶ 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the trial court’s findings and acquittals disclosed an exceptional error warranting interference in the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction.

¶ 14–17, 19–20

ii.2. Whether the sentence of life imprisonment should be enhanced to capital punishment in revision.

¶ 11, 18

iii.3. Whether the High Court could grant the requested conviction under Section 396 IPC or convert the acquittals on the associated charges into convictions.

¶ 11, 19

03Law Applied

Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. confer revisional jurisdiction, but interference with an acquittal is confined to exceptional cases involving, for example, a manifest error of law or procedure, jurisdictional error, material evidence wrongly excluded or overlooked, or resulting miscarriage of justice; mere reappreciation of evidence is impermissible (Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram, AIR 1973 SC 2145; Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh, 1998 SC 3380; Venkatesan v. Rani, AIR 2013 SC 3320).

¶ 14–16

Under Section 401(3) Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction; where exceptional interference is justified, the available course is to set aside the acquittal and order a retrial.

¶ 15–16, 19

Life imprisonment is the standard sentence for murder, while the death penalty is reserved for the rarest of rare cases.

¶ 18

Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 397 Section 401 Section 313

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 148 Section 149 Section 302 Section 307 Section 392 Section 396

04Reasoning

The High Court found that the trial court had closely considered the eyewitness evidence and reasonably distinguished the general allegation of group firing from the specific, proved acts attributed to Mohd. Azam and others in the killing of the constable and taking of his weapon.

¶ 17

It found no manifest error, perversity, or other exceptional ground warranting revisional interference with the trial court’s findings.

¶ 17, 20

As to sentence, the trial court had considered the circumstances, including the parties’ longstanding political and land enmity, and the High Court found no basis to disturb its exercise of discretion or enhance the sentence to death.

¶ 18

The request to secure convictions on charges of which the accused had been acquitted was also barred by Section 401(3) Cr.P.C.

¶ 19