Mohammad Khalil Chisti Vs State of Rajasthan .

Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 634 OF 2012

Dr. Mohammad Khalil Chisti .... Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Rajasthan & Ors. .... Respondent(s)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 635 OF 2012

Yasir Chisti & Anr. .... Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Rajasthan .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T P.Sathasivam,J.

1) These appeals are directed against the common

judgment and order dated 20.12.2011 passed by the

High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in

1

Page 2

D.B. Criminal Appeal Nos. 189 and 188 of 2011 whereby

the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the

appeals filed by the appellants herein and affirmed the

judgment dated 31.01.2011 passed by the Court of

Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Ajmer in

Sessions Case No.157 of 2001.

2) Brief facts

(a) The case relates to a fight between two groups of

Khadim Mohalla, Jhalra, Ajmer which culminated into the

death of one Idris and registration of 2 FIRs being Nos.

90 and 91 of 1992.

(b) On 14.04.1992, an altercation took place between

Khalil Chisti (A-2) and Khurshid Pahalwan – cousin of

Aslam Chisti (the complainant in FIR No. 90 of 1992)

during a function at the house of one Shabbir on

account of old rivalry. On the same evening, Khurshid

had called Idris-cousin brother of Shabbir for having the

matter resolved by way of a compromise between the

two parties. In pursuance of the same, Idris, Shamim,

2

Page 3

Aslam, Mustqueem, Asif, Sagir and Javed (relatives)

proceeded towards the house of Khalil Chisti where they

found Khalil Chisti (A-2), Yasir Chisti (A-1), Akil Chisti (A-3)

and Farukh Chisti (A-4) who were already present there.

On entering the house, they realized that Khalil (A-2) was

having sword in his hand and Farukh (A-4) was holding a

gun whereas Yasir and Akil were having revolvers and the

accused party immediately closed the door from behind

and Khalil Chisti (A-2) shouted “no one should escape,

kill all of them.” On seeing their intention, the

complainant party tried to run in order to save their lives

at which time Farukh (A-4) fired a shot at Idris which

resulted into injury to his right eye. Khalil (A-2) also gave

a sword blow to the complainant-Aslam Chisti which

struck on his forehead and Yasir and Akil also opened

fire. Later on, considering the injured to have been shot

dead, the accused persons fled away. Subsequently,

Khurshid and Shamim had taken Aslam Chisti and Idris to

the hospital where Idris succumbed to his injuries.

3

Page 4

(c) On the same day, i.e., on 14.04.1992, Aslam Chisti

lodged an FIR being No. 90 of 1992 at Police Station

Ganj, Ajmer against Yasir (A-1), Khalil (A-2), Akil (A-3) and

Farukh (A-4).

(d) On the same day, at about 10:30 to 11:00 p.m.,

another FIR being No. 91 of 1992 was registered at P.S.

Ganj, Ajmer on the statement made by Akil Chisti, while

under treatment, wherein he stated that at about 5:00

to 5:30 p.m., when he along with other persons were

sitting in his house, he suddenly noticed pelting of

stones on the grills of the house. When all of them went

on the roof top to understand the matter, they found

Idris, Shamim, Aslam, Mustqueem, Asif, Sagir and Javed

standing there duly armed with weapons. On enquiring

about the same, Idris stabbed Farukh (A-4) with a knife

and Shamim opened fire on Akil (A-3) which missed the

target. In the meantime, Akil (A-3) brought a rifle of his

father but Sagir, Asif and Javed snatched the same from

him and Aslam stabbed him into his waist from behind

4

Page 5

leading to his collapse. Asif also opened fire on to him

which hit Idris. A number of persons had gathered in the

neighbourhood on hearing the hue and cry.

(e) After investigation, chargesheets were filed against

4 persons, namely, Yasir, Khalil, Akil and Farukh in FIR No.

90 of 1992 and against 6 persons, namely, Shamim,

Aslam, Mustqueem, Asif, Sagir and Javed in Cross FIR No.

91 of 1992 and both the cases were committed to the

Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1,

Ajmer and were registered as Sessions Case No.

157/2001 (FIR No.90/1992) and Sessions Case No.

178/2001 (FIR No.91/1992).

(f) The trial Court, by judgment dated 31.01.2011 in

Sessions Case No. 157 of 2001, convicted Farukh Chisti

(A-4), Yasir Chisti (A-1) and Akil Chisti (A-3) under

Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’) whereas Khalil Chisti

(A-2) was convicted under Sections 302 and 324 of the

IPC. A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 were sentenced to undergo RI

5

Page 6

for life along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default, to

further undergo RI for a period of 6 months for the

offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. They all

were further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment

for 2 years along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to

further undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month for the

offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section

34 of IPC.

(g) On the same day, the trial Court convicted the

accused persons in Session Case No. 178 of 2001 and

sentenced all of them to suffer RI for 10 years alongwith

a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for

6 months for the offence punishable under Section 307

read with Section 149 of IPC. They were further

sentenced to RI for 2 years under Section 148 of IPC, RI

for 3 years with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to

undergo RI for one month under Section 452 and RI for 2

years under Section 324 read with Section 149 of IPC.

Challenging the said judgment, all the accused persons

6

Page 7

named in FIR 91 of 1992 filed Criminal Appeal No. 131 of

2011 before the High Court which is still pending.

(h) Challenging the judgment in Session Case No.

157/2001, Yasir Chisti and Akil Chisti filed D.B. Criminal

Appeal No. 188/2011, Dr. Mohammad Khalil Chisti filed

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 189 of 2011 and Farukh Chisti

filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 423 of 2011 before the

High Court. By a common judgment dated 20.12.2011,

the High Court dismissed all the appeals and affirmed

the judgment passed by the trial Court.

(i) Aggrieved by the said judgment, Dr. Mohammad

Khalil Chisti preferred Criminal Appeal No. 634 of 2012

and Yasir Chisti and Akil Chisti preferred Criminal Appeal

No. 635 of 2012 before this Court.

3) Heard Mr. Uday U. Lalit, learned senior counsel for

Dr. Mohammed Khalil Chisti –appellant in Criminal Appeal

No. 634 of 2012, Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior counsel

for Yasir Chisti and Akil Chisti, appellants in Criminal

Appeal No. 635 of 2012, Mr. Rahul Verma, learned

7

Page 8

counsel and Jasbir Singh Malik, learned Additional

Advocate General for the State in both the appeals and

Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel for the Union of

India in Criminal Appeal No. 634 of 2012.

Contentions:

4) After taking us through FIR No. 90 of 1992 and

Cross FIR No. 91 of 1992 dated 14.04.1992, the entire

material relied on by the prosecution and defence, the

decision of the trial Court in Session Case No. 157 of

2001 and Session Case No. 178 of 2001 and the

reasoning of the impugned decision of the High Court,

Mr. Lalit as well as Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior counsel

contended that the members of the complainants’ party

were aggressors, they formed an unlawful assembly

armed with various weapons and had climbed upon the

roof of their premises in order to beat the accused

persons in furtherance of their common object. It is

further submitted that the appellants/accused persons

had not committed any offence and whatever they did

8

Page 9

was in exercise of their right of private defence. There is

no evidence on record to show that the accused

persons were having any common object to commit

murder of the deceased- Idris. They further submitted

that the trial Court as well as the High Court failed to

take into consideration the fact that the complainant

party including Idris, Aslam, Asif, Shamim, Mustqueem,

Sagir and Javed were duly armed and had come to the

place of the accused persons. In such circumstances,

the accused appellants deserve to get the benefit of

right of private defence on their person. They also

submitted that there is no explanation by the

prosecution as to how Farukh (A-4) and Akil (A-3)

sustained injuries. They also contended that the

prosecution suppressed the true genesis of the incident.

5) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State

submitted that the judgment of the trial Court as well as

the High Court is based on evidence and in the light of

the settled principles of law. It is pointed out that the

9

Page 10

accused appellants, after full preparation, sent a

message to Khurshid, Shamim, Idris and other members

of the complainant party to meet at their house. It is

pointed out that as soon as the members of the

complainant party started climbing the stairs of their

house and moved towards the roof top, the accused

appellants followed them and inflicted injuries by use of

various weapons, consequently, Idris and Aslam were

seriously injured and later on Idris succumbed to his

injuries. Finally, they submitted that the prosecution has

proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the

impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity or

illegality.

6) We have carefully considered the rival submissions

and perused all the relevant materials.

Discussion:

7) It is not in dispute that in respect of the same

incident that took place on 14.04.1992, there had been

two FIRs, namely, FIR No. 90 of 1992 and Cross FIR No. 91

10

Page 11

of 1992. In these appeals, we are concerned about FIR

No. 90 of 1992 in which the present appellants and one

Farukh were implicated as accused. The said FIR was

registered on the basis of a complaint made by one Syed

Md. Aslam who was examined as PW-3. He is a resident

of Mian House, Khadim Mohalla, Ajmer. In the complaint,

it has been stated that on 14.04.1992, on the occasion

of “Peela Ki Rasm” at the place of Shabbir, an altercation

took place between Khalil Chisti (A-2) and Khurshid

Pahalwan on account of old rivalry following which

Khurshid had called his brother Idris in the evening in

order to finally sort out the matter by way of a

compromise. When Idris, Shamim-his relative and Md.

Aslam Chisti-the complainant went to the house of

Khurshid at that time, one Tariq Mohammed informed

them that Khalil Chisti is calling them for a compromise

following which, all of them, namely, Idris, Shamim, Md.

Aslam, Khurshid, his brother Sagir went to the house of

Khalil. On reaching there, they found that Khalil, Farukh,

11

Page 12

Yasir and Akil were present there at home. It has been

further stated that having entered into the house, the

accused party closed the door from behind and Khalil

shouted that “they should not escape, kill all of them”. It

has been further stated that Khalil was armed with a

sword and Farukh was carrying a rifle. When they tried

to escape, at that time, Farukh (A-4) opened fire on Idris

(deceased) which hit at his right eye and he fell down.

Khalil (A-2) gave a blow with the sword to the head of Md.

Aslam Chisti-the complainant which struck on his

forehead and hit his temple and eye. Akil (A-3) and Yasir

(A-1), who were armed with revolvers also opened fire.

All the accused persons ran away and Khurshid and

Shamim had taken Idris to the hospital where he

succumbed to his injuries. The above statement was

recorded at 5.45 p.m. on 14.04.1992.

8) Though we are not directly concerned about the

cross FIR No. 91 of 1992 dated 14.04.1992, in view of the

plea and the defence of the present appellants, it is

12

Page 13

desirable to note down the contents of the same. The

complainant in this cross FIR is Akil Chisti (A-3), the

appellant in the present appeal. The following persons

were shown as accused, namely, Idris, Shamim,

Aslam, Mustqueem, Asif, Sagir and Javed. According to

the complainant, Akil Chisti, who is a resident of Baitool,

Jhalra, Dargah Sharief, Ajmer that on 14.04.1992 at 5 to

5.30 p.m., when he was in the room of Farukh Chisti, they

suddenly noticed pelting of stones on the grills of their

house. When they went on the roof top, they found that

Idris, his brother Shamim, Aslam, Mustqueem, Asif, Sagir

and Javed were standing there, armed with weapons and

Shamim was armed with a country-made pistol. When

Farooq questioned about pelting of stones, Idris stabbed

him with a knife. Shamim opened fire on him which

missed him. It has been further stated that Akil-the

complainant brought a 12-bore licensed rifle of his father

but Sagir, Asif and Javed snatched it from him and Aslam

inflicted stab wounds in his waist from behind and he fell

13

Page 14

down. Asif opened fire from his rifle which missed him

and hit Md. Idris. A number of persons had gathered in

the neighbourhood who raised a clamour “maar diya -

maar diya”. These people assaulted them by entering

inside their house. The above statement was recorded

at 10.30 p.m. by SHO Police Station, Ajmer.

9) It is relevant to note that in respect of FIR No. 90 of

1992, the present appellants and one Farukh were

convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial

Court as affirmed by the High Court. It is brought to our

notice that in respect of cross FIR No. 91 of 1992, the

same trial Judge on the same day i.e. 31.01.2011

convicted and sentenced all of them for various offences

and the appeals filed against those convictions is still

pending in the High Court.

10) Now, let us consider the witnesses and materials

relied on by the prosecution and the defence.

Aslam Chisti (PW-3):

14

Page 15

11) In his evidence, he deposed that deceased Idris was

his cousin and Khurshid and Sahir were also his cousins.

Shamim is his real younger brother. He identified Khalil

Chisti (A-2), a Pakistani citizen in the Court. He was

familiar with accused Farukh, Yasir and Akil. He narrated

that he came to know from his father that some

altercation took place between Khalil Chisti (A-2) and

Khurshid Pahalwan on account of old rivalry on the

occasion of “Peela ki Rasm” at the place of Shabbir. He

further narrated that in the evening of 14.04.1992, when

he was at his home with his brothers Shamim and Idris,

the son of Khurshid came to their residence and

informed that his father was calling all of them. After

reaching there, Khurshid asked them to sort out the

matter. In the meantime, one Tariq Mohammad informed

them that Khalil Chisti (A-2) has called them for a

meeting. He along with others went to the residence of

Khurshid. From there, he, along with the deceased- Idris,

Shamim, Khurshid, Sagir, Javed, Mustqueem and Asif

15

Page 16

proceeded towards the house of Khalil and on reaching

there they noticed that Khalil was standing at the

entrance. On their entering into the house of Khalil, the

other persons present there closed the door from

behind and Khalil shouted to kill all of them. In order to

save their lives, he along with Idris, Shamim, Asif and

others climbed over the Baitool Manzil and reached the

roof top of Kaptan house. At that time, accused Khalil,

Farukh, Yasir and Akil came to that place and Khalil was

carrying a bare sword and Farukh was armed with a rifle,

Yasir and Akil were holding rifles. Farukh fixed the target

and shot fired his brother Idris. The bullet had hit on the

right eye of Idris leading to his collapse there itself.

Khalil hit two injuries of sword in his skull and forehead.

Akil and Yasir had also opened fires from their respective

revolvers but they managed to escape. He admitted that

the fire triggered from the revolver of Akil and Yasir had

hit none. In the course of the above narration, PW-3

admitted that two police personnel had arrived on the

16

Page 17

roof top, particularly, when Akil and Yasir were firing.

From the evidence of PW-3, it is clear that though he

narrated the prosecution case about the involvement of

the present appellants as well as the role of Farukh, he

admitted the arrival of two police personnel, viz.,

Bhanwar Singh (PW-4) and Bhanwarlal Sharma (PW-5) on

the roof top when Akil and Yasir were firing.

Bhanwar Singh (PW-4):

12) At the relevant time, PW-4 was posted as LHC at

Police Post Tripolia Gate, Police Station Ganj, Ajmer. In

his evidence, he has stated that on 14.04.1992, at

about 4.30 p.m., he received information from wireless

control room that a quarrel has broken out at Jhalra. On

receiving the said information, PW-4 and Bhanwar Lal

Sharma (PW-5), reached the spot and went to the house

of Ahmed Chisti. On enquiry, they came to know that

some altercation took place on the issue of children in

the morning. In order to make a call to the Control

Room, both of them went to the room situated at the

17

Page 18

first floor of house of one Ahmed Chisti and while they

were returning, they found 5-6 persons duly armed with

sword and hockey sticks climbed upstairs from the

ground. They tried to prevent them but they didn’t stop.

Out of them, he knew Shamim, Aslam and Idris. He

further deposed that they were shouting “bring out

Farukh”, “bring out Pakistani (A-2) and where he is, we

will kill him”. He also stated that in spite of their

intervention, the assailants reached at the roof top of

the second floor of that house. Both PWs 4 and 5

followed them. He also stated that he had seen Farukh

Chisti (A-4) with a 12 bore gun with him. Khalil (A-2),

Yasir and Akil were having swords with them. Farukh

went to the roof and fired from his gun and the shot hit

the right eye of Idris, because of which, he died on the

spot. When PW-5 came in between, he also sustained

injuries. He was there at the same place till 11.30 p.m.

and after 11.30 p.m. he went to Tripolia Gate, P.S. made

necessary entries in the daily diary in his own

18

Page 19

handwriting which is Exh. P-3. He left constable Bhanwar

Lal Sharma (PW-5) at the place of incident.

13) Since PW-4 contradicted his statement made under

Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in

short ‘the Code’), the Public Prosecutor sought for

permission to cross examine him. Even in the cross-

examination, he admitted that he made a statement to

police and at the time of incident, deceased- Idris and

others were armed with swords and hockey sticks and

they were going upstairs which is Exh. P-4. Though PW-4

turned hostile, to some extent, he being a police

constable, on receipt of information and after recording

the same in the diary he left the police station along with

Bhanwar Lal Sharma (PW-5) another police constable to

the spot and noticed that the complainant parties

rushed towards the roof top with sword and hockey

sticks. It is also clear that the present accused

appellants were inside the house of Khalil Chisti and the

19

Page 20

complainant’s group reached there with arms. It has

been also made clear that he was accompanied by

another constable PW-5 and after noticing the incident,

he rushed to P.S. Tripoli and made necessary entries

leaving PW-5 at the spot. As rightly pointed out by

learned senior counsel for the appellants, the presence

of PWs 4 and 5 at the relevant spot and time cannot be

disputed. It is also clear from the evidence of PW-4 that

the complainant parties reached the spot armed with

sword and hockey sticks. The presence of the

complainants with arms is the subject matter of Cross FIR

No. 91 of 1992.

Bhanwar Lal Sharma (PW-5):

14) At the relevant time, he was posted as a police

constable with the police station of Tripolia Gate and was

on duty on 14.04.1992. According to him, on that day,

around 4.30 p.m., he and another constable PW-4

received an information on wireless from the Police

Control Room in Tripolia P.S. that some fight is going on

20

Page 21

at Jhalra. On hearing such information, both of them

went to Jhalra and noticed that there was no such brawl.

In order to inform the same to the Control Room, they

went to the house of one Ahmed Chisti by using the

stairs. At the same time, he noticed Shamim (A-6 in

Cross FIR) running upstairs with hockey stick in his hand,

Aslam (A-1 in Cross FIR) armed with sword and two more

people who were armed with weapons were going

upstairs. Both of them (PW-4 and (PW-5) tried to stop

them but they did not stop. Both of them went to the

Chisti Manzil’s room and on the roof, they noticed

Shamim Chisti and others were abusing Farukh and

others and then they went to Jamil Chisti’s room and

started pelting stones. After seeing the seriousness of

the situation and to avoid untoward incident, PW-5 went

downstairs to call other police staff while PW-4 remained

on the roof. He also heard the sound of a shot being

fired. When he came back after making a call, he saw

Idris was lying on the Kaptan’s room and was bodily

21

Page 22

injured. At the place of incident where Idris was lying, a

12-bore gun was also found 10-15 ft. away from the spot.

He also explained that based on his message, other

police men came to the spot. He also mentioned the

injuries sustained by him when they were trying to stop

Shamim and others on the stairs. He further narrated

that in the midnight, around 12.50 a.m., they came to

Tripolia Gate P.S. and made necessary entries of their

arrival time which is Exh. P-3. Since he contradicted his

statement under Section 161 of the Code, the Public

Prosecutor sought permission of the court in order to

cross-examine him. Even in the cross-examination, he

asserted that at the time of the incident only Shamim (A-

6 in Cross FIR) was throwing stones downstairs with full

force in Jamil Chisti’s house. He also mentioned about

the fights and FIRs were registered against Aslam and

Shamim.

15) Like PW-4, PW-5 narrated the incident starting from

the receipt of wireless message till the clash at Jamil

22

Page 23

Chisti’s house. It is relevant to point out that PWs 4 and

5 were not associated with any group, on the other

hand, they were policemen of the Tripoli P.S. having

jurisdiction over the area. The entries in the concerned

registers of their departure and arrival to the police

station also prove their statement. In the light of their

statement, we have carefully analyzed their evidence and

it is clear that the complainant’s party came to the spot

with weapons like sword, hockey sticks and few from that

group also pelted stones. These aspects, though the

trial Court and the High Court failed to give credence,

the appellants are justified in claiming that the

complainants group was responsible for the incident and

the injuries caused to them.

Evidence of PWs 6, 13 and 18:

16) At the instance of the counsel for the State, we

were taken through the evidence of PWs 6, 13 and 18.

No doubt, they supported the prosecution stand and

23

Page 24

claim that it was the appellants who caused the injuries

and, particularly, Idris died due to the shot fired by

Farukh using his revolver. They also stated that they

sustained injuries due to the sword used by Khalil Chisti

(A-2). It is also their claim that the other two accused

Yasir Chisti and Akil Chisti, A-1 and A-3 respectively used

revolver but their shots had hit none. Like PWs 6, 13 and

18, PW-3 who sustained sword injury at the instance of A-

2 also explained about the prosecution case. It is also

seen from the evidence of PW-3 that Farukh (A-4) also

sustained injuries for which there is no explanation by

the prosecution. Relying on the evidence of PWs 3, 6 13

and 18 even if we accept the case of the prosecution,

the statement of official witnesses examined on the side

of the prosecution, namely, PWs 4 and 5 clearly show

that the complainants were rushing towards the house

of Chisti with sword and hockey sticks and also pelted

stones. In these circumstances, as rightly pointed out

by the counsel for the appellants, the complainants who

24

Page 25

were accused in the cross case were also responsible

for their individual act.

Occurrence at the residence of A2:

17) All the prosecution witnesses, namely, PWs 3, 4, 5, 6

13 and 18 deposed that the incident occurred at the

residence of A-2, namely, Chisti Manzil. It is also clear

from the categorical statement of two police constables,

viz., PWs 4 and 5 that on receipt of a phone call, they left

Tripoli PS and reached the house of Kaptan which is

adjacent to Chisti Manzil. It is clear that it was not the

appellants/accused who went out of their house with

arms, but even according to the prosecution witnesses,

the incident took place at the residence of A-2. It is also

clear that all of them entered the said house with

weapons like sword and hockey sticks which we have

already noted from the evidence relied on by the

prosecution.

No explanation as to how Farukh (A-4) and Akil (A- 3) sustained injuries:

25

Page 26

18) The prosecution document, viz., injury report of

Farukh dated 14.04.1992 and injury report of Akil dated

14.04.1992 have been placed as Annexure P-5 (Colly).

The injury report relating to Farukh Chisti (A-4) issued by

the Department of Medical Jurist, J.L.N. Medical College

and Hospital, Ajmer reads as under:-

“Admitted in MSW II, Time-5.45 p.m. date – 14.4.1992, 839/92 Department of Medical and Health, Rajasthan, Jaipur

Injury Report Form Accompanied by Police

Injury Report of Shri Farukh Chisti s/o Shri Sadiq Chisti, age 26 years, Caste-Muslim, Resident of Khadim Mohalla, Ajmer, Police Report No…………..dated……….enclosed.

Nature of injury of slash, wound, crushing etc.

Size of each injury in inches, length, width and depth

Hurt on which part of the body

Normal or grievous

Which type of weapo n caused hurt

Identification mark of the injured

X-Ray

Tajbeez

Special description

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Stab wound 4x0.5 cm x depth in on

umbilical region, right lateral to umbilical obliquely placed

2. Stab 4x3/4 cm x on left lateral side of chest wall 6 cm below axilla in mid axillur line.

3. Stab wound 3x1x? on left scapular region Injured in the state of shock

Sharp M.F.1 ½ x ½ cm old scar on left side of right leg upper third

Fresh

Opinion after surgical note

Sd/- Dr. V.D. Kavia, MD Reader, Head of Department Department of Medical Jurist

J.L.N. Medical College and Hospital, Ajmer”

26

Page 27

Operative notes of Farukh Chisti reads as follows:

Operative notes

Patient Name : Farukh Chishti No. 9741

Date : 14/4/92

Surgical Pathology – Stab wound

1. Abdomen 2. Lt. Chest 3. Back

Anaesthesia – G.A.

Operation – Explanatory haprotomy and repair of the tear in stomach. Incision – Continuation of the stab wound (Rt. Paramedian) – On exploration it was found that there was a tear in the anterior stomach wall up to the serosa. The vessel was bleeding which was ligated and tear sutured and closed in layers.

The wounds on the chest (Lt. side and back were muscle deep and sutured in single layer.

Dr. Neera Jain Surgeons Dr. Sanjay Kolani Dr. B.L. Laddha

Dr. K.K. Dangayeh Dr. Paramjeet Singh

Dr. Ashok Naraina

Forwarded in original to SHO, PS Ganj in continuation to IR No. 839/92 Injury Nos. 2 & 3 are simple and Injury No. 1 is grievous (dangerous) in nature.”

The injury report of Akil Chisti (A-3) reads as under:

“Admitted in MSW II, Time-5.45 p.m. date – 14.4.1992, 839/92 Department of Medical and Health, Rajasthan, Jaipur

Injury Report Form Injury Report of Shri Akil Chisti s/o Shri Jamil Chisti, age 24 years, Caste- Muslim, Resident of Police Report No…………..dated………. enclosed.

27

Page 28

Nature of injury or slash, wound, crushing etc.

Size of each injury in inches, length, width and depth

Hurt on which part of the body

Normal or grievous

Which type of weapo n caused hurt

Identification mark of the injured

X-Ray

Tajbeez

Special description

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Stab wound 4x1 cm x ….. Back of left region

Obliquely placed

Sharp M. 3x1 cm Fresh

Opinion after surgical note

Old scar on outer side of back and right heal

Sd/- Dr. V.D. Kavia, MD Reader, Head of Department Department of Medical Jurist

J.L.N. Medical College and Hospital, Ajmer”

Operative notes of Akil Chisti reads thus:

“ Operative notes

Patient Name : Akil Chisti R.No. 9740

Date : 14/4/92

Surgical Pathology –Cut wound back

Anaesthesia – L.A.

Operation – Repair of the wound.

Notes : There was a wound on the back side near midline in lumber region which was muscle deep and sutured in layers.

Dr. Neera Jain Surgeons Dr. Sanjay Kolani Dr. B.L. Laddha

Dr. K.K. Dangayeh Dr. Paramjeet Singh

Dr. Ashok Naraina

28

Page 29

Sd/- (Dr. K.K. Dangayeh)

Forwarded in original to SHO, PS Ganj in continuation to IR No. 840/92 Injury No. 1 is simple in nature.”

19) The above ‘injury reports’ of Farukh Chisti and Akil

Chisti as well as their respective ‘operative notes’ clearly

show that both of them sustained injuries on 14.04.1992

in the same incident. The report relating to Farukh

shows that he sustained stab wound injuries due to the

use of sharp edged weapons. Operative notes relating

to him also show that injury Nos. 2 and 3 are simple and

injury no. 1 is grievous (dangerous) in nature. Injury

report relating to Akil Chisti also shows that he sustained

stab wound injuries by use of sharp edged weapon.

Though all the relevant aspects, namely, the injuries

sustained by two accused appellants are available in the

materials placed by the prosecution, there is no

explanation at all as to how they sustained those

injuries. In other words, the prosecution failed to prove

29

Page 30

the genesis of the incident and in fact they suppressed

the same.

20) In Lakshmi Singh and Others vs. State of Bihar,

(1976) 4 SCC 394, this Court held that:

“… … It is well settled that fouler the crime, higher the proof, and hence in a murder case where one of the accused is proved to have sustained injuries in the course of the same occurrence, the non-explanation of such injuries by the prosecution is a manifest defect in the prosecution case and shows that the origin and genesis of the occurrence had been deliberately suppressed which leads to the irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has not come out with a true version of the occurrence. … …”

It is clear that where the prosecution fails to explain the

injuries on the accused, two results follow: (1) that the

evidence of the prosecution witness is untrue and (2)

that the injuries probabilize the plea taken by the

appellants. In a murder case, non-explanation of the

injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of

the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very

important circumstance from which the court can draw

the following inferences:

“(1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version;

30

Page 31

(2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable;

(3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case.”

21) It is further clear that the omission on the part of

the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of

the accused assumes much greater importance where

the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses

or where the defence gives a version which competes in

probability with that of the prosecution one. However,

there may be cases where the non-explanation of the

injuries by the prosecution may not affect the

prosecution case. This principle would apply to cases

where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor

and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and

cogent, that it outweighs the effect of the omission on

the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries.

31

Page 32

22) In Waman and Others vs. State of Maharashtra,

(2011) 7 SCC 295 wherein one of us (P. Sathasivam, J.)

reiterated the very same principles and held that:

“36. Ordinarily, the prosecution is not obliged to explain each injury on an accused even though the injuries might have been caused in the course of occurrence, if the injuries are minor in nature, however, if the prosecution fails to explain a grievous injury on one of the accused persons which is established to have been caused in the course of the same occurrence then certainly the court looks at the prosecution case with a little suspicion on the ground that the prosecution has suppressed the true version of the incident. However, if the evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy then non- explanation of certain injuries sustained by the deceased or injury on the accused ipso facto cannot be the basis to discard the entire prosecution case.”

23) Mr. Tulsi, learned senior counsel for the appellants

in Criminal Appeal No. 635 of 2012 contended by

pointing out that since the complainant’s were the

aggressors, armed with sword, hockey sticks and pelted

stones, the appellants/accused are entitled to avail the

right of private defence for which he relied on various

principles enunciated by this Court.

24) In Raghubir Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

(2011) 12 SCC 235, the following conclusion in para 16

has been pressed into service:

32

Page 33

“16. In the light of the facts that have been enumerated above, it would be seen that the observations of the High Court that both sides had come to do battle appears to be justified as this is an assessment on an appreciation of the evidence which cannot be said to be palpably wrong so as to invite the intervention of this Court. The observation in Gajanand case that in order to bring the matter within a free fight both sides have to come armed and prepared to do battle must be applied in the present case with the result that each accused would be liable for his individual act.”

25) In Krishnan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 11 SCC

304, the following principles have been relied on:

“15. It is now well settled that the onus is on the accused to establish that his action was in exercise of the right of private defence. The plea can be established either by letting in defence evidence or from the prosecution evidence itself, but cannot be based on speculation or mere surmises. The accused need not take the plea explicitly. He can succeed in his plea if he is able to bring out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses or other evidence that the apparent criminal act was committed by him in exercise of his right of private defence. He should make out circumstances that would have reasonably caused an apprehension in his mind that he would suffer death or grievous hurt if he does not exercise his right of private defence. There is a clear distinction between the nature of burden that is cast on an accused under Section 105 of the Evidence Act (read with Sections 96 to 106 of the Penal Code) to establish a plea of private defence and the burden that is cast on the prosecution under Section 101 of the Evidence Act to prove its case. The burden on the accused is not as onerous as that which lies on the prosecution. While the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused can discharge his onus by establishing a preponderance of probability (vide Partap v. State of U.P, Salim Zia v. State of U.P. and Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State of Punjab.

16. In Sekar v. State this Court observed: (SCC p. 355) “A plea of right of private defence cannot be based on surmises and speculation. While considering whether the right of private defence is available to an accused, it is not relevant whether he may have a chance to inflict severe and mortal injury on the aggressor. In order to find whether right of private defence is available or not, the injuries received by the accused, the imminence of threat to his safety, the injuries

33

Page 34

caused by the accused and the circumstances whether the accused had time to have recourse to public authorities are all relevant factors to be considered. Whether in a particular set of circumstances, a person acted in the exercise of the right of private defence, is a question of fact to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case. No test in the abstract for determining such a question can be laid down. In determining this question of fact, the court must consider all the surrounding circumstances. It is not necessary for the accused to plead in so many words that he acted in self- defence. If the circumstances show that the right of private defence was legitimately exercised, it is open to the court to consider such a plea. In a given case, the court can consider it even if the accused has not taken it, if the same is available to be considered from the material on record.”

(emphasis supplied)

17. The above legal position was reiterated in Rizan v. State of Chhattisgarh. After an exhaustive reference to several decisions of this Court, this Court summarised the nature of plea of private defence required to be put forth and the degree of proof in support of it, thus: (SCC pp. 670-71, para 13) “Under Section 105 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proof is on the accused, who sets up the plea of self-defence, and, in the absence of proof, it is not possible for the court to presume the truth of the plea of self-defence. The court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. It is for the accused to place necessary material on record either by himself adducing positive evidence or by eliciting necessary facts from the witnesses examined for the prosecution. An accused taking the plea of the right of private defence is not required to call evidence; he can establish his plea by reference to circumstances transpiring from the prosecution evidence itself. The question in such a case would be a question of assessing the true effect of the prosecution evidence, and not a question of the accused discharging any burden. When the right of private defence is pleaded, the defence must be a reasonable and probable version satisfying the court that the harm caused by the accused was necessary for either warding off the attack or for forestalling the further reasonable apprehension from the side of the accused. The burden of establishing the plea of self-defence is on the accused and the burden stands discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of that plea on the basis of the material on record. … The accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt. It is enough for

34

Page 35

him to show as in a civil case that the preponderance of probabilities is in favour of his plea.”

(emphasis supplied)” 26) In Babulal Bhagwan Khandare and Another vs.

State of Maharashtra, (2005) 10 SCC 404, this Court

held that non-explanation of the injuries sustained by

the accused at about the time of occurrence or in the

course of altercation is a very important circumstance. It

was further held that the right of self defence is a very

valuable right, serving a social purpose and should not

be construed narrowly.

27) It is clear that it is the duty of the prosecution to

explain the injuries sustained by the accused and

establish the genesis of the incident by placing

acceptable materials. In the case on hand, we have

already pointed out there is enough material to show

that in the course of the very same incident Farukh (A-4)

and Akil (A-3) also sustained injuries. In fact, Farukh

sustained grievous injury by use of sharp edged weapon.

However, these injuries were not explained at all by the

prosecution.

35

Page 36

28) Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, learned counsel for the State

by relying on a decision of this Court reported in

Mitthulal and Another vs. The State of Madhya

Pradesh, (1975) 3 SCC 529 submitted that evidence in

cross case cannot be relied upon. It is true that in the

said decision, this Court held that it has not accepted

the procedure followed by the High Court which has

based its conclusion not only on the finding recorded in

the case against the appellants therein and the four

other accused but also taken into account the evidence

recorded in the cross case against Ganpat, Rajdhar and

others. This Court held that the course adopted by the

High Court was clearly impermissible. There is no dispute

about the said proposition and in fact in the case on

hand, neither the trial court nor the High Court relied on

the evidence led in the cross case but the same were

tried separately and in fact appeals are still pending

before the High Court against the conviction in the cross

case.

36

Page 37

29) The other decision relied on by the State counsel is

reported in Sambhu Das alias Bijoy Das and Another

vs. State of Assam, (2010) 10 SCC 374 which shows

that this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 136

of the Constitution will not reopen the findings of the

High Court when there are concurrent findings of facts

and there is no question of law involved and the

conclusion is not perverse. The above proposition holds

good. We also reiterate that Article 136 of the

Constitution does not confer a right of appeal on a party.

It only confers discretionary power on this Court to be

exercised sparingly to interfere in suitable cases where

grave mis-carriage of justice has resulted from illegality

or misapprehension or mistake in reading evidence or

from ignoring, excluding or illegally admitting material

evidence.

Summary:

30) The analysis of the prosecution case, undoubtedly,

has led two sets of evidence. The evidence adduced

37

Page 38

suggest that the accused in the present appeals are to

some extent victims of armed aggression at the hands of

the deceased and his companions. We have pointed out

that Tariq Mohammad (PW-1) deposed that he saw Idris

(deceased) with a knife in his hand, Mohd. Aslam (PW-3),

Sagir (PW-6), Shamim (PW-18) and others armed with

sticks left for the house of the Farukh (A-4). It was also

deposed by him that he tried to stop Idris and others but

in vain. Bhanwar Singh (PW-4) and Bhanwar Lal Sharma

(PW-5) –the police constables, examined on the side of

the prosecution, were present at the scene of offence.

We have already dealt with the evidence of these two

witnesses which clearly show that the complainant’s

party, i.e., accused in FIR No. 91 of 1992 were armed

with sword, hockey sticks etc. and entered into Chisti

Manzil, hurled abuses, threw stones on the inmates and

exhorted to kill Khalil Chisti (A-2) and Farukh (A-4). These

persons also deposed that Idris (deceased) and the

accused in FIR No. 91 of 1992 were the aggressors in

38

Page 39

the incident. PWs 4 & 5 were categorized as

independent witnesses by the trial Court. Even in their

evidence, they did not attribute any specific overt act to

Khalil (A-2). M.A. Tariq I.O. (PW-25) also deposed that the

complainant’s party forcibly entered the house of the

appellants herein with the intent to attack them.

31) Mohd. Aslam (PW-3), Sagir Ahmed (PW-6), Sayeed

Javed (PW-13) and Shamim (PW-18) were examined as

eye witnesses to the occurrence. Admittedly, none of

them offered any explanation to the admitted injuries

received by Farukh (A-4) and Akil (A-3). We have already

adverted to the details as to the injury report relating to

these persons. In the absence of any explanation by the

prosecution, we are of the view that they are guilty of

suppressing the real genesis of the occurrence. The

trial Court had also condemned the evidence of PW-18

for narrating a parrot like version and also pointed out

numerous improvements made.

39

Page 40

32) The analysis of the materials clearly show that two

versions of the incident adduced by the prosecution are

discrepant with each other. In such a situation where

the prosecution leads two sets of evidence each one

which contradicts and strikes at the other and shows it

to be unreliable, the result would necessarily be that the

Court would be left with no reliable and trustworthy

evidence upon which the conviction of the accused might

be based. Though the accused would have the benefit

of such situation and the counsel appearing for the

appellants prayed for acquittal of the appellants of all

the charges, in view of the principles which we have

already discussed, we are of the view that each accused

can be fastened with individual liability taking into

consideration the specific role or part attributed to each

of the accused. In other words, both sides can be

convicted for their individual acts and normally no right of

private defence is available to either party and they will

be guilty of their respective acts.

40

Page 41

33) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

role attributed to Khalil (A-2), we are of the view that

there is no scope for invoking the applicability of Section

34 IPC against him. Even independent witnesses, viz.,

PWs 4 and 5 do not attribute any overt act to him.

34) As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the

appellants, in the light of the case and cross-case, it

would be in the fitness of things that the respective

appeals preferred by the appellants against Session

Case No. 157 of 2011 and the one preferred by the

convicts in Sessions Case No. 178 of 2011 ought to have

been heard and disposed of simultaneously by the High

Court. Unfortunately, such recourse has not been

adopted by the High Court and we were informed that

the other appeal (Crl. Appeal No. 131 of 2011) relating

to Sessions Case No. 178 of 2011 is still pending on the

file of the High Court.

41

Page 42

35) Coming to the other accused, namely, Yasir Chisti

(A-1) and Akil Chisti (A-3), they cannot be punished and

fastened the liability of individual acts committed by them

with the aid of Section 34 IPC without acceptable

materials. Though the prosecution witnesses mentioned

that these appellants had a pistol, they did not state

whether anyone was hit by that pistol fire and no specific

evidence was led in that the shot emanated from the

pistol in their hand. Even Mohd. Aslam (PW-3) - the

informant, stated before the Court that these appellants

fired from their pistols but no one was hit from that fire.

36) As discussed earlier, the evidence of PWs 4 & 5 –

police constables, clearly shows that the complainant’s

party was armed with sword and hockey sticks and were

abusing and pelting stones. Sagir (PW-6), though

deposed that the present appellants had a revolver and

they fired from that pistol, without telling whether

anybody was injured from such firing. PW-4 – one of the

prosecution witnesses, police constable, had denied

42

Page 43

that these appellants had revolvers, in fact, PWs 4 and 5

did not attribute any overt done by the appellants, i.e.,

A-1 and A-3 and categorically stated that the

complainant’s party was the armed aggressors. It is

relevant to point out that on the same day in Sessions

Case No. 178 of 2001, the informant along with five other

co-accused was convicted under Sections 307, 324, 326,

452 and 148 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. We are also

satisfied that though the prosecution witnesses have

stated that these appellants were having revolvers, the

evidence of PWs 4 & 5 clearly shows that the

complainant’s party were aggressors and the present

appellants were not carrying any revolver.

37) In the light of the facts that have been enumerated

above, particularly, from the evidence of PWs 4 & 5 –

police constables attached to the Tripolia Police Chowki,

P.S. Ganj, and the materials abundantly show that the

deceased and the complainant’s party were also armed

with sword and hockey sticks. In the absence of

43

Page 44

evidence of fire shot from the revolvers of A-1 and A-3

and in view of the statement of PWs 3, 6, 13 & 18

alleging against the present appellants, in order to bring

the matter within a free fight both sides have to come

armed and prepared to do battle must be applied in the

present case with the result that each accused would be

liable for his individual act alone.

Conclusion:

38) In the light of the above discussion, even if we

accept the evidence of prosecution witnesses that A-2

was having a sword and PW-3 sustained injuries at his

instance, considering his individual act, he can only be

convicted under Section 324 of IPC and taking note of

his age and of the fact that he was in custody from

14.04.1992 till 09.05.1992 during the trial and again

from 31.01.2011 to 12.04.2012 (roughly one year and

four months), we feel that the ends of justice would be

met by altering the sentence to the period already

undergone. The conviction and sentence is modified to

44

Page 45

the extent mentioned above and Criminal Appeal No. 634

of 2012 is disposed of accordingly.

39) By order dated 10.05.2012, this Court directed Dr.

Mohammad Khalil Chisti – being a national of Pakistan-

appellant in Crl.A. No. 634 of 2012 or his nominee to

deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as security with the Registry

of this Court within a period of two weeks from that date

and on fulfilling the above condition, the appellant was

permitted to leave India and visit his home country, i.e.,

Pakistan. It is informed to us that the said condition has

been complied with and an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was

deposited. By another order dated 17.09.2012, this

Court directed the Registry to invest the amount

deposited by the appellant in an interest bearing

account in any Nationalised Bank initially for a period of

one year. In view of our conclusion that no further

custody is required, the Registry is directed to return the

said amount to Dr. Mohammed Khalil Chisti or his

nominee forthwith. It is further directed that if the

45

Page 46

passport or any other document of the appellant is in

the custody of the trial Court or any other authority of

the Government of India, they are directed to return the

same to him and he is free to return to his country

without any restriction. Taking note of his age and

academic qualification etc., to facilitate such course, the

concerned department of the Government of India is

directed to issue necessary visa and complete all the

formalities for his smooth return to his country.

40) In the light of the evidence and conclusion in

respect of Yasir Chisti (A-1) and Akil Chisti (A-3), the

appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 635 of 2012, taking

note of their individual acts, they can only be convicted

under Section 324 of IPC and also in view of the fact that

A-1 and A-3 have served approximately 11 and 10

months respectively, the same would be sufficient and

no further imprisonment is required, hence, both of them

are directed to be released forthwith, if they are not

required in any other case.

46

Page 47

41) With the above modification, both the appeals are

disposed of accordingly.

...…………….…………………………J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

...…....…………………………………J. (RANJAN GOGOI)

NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 12, 2012.

47