{"id":2947,"date":"2010-01-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musheer-khan-badshah-khan-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-28-january-2010"},"modified":"2015-06-02T13:52:28","modified_gmt":"2015-06-02T08:22:28","slug":"musheer-khan-badshah-khan-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-28-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musheer-khan-badshah-khan-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-28-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr vs State Of M.P on 28 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr vs State Of M.P on 28 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ganguly<\/div>\n
Bench: G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly<\/div>\n
                                                               REPORTABLE\n\n            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1180 OF 2005\n\n\nMusheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr.            ..Appellant(s)\n\n                           - Versus -\n\nState of Madhya Pradesh                      ..Respondent(s)\n\n\n                             WITH\n\n\n      Criminal Appeal Nos.1181\/2005, 1204\/2005\n                          &\n                     1205\/2005\n\n\n                      J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
GANGULY, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.   Several     appeals   were   heard   together    as    they<\/p>\n
     arose out of similar incidents and some common<\/p>\n
     questions are also involved.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.   The prosecution version as unfolded in the case<\/p>\n
     is   that   on   29.11.2000    around   7:10    P.M.   one<\/p>\n
                              1<\/span>
\nPappu    @    Prakash     Tripathi     (PW-3)    was    in   his<\/p>\n
apartment.         Then on hearing the firing of three<\/p>\n
shots, he came out of his apartment and saw a<\/p>\n
light blue coloured scooter, which was parked<\/p>\n
in front of the apartment, was being started by<\/p>\n
a man and after him two other persons also<\/p>\n
boarded that scooter.             PW-3 also saw a Matiz<\/p>\n
car which was parked by the side of the road<\/p>\n
and    he    saw    the    body   of   Mallu    Bhaiya,      the<\/p>\n
deceased, half inside the car and the other<\/p>\n
half was lying outside the same.                PW-3 further<\/p>\n
saw    that     after     starting     the   scooter,     those<\/p>\n
persons drove it towards the road and took a<\/p>\n
turn to the right and drove towards the side of<\/p>\n
Dainik      Bhaskar     Press.       PW-3    further   deposed<\/p>\n
that at the time those persons left in the<\/p>\n
scooter they were “turning their heads back”.<\/p>\n
Then     PW-3      came   outside      his    apartment      and<\/p>\n
started shouting.\n<\/p>\n
                             2<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
3.      The       further   evidence   of      PW-3    is   that   he<\/p>\n
     immediately ran towards the deceased and found<\/p>\n
     there was no movement in the body.                  On hearing<\/p>\n
     the shots and the shouts of PW-3, the nearby<\/p>\n
     cable    operator       Brajendra        Keshwani      (PW-17),<\/p>\n
     Umesh    Singh    (PW-2)   and    one     Gopal     Jain     (not<\/p>\n
     examined by the prosecution) came to the place<\/p>\n
     of incident.       Then PW-3 with the help of those<\/p>\n
     persons put the deceased on the back seat of<\/p>\n
     that Matiz car.         PW-3 drove that car with PW-2<\/p>\n
     in the front seat to Marble Hospital and PW-3<\/p>\n
     got the report written in the hospital which is<\/p>\n
     marked Exhibit P-11.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.   PW-3    is    virtually    the    star     witness      of    the<\/p>\n
     prosecution.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.   Prosecution      also    relied     on    the    evidence      of<\/p>\n
     Shishir Tiwari (PW-4) who was also on a scooter<\/p>\n
     and was going to the house of the deceased to<\/p>\n
     meet him.       As he reached near the Bungalow of<\/p>\n
                                3<\/span>
\n     Major General in front of Park Apartment, he<\/p>\n
     also claimed to have heard three shots.                         Then<\/p>\n
     he stopped his scooter and saw another scooter<\/p>\n
     at a distance of 60-70 feet and that scooter<\/p>\n
     “was started and three persons boarded it” and<\/p>\n
     “that scooter took a turn to reach the road and<\/p>\n
     drove past me.”            According to him that scooter<\/p>\n
     was    driven    2-3       feet   away      from   him    towards<\/p>\n
     Bhashkar Press side. He claimed to have seen<\/p>\n
     those persons who were on that scooter.<\/p>\n
6.   PW-4 claimed to have seen PW-3 with the help of<\/p>\n
     PW-2, PW-17 and Gopal Jain lifting the deceased<\/p>\n
     in the Matiz car and driving it away with Umesh<\/p>\n
     Singh (PW-2).          He saw three ladies standing<\/p>\n
     near the spot and on being asked by him the<\/p>\n
     wife of the deceased, Jareena Chowrariya (PW-<\/p>\n
     10),   who   was      in    tears,    told     PW-4      that    the<\/p>\n
     assailants      had    murdered      the     deceased.          PW-4<\/p>\n
     then    on   his       scooter       went     to   the     Marble<\/p>\n
     Hospital.\n<\/p>\n
\n                                   4<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
7.   About the presence of PW-4 at the place of<\/p>\n
     occurrence, this Court has some serious doubts<\/p>\n
     which shall be discussed later.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.   This   is    admittedly     a    case   based    on<\/p>\n
     circumstantial evidence and the evidence of PW-<\/p>\n
     3 and PW-4 form the main plank on which rests<\/p>\n
     the    prosecution   case       of   circumstantial<\/p>\n
     evidence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.    In this case charge sheet was filed against<\/p>\n
     seven persons, namely, A-1 Shambhu, A-2 Sapna @<\/p>\n
     Shhjahan, wife of Sambhu, A-3 Govinda @ Gudda,<\/p>\n
     A-4 Musheer Khan @       Badshah Khan, A-5 Basant<\/p>\n
     Shiva Bhai Jadav, A-6 Sattanarayan @ Sattu Sen,<\/p>\n
     A-7 Mehffooz @ Chotey, remained an absconder<\/p>\n
     and never faced trial.      A-7 is the brother of<\/p>\n
     A-2.\n<\/p>\n
                          5<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
10.   As per the prosecution, A-1, A2, A3 & A-6 had<\/p>\n
      paid    money     to    A-4       and       A-5    for     killing         the<\/p>\n
      deceased and pursuant thereto A-4 and A-5 had<\/p>\n
      shot the deceased from a close range.                            A-4 & A-<\/p>\n
      5   were      arrested       by       the     Jabalpur      police          at<\/p>\n
      Ahmedabad.        According to the prosecution A-4 &<\/p>\n
      A-5    were    seen     before          the    occurrence            in    the<\/p>\n
      company of A-1, A-2, A-3, A-6 & A-7 and after<\/p>\n
      the    occurrence,           they        were       seen        by        other<\/p>\n
      witnesses, namely, PWs.3 & 4 as going away from<\/p>\n
      the    scene      of     occurrence            on     a    light          blue<\/p>\n
      coloured       scooter       along          with     the    absconding<\/p>\n
      accused        Mehfooz        (A-7).                  According             to<\/p>\n
      prosecution A-4 and                    A-5 were identified by<\/p>\n
      witnesses       in     the    T.I.       Parade,          their       finger<\/p>\n
      prints     were      found        on     the       car    and        on    the<\/p>\n
      recovered       scooter.                They       had     suffered           a<\/p>\n
      disclosure statement and which had resulted in<\/p>\n
      discovery      of      the   weapon           of    assault       and      the<\/p>\n
      Ballistic        Expert           had       given         the        report,<\/p>\n
      according to which it was proved that weapon of<\/p>\n
                                        6<\/span>
\n      assault recovered from the Appellants had been<\/p>\n
      used by the deceased.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.     In this case the Trial Court in its judgment<\/p>\n
      dated 13.10.2003 acquitted A-3 and convicted A-<\/p>\n
      4 and A-5 under Sections 302\/120B of the Indian<\/p>\n
      Penal Code read with Sections 25(1)(b)(a) and<\/p>\n
      27 of the Arms Act and they were awarded death<\/p>\n
      penalty.        A-7 being an absconder, trial against<\/p>\n
      him   did       not     commence.            The    Trial      Court<\/p>\n
      convicted        A-1,    A-2       &   A-6     under      Sections<\/p>\n
      302\/120B and gave them life sentence.<\/p>\n
12.   The High Court in its judgment dated 8.11.2004<\/p>\n
      partly   confirmed        the      judgment        of   the    Trial<\/p>\n
      Court in confirming the death sentence against<\/p>\n
      A-4 & A-5, but reversed the conviction of the<\/p>\n
      other three accused, i.e. Shambhu (A-1), Sapna<\/p>\n
      (A-2) and Sattanarain @ Sattu Sen (A-6) and the<\/p>\n
      charge     of     conspiracy        failed     and      they    were<\/p>\n
      acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
\n                                     7<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
13.    Aggrieved by the conviction and death sentence<\/p>\n
      imposed by the Hon’ble High Court, Musheer (A-<\/p>\n
      4) and Basant (A-5), filed two special leave<\/p>\n
      petitions    being      Crl.A.           Nos.1180   &    1181\/2005<\/p>\n
      before this Court. The State Government also<\/p>\n
      filed   special        leave        petitions       against     the<\/p>\n
      judgment of the Hon’ble High Court acquitting<\/p>\n
      Gobind (A-3), being            Crl. Appeal No. 1206\/2005,<\/p>\n
      as   well   as     Shambhu         (A-1),     Sapna     (A-2)   and<\/p>\n
      Satyanarain @ Sattu Sen (A-6) being Crl. Appeal<\/p>\n
      No. 1204\/2005. The State Government also filed<\/p>\n
      an appeal against the dismissal of petition for<\/p>\n
      enhancement of sentence of these accused being<\/p>\n
      Crl. Appeal No. 1205\/2005. The brother of the<\/p>\n
      deceased     had       also        filed     a   special      leave<\/p>\n
      petition     along      with        an     application     seeking<\/p>\n
      permission       for    filing       the     same     being     Crl.<\/p>\n
      Appeal No. 4081\/2005.                That was dismissed by<\/p>\n
      this Court by an order dated 18.04.2005 in view<\/p>\n
                                     8<\/span>
\n      of the appeals having been filed by the State<\/p>\n
      Government.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14.     On an analysis of the evidence of PW-3 and<\/p>\n
      PW-4   the    presence    of   PW-4    in    the   place   of<\/p>\n
      occurrence is very doubtful. PW-4’s evidence is<\/p>\n
      that he was coming to meet the deceased Asim<\/p>\n
      Chansoriaji. They were known to each other for<\/p>\n
      the last 20 years and PW-4 had a very good<\/p>\n
      friendly relations with the deceased. PW-3 is a<\/p>\n
      close relation of the deceased and lives in the<\/p>\n
      same apartment where the deceased stayed. PW-4<\/p>\n
      also admitted that he knows PW-3.<\/p>\n
15.   From the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4, it is clear<\/p>\n
      that   they     were     present      at    the    place   of<\/p>\n
      occurrence at the same time.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
16.   PW-3 saw the accused persons from a distance of<\/p>\n
      “20 steps” while PW-4 saw the accused persons<\/p>\n
      from   a   distance    “60-70”     feet.      The    accused<\/p>\n
      persons were allegedly identified by PWs 3 and<\/p>\n
                                 9<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
      4. However in his evidence PW-3 never stated<\/p>\n
      that he saw PW-4 in the place of occurrence.<\/p>\n
      PW-3 also stated that after coming to the place<\/p>\n
      of occurrence he was shouting that the deceased<\/p>\n
      had been shot at.       Hearing his shouts “at first<\/p>\n
      cable operator Kesharwani came out there at the<\/p>\n
      incident site. After him Umesh, who lives in my<\/p>\n
      apartment    came    out.        After    Umesh    then    came<\/p>\n
      Gappu of Jain family, who also reside in our<\/p>\n
      same apartment and then came out my wife and<\/p>\n
      after her when we were lifting Mallu Bhaiya to<\/p>\n
      put him in the car then his wife Zarina also<\/p>\n
      arrived there”.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
17.    In view of the evidence discussed above it is<\/p>\n
      absolutely natural for PW-4 to immediately talk<\/p>\n
      with PW-3 to find out about the incident. But<\/p>\n
      there   is   no     evidence      of     that.    PW-3    never<\/p>\n
      whispered anything about the presence of PW-4<\/p>\n
      at the place of occurrence.              On the other hand,<\/p>\n
      evidence of PW-3 is that he with the help of<\/p>\n
                                  10<\/span>
\n      PW-2, PW-17 and Gopal Jain (not examined) put<\/p>\n
      the body of the deceased, half of which was<\/p>\n
      hanging outside the Matiz Car, in the back of<\/p>\n
      that car and some of those persons sat in the<\/p>\n
      car and PW-3 drove the car to the hospital.<\/p>\n
18.   PW-4,    an   athlete,    and    in     his       Tracksuit   was<\/p>\n
      obviously having a sound physique. It is wholly<\/p>\n
      improbable that PW-4, who was known to PW-3 and<\/p>\n
      was at the place of occurrence and saw PW-3<\/p>\n
      shouting for help for putting the body of the<\/p>\n
      deceased in the car will not come forward to<\/p>\n
      help PW-3 especially when he was very friendly<\/p>\n
      with    the   deceased,    having        a        long    standing<\/p>\n
      relationship of 20 years. This is very very un-<\/p>\n
      natural. It also very un-natural for PW-4 to<\/p>\n
      remain at the place of occurrence as a passive<\/p>\n
      spectator and watch the incident of PW-3 taking<\/p>\n
      the deceased in that Matiz car to the hospital<\/p>\n
      with help of others who had come to the place<\/p>\n
      of     occurrence   much        after        he     was     there.<\/p>\n
                                11<\/span>
\n      Evidence of PW-4 is that after PW-3 left for<\/p>\n
      the hospital he talked with the ladies who came<\/p>\n
      to the place of occurrence after the incident<\/p>\n
      and thereafter went to the hospital. In the<\/p>\n
      hospital also PW-4 did not talk with PW-3.<\/p>\n
19.   If one reads the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 it<\/p>\n
      would appear that one is totally insulated from<\/p>\n
      the other as if they are strangers and reside<\/p>\n
      in      different     islands.            This      is        totally<\/p>\n
      improbable. Unfortunately in the appreciation<\/p>\n
      of   evidence      neither        the    High    Court     nor      the<\/p>\n
      trial      Court    has      considered          this         glaring<\/p>\n
      improbability in the prosecution case.<\/p>\n
20.   Taking     into     account        the    aforesaid           factual<\/p>\n
      background it is very doubtful whether PW-4 was<\/p>\n
      at   all    present    at     the       place    of      occurrence<\/p>\n
      having     regard     to      the        evidence        of        PW-3.<\/p>\n
      Therefore,        identification          by     PW-4         of    the<\/p>\n
      scooter and the accused A-4 and A-5 in the T.I<\/p>\n
                                   12<\/span>
\n      Parade becomes doubtful and no reliance can be<\/p>\n
      placed on that.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
21.     Coming      to   the    question          of       assessing   the<\/p>\n
      evidence      of   identification               of    the   accused<\/p>\n
      persons by PW-3 and PW-4, this Court is of the<\/p>\n
      opinion that identification by PW-4 cannot be<\/p>\n
      relied upon at all inasmuch as this Court has<\/p>\n
      grave doubts about the presence of PW-4 at the<\/p>\n
      place of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
22.   So far as identification by PW-3 is concerned,<\/p>\n
      the   Court    must      take        into   consideration        the<\/p>\n
      extremely limited opportunities which PW-3 had<\/p>\n
      of seeing the accused persons.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
23.   It is the prosecution case that A-4 and A-5 are<\/p>\n
      hired   criminals        and        are   not    persons    of   the<\/p>\n
      locality. Prosecution has not also claimed that<\/p>\n
      A-4 and A-5 were known to PW-3 from before.<\/p>\n
      From the evidence of PW-3 it is clear that PW-3<\/p>\n
                                     13<\/span>
\n      only had a fleeting chance of seeing A-4, A-5<\/p>\n
      and A-7 when they were obviously in a hurry to<\/p>\n
      board the scooter and escape from the scene.<\/p>\n
      Assuming that there was street light, as is the<\/p>\n
      claim of the prosecution, it is obvious the<\/p>\n
      accused persons were fleeing from the place of<\/p>\n
      occurrence       on     the        scooter.          Therefore,<\/p>\n
      excepting    a    fleeting         glance     PW-3    had   very<\/p>\n
      little chance of seeing A-4, A-5 and A-7.<\/p>\n
24.   The evidence of PW-3, that A-4, who was driving<\/p>\n
      the   scooter,    was    repeatedly         looking    back   is<\/p>\n
      highly improbable for the following reasons:<\/p>\n
      i) A-4, being a hired man, was new to the
\n      place. Obviously he was not acquainted
\n      with   the   topography   of    the   area.\n<\/p>\n
      Therefore, he would be very busy in
\n      finding his way out of the place of
\n      occurrence and would concentrate on that;\n<\/p>\n
      ii) A-4 was driving the scooter, it is
\n      difficult for the driver of the scooter in
\n      a new area to repeatedly look back. Being
\n      hired criminals, as is the prosecution
\n      case the accused persons will not do
\n      anything      to      facilitate     their
\n      investigation;\n<\/p>\n
\n                                    14<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
      iii) It is not the prosecution case that
\n      the accused persons were given a chase and
\n      therefore there was no reason for them to
\n      look back. The only evidence of PW-3 is
\n      that he was shouting that Mallu Bhaiya had
\n      been killed by the assailants.     A-4 was
\n      mere   a  spectator,   assuming  but   not
\n      accepting that A-4 was present at the
\n      place of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
25.   The Court must remember that PW-3 is a highly<\/p>\n
      interested witness, being a very close relative<\/p>\n
      of the deceased. That by itself, of course, is<\/p>\n
      not a ground to discard his evidence. But it is<\/p>\n
      a golden rule that in such a situation, the<\/p>\n
      evidence      of   PW-3    has     to   be     weighed      very<\/p>\n
      carefully and cautiously before accepting the<\/p>\n
      same.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
26.   Applying these principles, in the facts of the<\/p>\n
      case, the evidence of PW-3 that while driving<\/p>\n
      the    scooter     A-4   was    repeatedly     looking      back<\/p>\n
      becomes highly doubtful.\n<\/p>\n
27.   It may be pointed out that identification test<\/p>\n
      is    not   substantive        evidence.     Such   tests    are<\/p>\n
      meant       for    the    purpose       of     helping       the<\/p>\n
                                 15<\/span>
\n      investigating        agency       with       an   assurance        that<\/p>\n
      their progress with the investigation into the<\/p>\n
      offence    is   proceeding          on       right    lines.       (See<\/p>\n
      Matru Alias Girish Chandra vs. The State of<\/p>\n
      Uttar Pradesh<\/a> – 1971(2) SCC 75 at                     para 17)<\/p>\n
28.   It    is     also     held        by      this        Court        that<\/p>\n
      identification test parade is not substantive<\/p>\n
      evidence      but     it      can        only        be     used       in<\/p>\n
      corroboration of the statements in Court. (See<\/p>\n
      Santokh    Singh     vs.    Izhar        Hussain          and   Anr.<\/a>    –<\/p>\n
      (1973) 2 SCC 406 at               para 11)<\/p>\n
29.   Recently in the case of Amitsingh Bhikam Singh<\/p>\n
      Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra – (2007) 2 SCC<\/p>\n
      310   this    court    held       on     a    consideration            of<\/p>\n
      various      cases     on     the        subject           that     the<\/p>\n
      identification proceedings are in the nature of<\/p>\n
      tests and there is no procedure either in Cr.<\/p>\n
      P.C., 1973 or in the Indian Evidence Act for<\/p>\n
      holding such tests. The main object of holding<\/p>\n
                                   16<\/span>
\n      such tests during investigation is to check the<\/p>\n
      memory of witnesses based upon first impression<\/p>\n
      and to enable the prosecution to decide whether<\/p>\n
      these witnesses could be cited as eye witnesses<\/p>\n
      of the crime.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
30.   It has also been held that the evidence of the<\/p>\n
      identification of accused for the first time is<\/p>\n
      inherently weak in character and the court has<\/p>\n
      held that the evidence in test identification<\/p>\n
      parade does not constitute substantive evidence<\/p>\n
      and these parades are governed by Section 162<\/p>\n
      of Code of Criminal Procedure and the weight to<\/p>\n
      be attached to such identification is a matter<\/p>\n
      for the courts.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
31.   In    the   instant   case    A-4   was   apprehended   on<\/p>\n
      05.12.2000 and was arrested on 06.12.2000 and<\/p>\n
      the     identification        parade      was   held    on<\/p>\n
      10.12.2000.      It is admitted that A-4 was kept<\/p>\n
      in open police custody for all these days from<\/p>\n
                               17<\/span>
\n6th December to 10th December, 2000 prior to his<\/p>\n
identification.         About the identification by<\/p>\n
him PW-3 deposed that he recognized all the<\/p>\n
three persons in Court even though the fact<\/p>\n
remains that out of the three accused persons<\/p>\n
A-7 absconded and never faced trial.             This is a<\/p>\n
clear discrepancy in the evidence of PW-3 about<\/p>\n
identification. It is an admitted position that<\/p>\n
A-4 is bald but in his evidence PW-3 admitted<\/p>\n
that during investigation the heads of the none<\/p>\n
of    the   persons    were     covered.    Though    in    his<\/p>\n
evidence PW-3 has said that the persons were<\/p>\n
covered with a blanket upto the neck but PW-12,<\/p>\n
who    held   the     identification       parade,    in    his<\/p>\n
cross   examination      admitted     that    there    is    no<\/p>\n
reference of blanket in Ext. P-14 and Ext. P-16<\/p>\n
which are the reports of T.I. parade of A-4 and<\/p>\n
A-5     respectively.             This      is   a     vital<\/p>\n
contradiction between the versions of witnesses<\/p>\n
identifying and the person conducting the T.I.<\/p>\n
Parade.\n<\/p>\n
\n                           18<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
32.   In    so   far    as    the    identification          of   A-5      is<\/p>\n
      concerned        that    has       taken     place    at    a     very<\/p>\n
      delayed stage, namely, his identification took<\/p>\n
      place      on   24.01.2001          and   the   incident        is   of<\/p>\n
      29.11.2000,       even    though          A-5   was   arrested        on<\/p>\n
      22.12.2000.       There       is    no    explanation       why      his<\/p>\n
      identification parade was held on 24.01.2001<\/p>\n
      which is after a gap of over a month from the<\/p>\n
      date of arrest and after about 3 months from<\/p>\n
      the date of the incident. No reliance ought to<\/p>\n
      have been placed by the courts below or High<\/p>\n
      Court on such delayed T.I. parade for which<\/p>\n
      there is no explanation by the prosecution.<\/p>\n
33.        At the Bar some decisions were cited about<\/p>\n
      how the Court should consider the evidence in<\/p>\n
      the test identification parade.<\/p>\n
34.   Mr. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the State<\/p>\n
      relied on the decision in Pramod Mandal vs.<\/p>\n
                                     19<\/span>
\n      State of Bihar – (2004) 13 SCC 150 in order to<\/p>\n
      contend that mere delay in holding the test<\/p>\n
      identification         parade     will   not     prevent      the<\/p>\n
      Court from accepting the evidence when defence<\/p>\n
      failed to impute any motive to the prosecution<\/p>\n
      by    way   of    cross      examination       for   delay    in<\/p>\n
      holding     the   T.I.    parade.        In     Pramod    Mandal<\/p>\n
      (supra) it was held that delay of one month in<\/p>\n
      holding the T.I. parade was not fatal.<\/p>\n
35.   The aforesaid decision of this Court has to be<\/p>\n
      appreciated       in   the    factual    context      of     that<\/p>\n
      case. From the facts in Pramod Mandal (supra)<\/p>\n
      it appears that dacoity had taken place in the<\/p>\n
      house for about 25            minutes     in      which      PW-4<\/p>\n
      sustained several injuries from the accused in<\/p>\n
      trying to resist the dacoity. Therefore, PW-4<\/p>\n
      had    sufficient        opportunity       to     notice     the<\/p>\n
      appearance and physical features of the accused<\/p>\n
      and there was sufficient light. The Court found<\/p>\n
      that the traumatic experience of PW-4 for a<\/p>\n
                                   20<\/span>
\n      considerable period must have left the faces of<\/p>\n
      the assailants firmly imprinted in his memory<\/p>\n
      which could not be erased within a period of<\/p>\n
      only 30 days. Under those circumstances, this<\/p>\n
      Court held that the evidence in T.I. parade<\/p>\n
      cannot be doubted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
36.   But in the instant case the facts are totally<\/p>\n
      different. Here PW-3 had nothing more than a<\/p>\n
      fleeting      chance   of    seeing   A-4,   A-5     and      who<\/p>\n
      hurriedly boarded the scooter while escaping<\/p>\n
      from    the    place   of    occurrence.     There       is    no<\/p>\n
      evidence that PW-3 had any physical contact or<\/p>\n
      confrontation with A-4 and A-5. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
      ratio    in   Pramod     Mandal   (supra)    cannot      apply<\/p>\n
      here.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
37.   However, the decision of this Court in Soni vs.<\/p>\n
      State of Uttar Pradesh – (1982) 3 SCC 368(1) is<\/p>\n
      more relevant to the facts of the case in hand.<\/p>\n
      In     Soni   (supra),      the   facts   have     not     been<\/p>\n
                                  21<\/span>
\n      discussed     in    the   judgment      which   was    rather<\/p>\n
      brief but one thing is made clear that T.I.<\/p>\n
      Parade was held after a lapse of 42 days from<\/p>\n
      the date of the arrest of the appellant. This<\/p>\n
      Court held that such delay in holding the T.I.<\/p>\n
      parade   by    itself        throws    a   doubt      on    the<\/p>\n
      genuineness        of   such      identification      and    we<\/p>\n
      respectfully agree with the view that it is<\/p>\n
      difficult to remember the facial expression of<\/p>\n
      the accused persons after such a long gap in<\/p>\n
      the facts of this case. Therefore, the alleged<\/p>\n
      identification of A-5 after a gap of two months<\/p>\n
      throws   a    doubt     on     the   genuineness   of       such<\/p>\n
      identification especially when PW-3 had very<\/p>\n
      little chance to see either A-4 and A-5.<\/p>\n
38.   Learned counsel for the State relied very much<\/p>\n
      on the evidence of finger print expert (PW-23).<\/p>\n
      It is well known that the evidence of finger<\/p>\n
      print expert falls under the category of expert<\/p>\n
                                   22<\/span>
\n      evidence        under        Section        45     of     the    Indian<\/p>\n
      Evidence Act, 1872.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
39.   It   will       be     noticed       that        under    the    Indian<\/p>\n
      Evidence Act, the word `admissibility’ has very<\/p>\n
      rarely been used. The emphasis is on relevant<\/p>\n
      facts.     In    a     way    relevancy          and     admissibility<\/p>\n
      have been virtually equated under the Indian<\/p>\n
      Evidence        Act.    But    one     thing        is     clear     that<\/p>\n
      evidence        of     finger        print         expert       is     not<\/p>\n
      substantive evidence. Such evidence can only be<\/p>\n
      used to corroborate some items of substantive<\/p>\n
      evidence which are otherwise on record.<\/p>\n
40.   In   the    instant          case,     PW-23           (finger       print<\/p>\n
      expert) claimed to have matched the transparent<\/p>\n
      marked `C’ with finger print marked `ka’. This<\/p>\n
      according to him is the index finger of right<\/p>\n
      hand of A-4 (Musheer alias Badshah). PW-23 when<\/p>\n
      compared the transparent `F’ with finger print<\/p>\n
      marked `kha’ it was found identical with the<\/p>\n
                                      23<\/span>
\n      finger    print      mark   of      A-5’s    right      hand   ring<\/p>\n
      finger.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
41.   According      to    PW-23,        he    lifted    these     finger<\/p>\n
      prints while going to the police station on<\/p>\n
      1.12.2000 from the Bajaj Super Scooter which<\/p>\n
      was associated with the case and also from the<\/p>\n
      Matiz Car both of which were parked in the<\/p>\n
      police station.\n<\/p>\n
42.   According to the finger print expert (PW-23)<\/p>\n
      `C’ was found on the right side of the rear<\/p>\n
      mudguard of the scooter and `F’ was found on<\/p>\n
      the side glass of the Matiz car.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
43. Before this Court can appreciate the relevance<\/p>\n
      of those prints, the Court has to look to the<\/p>\n
      substantive evidence on record. It is nowhere<\/p>\n
      alleged by the prosecution that there was any<\/p>\n
      altercation         between        the    deceased       and    the<\/p>\n
      accused    persons     at     the       scene     of   occurrence.<\/p>\n
      There     is   no    whisper        of    any     evidence     that<\/p>\n
                                    24<\/span>
\n      accused persons had any physical contact with<\/p>\n
      the deceased or chased the deceased or dragged<\/p>\n
      the deceased out of the car.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
44.   The evidence is only of hearing shots of fire<\/p>\n
      arm   and    the    further      evidence   is    that     the<\/p>\n
      deceased was fired from a point blank range and<\/p>\n
      he immediately fell down and in such a way as<\/p>\n
      his   body    was   half    inside   the    car    and     half<\/p>\n
      outside      the    same.    Therefore,     there     is    no<\/p>\n
      prosecution evidence to the effect that A-4 and<\/p>\n
      A-5 had any occasion to touch the car and that<\/p>\n
      too with the ring finger. It is obvious that<\/p>\n
      the accused, being hired criminals, according<\/p>\n
      to the prosecution, must be busy in escaping<\/p>\n
      from the scene of occurrence after the deceased<\/p>\n
      had been shot from the point blank range and<\/p>\n
      immediately the deceased fell down.                 There is<\/p>\n
      no evidence of the deceased running away from<\/p>\n
      his   assailants      or    offering    any      resistance.<\/p>\n
      Having regard to this state of evidence the<\/p>\n
                                  25<\/span>
\n      evidence of finger print on the car ceases to<\/p>\n
      have any relevance.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
45.   PW-23 (Finger print expert) has not given any<\/p>\n
      evidence of finger print on the alleged weapon<\/p>\n
      of offence which was discovered pursuant to the<\/p>\n
      statement of accused persons under Section 27<\/p>\n
      of the Evidence Act. Therefore, in the facts of<\/p>\n
      this    case   and     in   view    of     the   prosecution<\/p>\n
      evidence the evidence of finger print expert<\/p>\n
      does help the prosecution. Even if we accept<\/p>\n
      the    evidence   of    finger     print    expert   on   the<\/p>\n
      scooter that by itself does not prove anything.<\/p>\n
      If certain persons are riding on the scooter,<\/p>\n
      it may have the finger prints of the person who<\/p>\n
      is riding the scooter.           That by itself does not<\/p>\n
      connect the persons with the crime.<\/p>\n
46.   In a case of circumstantial evidence, one must<\/p>\n
      look for complete chain of circumstances and<\/p>\n
                                  26<\/span>
\n      not on snapped and scattered links which do not<\/p>\n
      make a complete sequence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
47.   This Court finds that this case is entirely<\/p>\n
      based   on      circumstantial               evidence.        While<\/p>\n
      appreciating circumstantial evidence, the Court<\/p>\n
      must    adopt         a          cautious         approach       as<\/p>\n
      circumstantial            evidence          is      “inferential<\/p>\n
      evidence” and proof in such a case is derivable<\/p>\n
      by inference from circumstances.<\/p>\n
48.   Chief Justice Fletcher Moulton once observed<\/p>\n
      that “proof does not mean rigid mathematical”<\/p>\n
      formula since “that is impossible”. However,<\/p>\n
      proof must mean such evidence as would induce a<\/p>\n
      reasonable      man        to        come    to     a    definite<\/p>\n
      conclusion.     Circumstantial              evidence,    on    the<\/p>\n
      other hand, has been compared by Lord Coleridge<\/p>\n
      “like   a     gossamer           thread,         light   and     as<\/p>\n
      unsubstantial as the air itself and may vanish<\/p>\n
      with the merest of touches”. The learned Judge<\/p>\n
                                      27<\/span>
\n      also observed that such evidence may be strong<\/p>\n
      in parts but it may also leave great gaps and<\/p>\n
      rents    through    which        the       accused   may   escape.<\/p>\n
      Therefore, certain rules have been judicially<\/p>\n
      evolved     for     appreciation             of   circumstantial<\/p>\n
      evidence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
49.   To my mind, the first rule is that the facts<\/p>\n
      alleged as the basis of any legal inference<\/p>\n
      from circumstantial evidence must be clearly<\/p>\n
      proved     beyond         any        reasonable      doubt.     If<\/p>\n
      conviction        rests     solely          on    circumstantial<\/p>\n
      evidence, it must create a network from which<\/p>\n
      there is no escape for the accused. The facts<\/p>\n
      evolving out of such circumstantial evidence<\/p>\n
      must be such as not to admit of any inference<\/p>\n
      except    that     of     guilt       of    the   accused.    {See<\/p>\n
      Raghav Prapanna Tripathi and others vs. State<\/p>\n
      of U.P. – AIR 1963 SC 74}.\n<\/p>\n
                                      28<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
50. The second principle is that all the links in<\/p>\n
      the chain of evidence must be proved beyond<\/p>\n
      reasonable     doubt      and    they   must   exclude     the<\/p>\n
      evidence of guilt of any other person than the<\/p>\n
      accused.\n<\/p>\n
       {See: State of UP vs. Ravindra Prakash Mittal,<\/a>
\n       1992 Crl.L.J 3693(SC) – (Para 20)}<\/p>\n
51.   While appreciating circumstantial evidence, we<\/p>\n
      must remember the principle laid down in Ashraf<\/p>\n
      Ali vs. Emperor – (43 Indian Cases 241 at para<\/p>\n
      14)   that    when   in    a     criminal   case   there    is<\/p>\n
      conflict between presumption of innocence and<\/p>\n
      any other presumption, the former must prevail.<\/p>\n
52. The next principle is that in order to justify<\/p>\n
      the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts<\/p>\n
      must be incompatible with the innocence of the<\/p>\n
      accused and is incapable of explanation upon<\/p>\n
      any   other    reasonable         hypothesis   except      his<\/p>\n
      guilt.\n<\/p>\n
                                  29<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
53.   When a murder charge is to be proved solely on<\/p>\n
      circumstantial          evidence,    as     in       this     case,<\/p>\n
      presumption of innocence of the accused must<\/p>\n
      have a dominant role.             In Nibaran Chandra Roy<\/p>\n
      vs. King Emperor – (11 CWN 1085) it was held<\/p>\n
      the fact that an accused person was found with<\/p>\n
      a gun in his hand immediately after a gun was<\/p>\n
      fired and a man was killed on the spot from<\/p>\n
      which    the      gun     was    fired     may       be     strong<\/p>\n
      circumstantial        evidence      against      the      accused,<\/p>\n
      but it is an error of law to hold that the<\/p>\n
      burden    of     proving    innocence       lies       upon     the<\/p>\n
      accused under such circumstances.                      It seems,<\/p>\n
      therefore,       to   follow     that     whatever        force   a<\/p>\n
      presumption arising under Section 106 of the<\/p>\n
      Indian Evidence Act may have in civil or in<\/p>\n
      less    serous    criminal       cases,    in    a     trial    for<\/p>\n
      murder it is extremely weak in comparison with<\/p>\n
      the dominant presumption of innocence.<\/p>\n
                                  30<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
54.   Same    principles      have     been   followed     by   the<\/p>\n
      Constitution        Bench   of   this   Court   in   Govinda<\/p>\n
      Reddy vs. State of Mysore<\/a> – (AIR 1960 SC 29)<\/p>\n
      where the learned Judges quoted the principles<\/p>\n
      laid    down   in    Hanumant    Govind   Nargundkar      and<\/p>\n
      anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh – (AIR 1952 SC<\/p>\n
      343).     The ratio in Govind (supra) quoted in<\/p>\n
      paragraph 5, page 30 of the reports in Govinda<\/p>\n
      Reddy (supra) are:\n<\/p>\n
      “in   cases  where   the  evidence   of  a
\n      circumstantial nature, the circumstances
\n      which lead to the conclusion of guilt
\n      should be in the first instance fully
\n      established,   and   all  the   facts   so
\n      established should be consistent only with
\n      the guilt of the accused. Again the
\n      circumstances should be of a conclusive
\n      nature and tendency and they should be
\n      such as to exclude every hypothesis but
\n      the one proposed to be proved. In other
\n      words there must be a chain of evidence so
\n      complete as not to leave any reasonable
\n      doubt for a conclusion consistent with the
\n      innocence of the accused and it must be
\n      shown that within all human probability
\n      the act must have been committed by the
\n      accused.”\n<\/p>\n
                                  31<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
55.   The same principle has also been followed by<\/p>\n
      this Court in Mohan Lal Pangasa vs. State of<\/p>\n
      U.P.<\/a> – AIR 1974 SC 1144.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
56.   As noted above, along with the appeal of A4 and<\/p>\n
      A5   against        their     judgment        and      order     of<\/p>\n
      conviction, in this case, several State appeals<\/p>\n
      have been filed. A3-Govinda was acquitted by<\/p>\n
      the trial court and also by the High Court. The<\/p>\n
      State appeal against the same has already been<\/p>\n
      dismissed      by    this   court      by    an     order     dated<\/p>\n
      24.11.06.      The    State      also       filed      an   appeal<\/p>\n
      against      the    order   of   acquittal        by    the    High<\/p>\n
      Court in respect of A1, A2 and A6. This Court<\/p>\n
      finds that in acquitting A1, A2, and A6, the<\/p>\n
      High Court has taken a plausible view. This<\/p>\n
      Court   in    exercise      of   its    jurisdiction          under<\/p>\n
      Article 136 is not inclined to take a different<\/p>\n
      view.\n<\/p>\n
       [See State of Haryana vs. Krishan<\/a> reported in
\n       (2008) 15 SCC 208, paras 10 and 11, pages 211-
\n       212 of the report and State of Andhra Pradesh
\n       vs. S. Swarnatatha and others, reported in<\/p>\n
                                  32<\/span>
\n       (2009) 8 SCC 383, paras 25 and 26, pages 388-\n<\/p>\n
       389 of the report.]<\/p>\n
57.   As a result of acquittal of A-1, A-2, A-3 and<\/p>\n
      A-6, the conspiracy theory of the prosecution<\/p>\n
      in this case fails. A substantial part of the<\/p>\n
      prosecution case has not been accepted on valid<\/p>\n
      grounds either by the High Court or by this<\/p>\n
      Court.   Thus,     a     very   vital   part    of    the<\/p>\n
      prosecution case is finally knocked off. As the<\/p>\n
      prosecution      fails    to    prove   its    case    of<\/p>\n
      conspiracy, the motive angle behind the alleged<\/p>\n
      crime committed by A-4 and A-5 disappears. The<\/p>\n
      prosecution case is that A-4 and        A-5 are hired<\/p>\n
      criminals and were engaged on payment by A-1,<\/p>\n
      A-2, A-3 and A-6 for killing the deceased. The<\/p>\n
      acquittal of A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-6 which is<\/p>\n
      upheld by this Court casts a serious doubt on<\/p>\n
      the entire prosecution and its case against A-4<\/p>\n
      and A-5 suffers a serious set back.<\/p>\n
                                33<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
58.   Considering the aforesaid facts and also going<\/p>\n
      by the test of appreciation of circumstantial<\/p>\n
      evidence as discussed above, this Court has to<\/p>\n
      extend the benefit of doubt to A-4 and A-5 and<\/p>\n
      cannot     sustain    the        judgment       and    order   of<\/p>\n
      conviction      of   A-4     and     A-5    under       Sections<\/p>\n
      302\/120-B       of   I.P.C         read         with    Sections<\/p>\n
      25(1)(a)(b) and Section 27 of the Arms Act and<\/p>\n
      consequently the death sentence awarded to them<\/p>\n
      by the High Court is set aside. This Court is<\/p>\n
      of the view that the so called circumstantial<\/p>\n
      evidence       against      A-4     and     A-5        does    not<\/p>\n
      constitute a complete chain which is consistent<\/p>\n
      with the guilt of A-4 and A-5 and incompatible<\/p>\n
      with their innocence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
59.   Before parting, it may be noticed that in this<\/p>\n
      case, it has been argued by the learned defence<\/p>\n
      Counsel that in the matter of discovery of the<\/p>\n
      weapon pursuant to the facts deposed by A-4 and<\/p>\n
      A-5,     the   prosecution        has     not     followed     the<\/p>\n
                                  34<\/span>
\n      safeguards which are statutorily engrafted in<\/p>\n
      connection with a search under Section 100(4)<\/p>\n
      and   Section     100(5)   of    the    Code   of   Criminal<\/p>\n
      Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
60.   The     learned   Counsel       argued      that    discovery<\/p>\n
      pursuant to facts deposed under Section 27 of<\/p>\n
      the Evidence Act can only become relevant if it<\/p>\n
      is made following the safeguards under Section<\/p>\n
      100(4) and section 100(5) of the Code.<\/p>\n
61.   In State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Sunil and<\/a><\/p>\n
      another, [(2001) 1 SCC 652], almost a similar<\/p>\n
      contention has been negatived by this Court in<\/p>\n
      Para 19 of the report.              The learned judges<\/p>\n
      held:\n<\/p>\n
      “..recovery of an object pursuant to the
\n      information supplied by an accused in
\n      custody is different from the searching
\n      endeavour envisaged in Chapter VII of the
\n      Code.”\n<\/p>\n
62.   In doing so, the learned judges relied on a<\/p>\n
      decision     of    this    Court       in   Transport     The<\/p>\n
      Transport    Commissioner,         A.P.,     Hyderabad    and<\/p>\n
      another vs. S. Sardar Ali, Bus Owner, Hyderabad
\n                                 35<\/span>
\n      and 41 others – [1983 4 SCC 245].                    It may be<\/p>\n
      true     that    the       decision   in    Sardar    Ali    was<\/p>\n
      rendered in the context of Motor Vehicles Act,<\/p>\n
      but the propositions in Para 20, at page 662 of<\/p>\n
      the report are, if I may say so, based on sound<\/p>\n
      logic.\n<\/p>\n
63.   In Para 20, page 662 of the report it was held<\/p>\n
      when discovery is made pursuant to any facts<\/p>\n
      deposed    by        the   accused,   the    discovery      memo<\/p>\n
      prepared        by     the    investigating     officer       is<\/p>\n
      necessarily attested by independent witnesses.<\/p>\n
      But if in a given case, no witness is present<\/p>\n
      or nobody agrees to attest the memo, it is<\/p>\n
      difficult to lay down as a proposition that the<\/p>\n
      discovery must be treated tainted or that the<\/p>\n
      discovery evidence is unreliable.                    In such a<\/p>\n
      situation, the Court has to consider the report<\/p>\n
      of the investigating officer who made discovery<\/p>\n
      on its own merits.\n<\/p>\n
                                    36<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
64.   In para 21, this Court further elaborated this<\/p>\n
      principle by saying when a police officer gives<\/p>\n
      evidence in Court about discovery made by him<\/p>\n
      on the strength of facts deposed by accused it<\/p>\n
      is for the Court to believe the version, if it<\/p>\n
      is otherwise shown to be reliable and it is for<\/p>\n
      the accused to cross examine the investigating<\/p>\n
      officer or rely on other materials to show that<\/p>\n
      evidence    of   police    officer    is    unreliable    or<\/p>\n
      unsafe.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
65.   Therefore,       reliability     of        the   materials<\/p>\n
      discovered pursuant to the facts deposed by the<\/p>\n
      accused in police custody depends on the facts<\/p>\n
      of each case. If the discovery is otherwise<\/p>\n
      reliable, its evidentiary value is not diluted<\/p>\n
      just   by    reason   of    non-compliance       with    the<\/p>\n
      provision of Section 100(4) or Section 100(5)<\/p>\n
      of the Code.\n<\/p>\n
                                 37<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
66.   The    reason    is       that    Section       100    falls      under<\/p>\n
      Chapter    VII       of     the       Code    which    deals      with<\/p>\n
      processes initiated to compel the production of<\/p>\n
      things on a search. Therefore the entire gamut<\/p>\n
      of proceedings under Chapter VII of the Code is<\/p>\n
      based on compulsion whereas the very basis of<\/p>\n
      facts    deposed      by     an       accused    in    custody       is<\/p>\n
      voluntary and pursuant thereto discovery takes<\/p>\n
      place. Thus, they operate in totally different<\/p>\n
      situations. Therefore, the safeguards in search<\/p>\n
      proceedings based on compulsion cannot be read<\/p>\n
      into     discovery          on        the     basis     of        facts<\/p>\n
      voluntarily deposed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
67.   Section    27    starts       with      the     word   `provided’.<\/p>\n
      Therefore,      it     is     a       proviso    by    way     of    an<\/p>\n
      exception to Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence<\/p>\n
      Act. If the facts deposed under Section 27 are<\/p>\n
      not voluntary, then it will not be admissible,<\/p>\n
      and     will    be    hit     by       Article    20(3)      of     the<\/p>\n
                                       38<\/span>
\n      Constitution of India. [See State of Bombay vs.<\/p>\n
      Kathi Kalu Oghad,<\/a> [AIR 1961 SC 1808].<\/p>\n
68.   The Privy Counsel in Pulukori Kottaya vs. King<\/p>\n
      Emperor, [1947 PC 67] held that Section 27 of<\/p>\n
      the Evidence Act is not artistically worded but<\/p>\n
      it   provides   an   exception    to   the   prohibition<\/p>\n
      imposed under the preceding sections. However,<\/p>\n
      the extent of discovery admissible pursuant to<\/p>\n
      the facts deposed by accused depends only to<\/p>\n
      the nature of the facts discovered to which the<\/p>\n
      information precisely relates.<\/p>\n
69.   The limited nature of the admissibility of the<\/p>\n
      facts discovered pursuant to the statement of<\/p>\n
      the accused under Section 27 can be illustrated<\/p>\n
      by   the   following   example:    Suppose     a   person<\/p>\n
      accused of murder deposes to the police officer<\/p>\n
      the fact as a result of which the weapon with<\/p>\n
      which the crime is committed is discovered, but<\/p>\n
      as a result of such discovery no inference can<\/p>\n
      be drawn against the accused, if there is no<\/p>\n
                              39<\/span>
\n      evidence connecting the knife with the crime<\/p>\n
      alleged to have been committed by the accused.<\/p>\n
70.   So the objection of the defence counsel to the<\/p>\n
      discovery made by the prosecution in this case<\/p>\n
      cannot      be    sustained.          But   the   discovery    by<\/p>\n
      itself does not help the prosecution to sustain<\/p>\n
      the conviction and sentence imposed on A-4 and<\/p>\n
      A-5 by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
71.   For   the    reasons     discussed          above,   the    Appeal<\/p>\n
      filed by A-4 Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan and A-<\/p>\n
      5   Basant       Shiva   Bhai       Jadav   are   allowed.    The<\/p>\n
      judgment and order of conviction of the High<\/p>\n
      Court dated 8.11.2004 passed in the Criminal<\/p>\n
      Appeal      No.   1761    of    2003    against      them   under<\/p>\n
      Sections 302\/120-B of I.P.C and under Sections<\/p>\n
      25(1)(a)(b) and Section 27 of the Arms Act is<\/p>\n
      set aside. They are set at liberty forthwith,<\/p>\n
      if not required to be detained in any other<\/p>\n
      case.\n<\/p>\n
\n                                     40<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
72. All the appeals filed by the State of Madhya<\/p>\n
    Pradesh are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                         …………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                         (G.S SINGHVI)<\/p>\n
                         …………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                         (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)<\/p>\n
New Delhi
\nJanuary 28, 2010<\/p>\n
                        41<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr vs State Of M.P on 28 January, 2010 Author: Ganguly Bench: G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1180 OF 2005 Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr. ..Appellant(s) – Versus – State of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2947","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMusheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr vs State Of M.P on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musheer-khan-badshah-khan-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-28-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr vs State Of M.P on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musheer-khan-badshah-khan-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-28-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-02T08:22:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/musheer-khan-badshah-khan-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-28-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/musheer-khan-badshah-khan-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-28-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr vs State Of M.P on 28 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-02T08:22:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/musheer-khan-badshah-khan-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-28-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":5777,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/musheer-khan-badshah-khan-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-28-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/musheer-khan-badshah-khan-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-28-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/musheer-khan-badshah-khan-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-28-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr vs State Of M.P on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-02T08:22:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/musheer-khan-badshah-khan-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/musheer-khan-badshah-khan-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-28-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/musheer-khan-badshah-khan-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr vs State Of M.P on 28 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr vs State Of M.P on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musheer-khan-badshah-khan-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-28-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr vs State Of M.P on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musheer-khan-badshah-khan-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-28-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-02T08:22:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musheer-khan-badshah-khan-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-28-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musheer-khan-badshah-khan-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-28-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr vs State Of M.P on 28 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-02T08:22:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musheer-khan-badshah-khan-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-28-january-2010"},"wordCount":5777,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musheer-khan-badshah-khan-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-28-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musheer-khan-badshah-khan-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-28-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musheer-khan-badshah-khan-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-28-january-2010","name":"Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr vs State Of M.P on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-02T08:22:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musheer-khan-badshah-khan-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musheer-khan-badshah-khan-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-28-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musheer-khan-badshah-khan-anr-vs-state-of-m-p-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr vs State Of M.P on 28 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2947","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2947"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2947\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2947"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2947"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2947"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}