- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Usman Ali v. Jagram And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
During the night of 25-26 March 1979, the four respondents allegedly entered the house of Liyakat Ali armed with a ballam, knife and lathi. They fatally assaulted Liyakat Ali and injured three family members—Usman Ali (PW-1), Smt. Kamrul Nisha (PW-2) and Smt. Khatoon (PW-3)—who tried to save him. A First Information Report naming all four assailants was promptly lodged, leading to an investigation and filing of a charge-sheet. The trial court convicted the respondents under Section 302/34 IPC (life imprisonment) as well as Sections 324/34 and 323/34 IPC (one year and six months’ rigorous imprisonment, respectively), ordering the sentences to run concurrently. On appeal, the High Court acquitted all respondents of every charge. The present judgment resolves the State’s appeal to the Supreme Court by special leave against that acquittal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court erred in discarding the testimony of the three eyewitnesses, all relatives of the deceased, despite its corroboration by medical evidence.
- Whether the absence of the accused persons’ names in the inquest report constituted a sufficient basis for their acquittal.
- Consequently, whether the High Court’s order of acquittal was perverse and liable to be set aside.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court placed decisive weight on the consistent and corroborated testimony of the three eyewitnesses, each named in the FIR and medically examined shortly after the incident. Their injuries, catalogued by Dr. K.K. Kesari, aligned with the prosecution narrative and the weapons said to have been used. The Court rejected the High Court’s view that the injuries were “not consistent” with the prosecution case, finding that conclusion to be an “error of record.”
Family relationship, the Court reiterated, does not ipso facto taint credibility, especially when the occurrence took place inside the victims’ own home during the night. Because the eyewitnesses were the most natural observers, their testimony could not be discarded solely on grounds of kinship.
The Court further held that the High Court was wrong to treat the omission of the accused persons’ names in the inquest report as fatal. The inquest report, intended primarily to ascertain the apparent cause of death, is not the substantive document for identifying assailants; the FIR already performed that function.
Finding the High Court’s acquittal “perverse,” the Supreme Court restored the trial court’s judgment, concluding that the prosecution had proved the respondents’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED; ACQUITTAL SET ASIDE; CONVICTIONS RESTORED.
The respondents’ bail bonds were cancelled and they were ordered into custody to serve the remaining portions of their life and ancillary sentences, with a compliance report to be filed within one month. The decision directly affects only the parties, reinstating the original convictions; it sets no new legal precedent beyond reinforcing established principles on the evidentiary value of related witnesses and the limited relevance of omissions in an inquest report.
Order
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The respondents were convicted by the trial court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. They were further convicted under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and each one of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and six months respectively. All the sentences, however, were ordered to run concurrently. On appeal being preferred, the High Court reversed the order of the trial court and acquitted the respondents of all the charges. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
3. Allegations against the accused persons were that in the night between 25-3-1979 and 26-3-1979, they went to the house of one Liyakat Ali armed with a ballam, knife and lathi and assaulted Liyakat Ali with their respective weapons. When the inmates of the house, Usman Ali (PW 1), brother of Liyakat Ali, Smt Kamrul Nisha (PW 2), wife of Liyakat Ali and Smt Khatoon (PW 3), mother of Liyakat Ali rushed to save him they were also assaulted by the accused persons. Thereafter, the accused persons fled away.
4. A first information report was lodged at the police station concerned in which all the four respondents were named. The police after registering the case took up investigation and upon completion thereof submitted charge-sheet, on receipt whereof, learned Magistrate took cognizance and committed the accused persons to the Court of Session to face trial.
5. During trial prosecution examined three eyewitnesses, namely, Usman Ali (PW 1), Smt Kamrul Nisha (PW 2) and Smt Khatoon (PW 3). These three witnesses have been named as eyewitnesses in the first information report itself and they have consistently supported the prosecution case disclosed in the first information report.
6. All the three witnesses were examined by Dr. K.K Kesari (PW 7) who found the following injuries on their person:
Usman Ali (PW 1)
(1) A lacerated wound sized ¾ cm × ½ cm × muscle-deep on the back of right hand lies 2½ cm below the right wrist, hard clot present.
(2) A lacerated wound sized 3½ cm × ¼ cm × skin-deep on the left side of back lies 16 cm above the left bone of wrist and 15 cm outer side from the midline of back, hard clot present.
(3) Contusion sized 3 cm × 2 cm on the left buttock lies 7 cm below the left bone of wrist. Reddish in colour.
Smt Kamrul Nisha (PW 2)
(1) An abrasion sized 2 cm × 1 cm on the front of right knee. Hard clot present.
(2) An abrasion sized ¼ cm × ¼ cm on the back of right elbow. Hard clot present.
(3) A lacerated wound sized 1 cm × ½ cm × skin-deep on the right side of abdomen lies 11 cm from the umbilicus. Hard clot present.
Smt Khatoon (PW 3)
(1) Abrasion sized 2 cm × 1 cm on the back of right forearm lies 6 cm above the right wrist.
(2) An incised wound sized 1 cm × ½ cm × skin-deep on the right side of chest 5 cm outer side from xiphisternum and 12 cm above the umbilicus. Hard clot present.
(3) An incised wound sized 2 cm × ½ cm × skin-deep on the right side of chin lies 1 cm below the lower lip. Hard clot is present between the edges of wound.
(4) An incised wound sized 1.5 cm × 1 cm × skin-deep on the right side of forehead lies 2 cm above the middle of right eyebrow. Hard clot is present between the edges of wound.
(5) An incised wound sized 1 cm × ½ cm × skin-deep on the right eyebrow lies 4-5 cm outer side from root of nose. Hard clot is present between the edges of wound.
(6) An incised wound sized 6 cm × 2 cm × maxillary bone is broken and actual depth is not clear whether it is … or buccal cavity-deep. Therefore, referred to District Hospital for expert opinion. X-ray of the injured areas. Hard clot is present.
(7) Contusion sized 1.5 cm × 1 cm on the right shoulder joint. Reddish in colour.
7. Dr. R.D Tripathy (PW 4) who held post-mortem examination on the dead body of Liyakat Ali found following injuries on his person:
(1) Punctured wound 1.5 cm × 0.5 cm × cavity-deep on the right side of neck 3 cm above right, 4 cm lateral to midline. Semi-oral in shape, irregular edges. Lacerated blood underneath in supraclavicular area of adjacent part of neck.
(2) Incised wound 2 cm × 0.5 cm × muscle-deep on the right pectoral region 8 cm below right clavicle obliquely directed clean-cut edges. Latering laterally.
(3) Incised wound 3.6 cm × 2 cm × muscle-deep on the right on the upper third, upper part anterior aspect 4 cm below right shoulder joint. Transversally directed. Clean-cut, edges latering laterally.
(4) Incised wound 2 cm × 0.5 cm × muscle-deep on the left hand index finger. Clean-cut edges.
(5) Punctured wound 1.5 cm × 0.5 cm × abdominal cavity-deep on the left abdomen 3.5 cm below and lateral to umbilicus at 5 o'clock position. Lacerated in a rectangular shape. Lacerated margins.
(6) Multiple abrasions in the area of 19 cm × 2 cm on the right leg below right knee joint in No. 5 of varying size from 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm to 2 cm × 1 cm.
(7) Punctured wound 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm × bone-deep on the right scapular area and to spine of scapular of vertebral border. Slit like. Lacerated margins.
8. In the opinion of doctor injuries on the deceased as well as three prosecution witnesses could have been caused by ballam, knife and lathi which according to the prosecution case are the weapons used in the present case.
9. The evidence of these three eyewitnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence. The High Court has committed an error of record in observing that the injuries found on these three witnesses are not consistent with the prosecution case rather from the injuries noted above, it would be clear that the prosecution case is supported by medical evidence. Further their evidence could not have been thrown out merely because they were family members rather they were most competent persons being the inmates of the house especially when the occurrence had taken place in the house itself in the dead of night. This being the position, we do not find any reason to disbelieve their evidence. In our view, the trial court was quite justified in placing reliance upon the evidence of these three eyewitnesses and the High Court has committed an error in rejecting the same.
10. Lastly, the High Court has committed an error in recording acquittal also on the ground that the names of the accused persons were not mentioned in the inquest report. In our view, this hardly could be a ground to acquit the accused persons. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the trial court was quite justified in convicting the respondents and the judgment of acquittal rendered by the High Court suffers from the vice of perversity, as such the same is liable to be set aside.
11. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed, impugned order of acquittal rendered by the High Court is set aside and convictions of the respondents recorded by the trial court are restored. Bail bonds of the respondents, who are on bail, are cancelled and they are directed to be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining period of sentence for which compliance report must be sent to this Court within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order by the trial court.
Alert