STATE OF HARYANA versus MOHD. YUNUS & ORS.

STATE OF HARYANA versus MOHD. YUNUS & ORS.

The conviction of Mohd. Jamil (A2) for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was set aside because the principal eyewitnesses had been disbelieved in a later trial for making contradictory statements, twisting facts and making improvements; absent reliable eyewitness evidence and with recoveries not proved, it was not safe to sustain a murder conviction. However, the conviction and sentence of A2 under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC was maintained. The acquittal of Mohd. Yunus (A1) under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was upheld and the State's challenge dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: State of Haryana; Accused/respondent (a1): Mohd. Yunus; Accused/appellant (a2): Mohd. Jamil; Accused/deceased (a3): Ghasita; Accused (a4): Akhtar Hussain
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (and Criminal Revision) / Final Judgment by the Supreme Court on Appeals From High Court Judgments
Outcome
Criminal Appeal No.1308 of 2012 partly allowed; Criminal Appeal No.1307 of 2012 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Homicide (section 302 Ipc), Grievous/simple Hurt (section 323/325 Ipc), Eyewitness Credibility and Corroboration, Recovery of Weapons, Delay in Registration of FIR, Appeal Against Conviction and Acquittal
Criminal Law Evidence Law Procedure Under Cr.p.c. Homicide (section 302 Ipc) Grievous/simple Hurt (section 323/325 Ipc) Eyewitness Credibility and Corroboration Recovery of Weapons Delay in Registration of FIR +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Haryana

Appellant

Mohd. Yunus

Accused/respondent (a1)

Mohd. Jamil

Accused/appellant (a2)

Ghasita

Accused/deceased (a3)

Akhtar Hussain

Accused (a4)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (and Criminal Revision) / Final Judgment by the Supreme Court on Appeals From High Court Judgments

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was safe to convict an accused for offence under Section 302 IPC on the basis of testimony of an eyewitness who has been branded untrustworthy because of contradictory statements and improvements
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting A1 under Section 302/34 while convicting and sentencing A2 under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction of Mohd. Jamil (A2) for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was set aside because the principal eyewitnesses had been disbelieved in a later trial for making contradictory statements, twisting facts and making improvements; absent reliable eyewitness evidence and with recoveries not proved, it was not safe to sustain a murder conviction. However, the conviction and sentence of A2 under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC was maintained. The acquittal of Mohd. Yunus (A1) under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was upheld and the State's challenge dismissed.

Court Disposition

Criminal Appeal No.1308 of 2012 partly allowed; Criminal Appeal No.1307 of 2012 dismissed.

Orders

  • Conviction of Mohd. Jamil (A2) under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC set aside
  • Conviction and sentence of Mohd. Jamil (A2) under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC maintained