JAIKAM KHAN versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JAIKAM KHAN versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

P.W.1 and P.W.2, being related/interested witnesses, were neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable; their testimony could not alone establish that the accused murdered six persons located at different places in the house, and material inconsistencies, non-examination of independent villagers, problematic chronology of arrests, and unreliable recoveries meant the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; convictions and death sentences of accused Nos.1,3 and 4 were therefore unsustainable and set aside; the appeal by P.W.1 against acquittal of accused No.2 was dismissed.

Parties
Accused No.1 / Appellant: Momin Khan; Accused No.3 / Appellant: Jaikam Khan; Accused No.4 / Appellant: Sajid; First Informant / Appellant (p.w.1): Ali Sher Khan; Accused No.2: Nazra; Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court Against Convictions and Death Sentences Confirmed by the High Court
Outcome
Appeals by accused Nos.1,3 and 4 allowed; convictions and death sentences set aside; appeal by P.W.1 dismissed
Legal Topics
Murder, Death Penalty, Related/interested Witnesses, Corroboration, Recovery and Section 27 Evidence Act, Motive, Site Plan Evidence, Section 313 Cr.p.c.
Criminal Law Evidence Procedure Murder Death Penalty Related/interested Witnesses Corroboration Recovery and Section 27 Evidence Act +3 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Momin Khan

Accused No.1 / Appellant

Jaikam Khan

Accused No.3 / Appellant

Sajid

Accused No.4 / Appellant

Ali Sher Khan

First Informant / Appellant (p.w.1)

Nazra

Accused No.2

State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court Against Convictions and Death Sentences Confirmed by the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ocular testimony of related/interested witnesses (P.W.1 and P.W.2) was reliable enough to sustain convictions and death sentences
  2. 2 Whether recoveries (weapons and bloodstained clothes) and arrest chronology provided reliable corroboration
  3. 3 Admissibility of statements under Section 27 Evidence Act

Ratio Decidendi

P.W.1 and P.W.2, being related/interested witnesses, were neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable; their testimony could not alone establish that the accused murdered six persons located at different places in the house, and material inconsistencies, non-examination of independent villagers, problematic chronology of arrests, and unreliable recoveries meant the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; convictions and death sentences of accused Nos.1,3 and 4 were therefore unsustainable and set aside; the appeal by P.W.1 against acquittal of accused No.2 was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals by accused Nos.1,3 and 4 allowed; convictions and death sentences set aside; appeal by P.W.1 dismissed

Orders

  • Criminal Appeal Nos. 440-441 of 2020 (Momin Khan), 434-436 of 2020 (Jaikam Khan) and 437-439 of 2020 (Sajid) are allowed
  • Momin Khan (Accused No.1), Jaikam Khan (Accused No.3) and Sajid (Accused No.4) are directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other offence