Case: State of U.P Vs. Sahrunnisa &amp; Another

to 12:30 and wondering as to why the Azaan was being made he and one Shafi reached the house of A-1. He actually claimed that the daughter of A-1, Shakila (A-2) was beating one boy with a pipe and at that time Siraj Khan and wife of Abdul Hafiz Khan were also present. He has attributed a specific role to Abdul Hafiz Khan by claiming that he strangulated the boy and the boy died and he got frightened and, therefore, ran away. The witness, therefore, has not assigned any role to the respondents herein, excepting that they were present. There is hardly anything in his cross-examination which raises any doubt about the role played by A-1 and A-2 and all that can be said that he merely referred to the presence of the respondents herein. The other witness was Kamal Singh, Investigating Officer (PW-7) who had visited the house after registering the offence. His claim is that when he reached he saw the dead bodies of two boys lying on the cot and A-1 and A-2 were in the process of strangulating the third boy. He however, claimed that the two respondents were holding the legs of the third boy Shaukat Ali. He arrested the accused. Thus, only this witness had attributed a specific role to the respondents. 8. Ordinarily, there was no reason not to accept this version against the present respondents. However, the High Court has noted that he had not mentioned in the Panchnama that the two respondents had also held the legs of Shaukat Ali. In the absence of any role attributed to these respondents by Ram Hujur Yadav (PW-3), Habib Ullah (PW-4) the High Court did not feel safe in accepting the version of this witness, particularly, against the respondents and, therefore, the High Court has awarded the benefit of doubt to these two witnesses. The High Court also reasoned further that it may be that these two respondents were afraid of the first accused and, therefore, they were mere mute spectators to the sordid drama that was being performed there. 9. There can be no dispute that these two respondents were present and indeed their mere presence by itself cannot be of criminal nature in the sense that by their mere presence a common intention can not be attributed to them. Indeed, they have not done anything. No overt act is attributed to them though it was tried to be claimed by one of the witnesses that when the police party reached that they were standing on one leg. This also appears to be a tall claim without any basis and the High Court has rightly not believed this story which was tried to be introduced.10. The question, therefore, is as to whether by their mere presence these two respondents could be attributed with the common intention. The answer is clearly in the negative. There can be no dispute that the spectre of superstition had affected the psyche of all these accused persons. The case of the Shahrunnisa (A-3) is one of a Mohammedan lady whose husband and daughter were overpowered by the superstitious belief. The force of the superstition was so overpowering that A-1 and A-2 probably were convinced of the non-existent supernatural powers of A-2. A poor Mohammedan lady coming from the humble background, whose husband and whose daughter claimed these powers could not have ordinarily opposed which was being done and, therefore, had to see with open eyes the death of her two sons. We do not think that her not opposing the gruesome acts speaks in favour of her nurturing the common intention. The High Court was undoubtedly right that she could be afraid of A-1 and A-2 has she herself might be under the superstitious psyche.11. It is bane of the Indian society that in search of some worldly gains, the society becomes superstitious and blindly follows the path which leads only to desolation. Number of lives are lost and number of families are destroyed because of this false belief in the so-called black magic and so-called supernatural powers. All this is a result of the total lack of education and human avarice. It is for this reason that we agree with the findings of the High Court. Even the case of the 4th respondent is no different. True it is that he was a police Constable, but the fact is that he has not committed any overt acts. Again it is his own wife who claimed all the supernatural powers and went on to commit the horrible acts of un-paralleled cruelty against the two innocent boys. True it is that it was his duty to stop the crime from being committed but inaction on his part would not by itself make him join the company of the guilty accused. This is apart from the fact that he has not been asked about his duty in his examination. In fact, the whole prosecution is strangely silent about the aspect of Section 221 IPC nor was such charge ever levelled against him.12. We are dealing with an appeal against acquittal where the law so far crystallized desists us from fact finding exercise. Though, the whole evidence is open for us to appreciate the finding of acquittal that too by the High Court has to be given its own weight. We have, therefore, gone through the evidence ourselves only to find that the evidence against the two respondents is not clinching enough and it cannot be said that the finding of the High Court is perverse or such as cannot be reached after reasonable and careful survey of the evidence. A suspicion by itself cannot take place of the proof muchless in an appeal against acquittal. The law requires hard facts duly proved by admissible and truthful evidence. In a case where the High Court has recorded the finding of acquittal giving benefit of doubt, unless such a finding was an impossible one, the interference at this stage is not feasible.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]The answer is clearly in the negative. There can be no dispute that the spectre of superstition had affected the psyche of all these accused persons. The case of the Shahrunnisais one of a Mohammedan lady whose husband and daughter were overpowered by the superstitious belief. The force of the superstition was so overpowering thatprobably were convinced of thesupernatural powers ofA poor Mohammedan lady coming from the humble background, whose husband and whose daughter claimed these powers could not have ordinarily opposed which was being done and, therefore, had to see with open eyes the death of her two sons. We do not think that her not opposing the gruesome acts speaks in favour of her nurturing the common intention. The High Court was undoubtedly right that she could be afraid ofhas she herself might be under the superstitious psyche.11. It is bane of the Indian society that in search of some worldly gains, the society becomes superstitious and blindly follows the path which leads only to desolation. Number of lives are lost and number of families are destroyed because of this false belief in theblack magic andsupernatural powers. All this is a result of the total lack of education and human avarice. It is for this reason that we agree with the findings of the High Court. Even the case of the 4th respondent is no different. True it is that he was a police Constable, but the fact is that he has not committed any overt acts. Again it is his own wife who claimed all the supernatural powers and went on to commit the horrible acts ofcruelty against the two innocent boys. True it is that it was his duty to stop the crime from being committed but inaction on his part would not by itself make him join the company of the guilty accused. This is apart from the fact that he has not been asked about his duty in his examination. In fact, the whole prosecution is strangely silent about the aspect of Section 221 IPC nor was such charge ever levelled against him.12. We are dealing with an appeal against acquittal where the law so far crystallized desists us from fact finding exercise. Though, the whole evidence is open for us to appreciate the finding of acquittal that too by the High Court has to be given its own weight. We have, therefore, gone through the evidence ourselves only to find that the evidence against the two respondents is not clinching enough and it cannot be said that the finding of the High Court is perverse or such as cannot be reached after reasonable and careful survey of the evidence. A suspicion by itself cannot take place of the proof muchless in an appeal against acquittal. The law requires hard facts duly proved by admissible and truthful evidence. In a case where the High Court has recorded the finding of acquittal giving benefit of doubt, unless such a finding was an impossible one, the interference at this stage is not feasible.