Case: Sheikh Hafeez Vs. State of Bihar

2. The story of the prosecution was that at about 10-30 p.m. on December 2, 1963, Ramdeo Sharma, P.W. 2, was stabbed with a dagger in his abdomen near the Paan shop of Yar Ali, P. W. 4; a quarrel had taken place between Ramdeo Sharma and Mohd. Ramzan; the appellant, Sheikh Hafeez, had caught hold of Ramdeo Sharma thus enabling Mohd. Ramzan to stab him with a dagger. This story has been accepted by the learned first Additional Judicial Commissioner of Chotanagpur, Ranchi, and the High Court.

Reasoning: 3. We have gone through the evidence led in the case and we find that neither the Additional judicial Commissioner nor the High Court have looked at the evidence carefully and they believed the witnesses who should not have been believed. They failed to notice material contradictions between the story as told by various alleged eye-witnesses. This has led to serious miscarriage of justice.On reading this evidence it will be clear that the alone went to the Paan shop and his uncle and others remained in the house. But in the next passage he gives slightly different story he statesthem Laldeo Sharma was standing at a distance of 4 yards from the Pan Shop. He is my cousin. Raja Rana Singh was with Laldeo Sharma. Raja Rana Rama Singh is not related to me but lives with us in that house. Ram Chandra Singh was standing at a distance of about 4 feet Laldeostory he tells sounds very improbable on the face of it. First, the reason for picking up quarrel seems rather strange, and secondly it seems quite strange that the appellant Hafeez remained standing there even after Ramdeo had been stabbed, and Mohd. Ramzan had run away. If he had taken the part ascribed to him we would have expected him to have run away and be chased or arrested by the bystanders.The main point in his story is that there was a quarrel, exchange of blows and Marpit between two parties. There is no explanation why the public prosecutor did not choose to ask for permission to cross-examine this witness.Even if his story is accepted his would only support the case of the defence that Hafiz had actually intervened to stop the two person from scuffling with each other. It was put to him, and it is proved by Sub-Inspector B. D. Sahay, P.W. 11, that P.W. 6 had not named the accused Ramzan and Hafeez before the police. P.W. 6, however, says that Ramchandra Singh and Raja Rana Ram Singh were present there but they had come on hearing the Hulla.13. It is extraordinary that although the police Havildar, P.W. 3, says that Laldeo Sharma came to him and pointed out Ramzan, in his evidence not a word is said about the chase.. It seems to us that the prosecution has not come up with the true story. The reason given for the start of the quarrel seems strange and nobody support that reason except P.W. 2. On this evidence it cannot be said that the suggestion of the appellant that he intervened in order to separate Ramdeo and Ramzan from fighting with each other is not probable. At any rate is seems to us that the prosecution has not given a true version of the origin of the fight or the fight itself and the appellant must be given the benefit of doubt.