The State Of Uttar Pradesh Home ... vs Wasif Haider

2.   Brief facts as unfolded from the prosecution story are that, while the complainant (P.W.2­ S.O., P.S. Moolganj, Kanpur) along   with   other   police   personnel   was   on   duty   at   the   parade crossing, he came to know that a crowd of around 200­300 rioters were   causing   rampage   and   destruction   at   the   Chaubey   Gola Temple. Immediately, the complainant accompanied by the police force   and   A.D.M   (Finance   and   Revenue)­Sri   Chandra   Prakash Pathak   (hereinafter   referred   as   “the   deceased”),   and   half   a section   of   Provincial   Armed   Constabulary   [“PAC”]   proceeded towards   scene   of   occurrence.   Admittedly,   when   the   deceased along with police personnel were at a distance of around 100­150 paces   from   Sunehri   Mosque   on   the   Nai   Sarak,   rioters   started 2 firing   upon   them   resultantly   injuring   the   deceased   and   his orderly,   Ram   Chandra.   In   order   to   control   the   law   and   order situation, the police were compelled to fire in their defense. When the police party reached the mosque, the rioters had already fled away. Subsequently, when the police party reached Chaubey Gola Temple   where   rioters   had  already   looted  some  houses  and had also committed arson. In the meanwhile, the police also received the information that the deceased had succumbed to the gunshot injuries in the hospital. Finally, the F.I.R., Case Crime No. 7 of 2001   came   to   be   registered  at   8.05P.M.   on   16.03.2001   against 200­300 unknown rioters.

4.   On   02.08.2001   accused   no.   2­respondent   (Mumtaz alias  Maulana)   was   brought  to Kanpur  by  the Delhi  police. On 04.08.2001,   accused   no.   1­respondent   (Wasif   Haider)   was 3 arrested. Accused no. 3­respondent (Hazi Atiq) and accused no. 4­respondent   (Safat   Rasool)   were   arrested   on   17.09.2001   and 18.09.2001   respectively   and   thereafter   the   Test   Identification Parade (hereinafter referred to as “TIP”) was held on 27.09.2001 at   District   Jail,   Kanpur.   Subsequent   to   the   completion   of investigation, the charge­sheet was submitted.

5.   The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It is pertinent to note that in the statements made by the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They claimed that there existed an inordinate delay in conducting the TIP, as  this time period was used by the prosecution witnesses to see them at their homes or places   of   work   to   mark   them   carefully   for   the   subsequent identification.  They stressed on the fact that they were not kept concealed   in   a   veil  (baparda).   The   accused­respondents   have further stated  that,  prior to the TIP, the police had taken their photographs   and   had   shown   it   to   the   other   witnesses.  This creates a considerable doubt about the genuineness of the TIP. Further,   the   accused­respondents   have   alleged   that,   they   were wrongfully roped in the case when the police failed to trace the real culprits. The accused respondents have also put forth that, although they had clear antecedents, but they were implicated in 4 the crime falsely.

6.   By   order   dated   22.01.2004,   the   trial   court,   while relying upon the prosecution version, rejected the defence story and convicted the accused persons as under,  ACCUSED CHARGES CONVICTION S. 302/ 149 IPC Life Imprisonment [1]. Wasif Haider S. 307/ 149 IPC RI for 5 years [A­1] [2]. Mumtaz alias S. 148 RI for 1 year Maulana [A­2] [3]. Hazi Atiq [A­3] S. 7 Criminal Law RI for 3 months [4]. Safat Rasool Amendment Act [A­4] All   of   them   were   acquitted   for   the   charges under Sections 395, 397, 436 and 153A IPC.

13.   We   concur   with   the   aforesaid   order   of   acquittal rendered by the High Court, as the present case is ridden with multiple investigative laches and flaws which goes to the root of the matter. We shall be addressing the same in seriatim.

18.   Fourthly,   as   regards   to   the   place   of   incident,   the prosecution failed to ascertain the same with precision. While the F.I.R.   reveals   the   place   of  occurrence  to be in  front  of  Sunehri Masjid,   P.W.2,   the   complainant   later   improved   over   his   earlier statement   and   stated   that,   the   incident   actually   took   place   in Noorani   Masjid.   On   the   contrary,   the   two   site   plans   show   the 11 place of incident to be Noorani Masjid.

25.   Although   we   acknowledge   the   gravity   of   the   offence alleged against the accused­respondents and the unfortunate fact of   a   senior   official  losing   his  life  in   furtherance  of   his  duty   we cannot overlook the fact that the lapses in the investigation have disabled the prosecution to prove the culpability of the accused. The  accused  cannot  be  expected to relinquish his innocence at the hands of an inefficacious prosecution, which is ridden with investigative deficiencies. The benefit of doubt arising out of such inefficient investigation, must be bestowed upon the accused.

27.   We   are   also   not   inclined   to   interfere   with   the concurrent   order   of   acquittal   for   offences   committed   under   the Arms   Act   and   Explosive   Substances   Act   presently   before   us   in 14 Criminal Appeal no. 1706 of 2014.

28.   The   appeals   are   accordingly   dismissed.   Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.