Case Brief: Zafar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgement: 15th January, 2003
Bench: Justice S. Rajendra Babu & Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi
Facts of the Case: The deceased was going to a meat shop with his son. As they came close to the meat shop, the accused fired a shot from his country-made pistol in front of the house. The victim collapsed before the meat shop and succumbed to the injuries then and there. Though some people tried to overpower the accused, he reloaded his pistol and threatened them not to risk their lives. Thereafter, he fled away from the scene. After some time he got a complaint drafted by one Yusuf and handed over the same in the police station. The Head Constable registered the F.I.R. The sub-Inspector of police immediately went to the scene of offence, took custody of the dead body after having it photographed and prepared a Panchnama. Thereafter, the Senior Sub-Inspector, took over the investigation and seized the blood-stained earth, empty cartridge and blood stain. On search at the house of accused he found nothing incriminating. After the post mortem examination The Doctor noted that the injuries were caused by fire arm.
Judgement of the Case: Though it is a case of concurrent finding by both the Courts resting on the appreciation of evidence, the Supreme Court was of the view that the trial court and the High Court overlooked certain important aspects in the practical application of the rule of prudence and caution which the High Court itself proceeded to apply in appreciating the evidence of child witness. The High Court failed to take note of certain telling factors emerging from the evidence on record. There was no critical appraisal of the evidence of witnesses except focusing attention on two alleged contradictions of no significance and repelling the arguments based on them. Even if the finding that medical evidence does not go counter to the prosecution case is allowed to remain, there are other fatal infirmities in the evidence relied upon by the prosecution which were not adverted to by the High Court. In these circumstances, we are of the view that it is a fit case for interference under Art. 136. Accordingly, we hold that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and his conviction ought to be set aside. The Supreme Court therefore, allow the appeal and direct the authorities concerned to release the accused from the prison forthwith.
By: Shradha Arora, CNLU, Patna.