http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  806 of 2006

PETITIONER: SHAKEEL

RESPONDENT: STATE OF M.P

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/01/2008

BENCH: P.P. Naolekar & Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R

1.      Twelve accused persons including the appellant stood charged with  offence under Sections 148, 307/149 and 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code.   Out of the twelve accused persons, the Sessions Judge acquitted 6 accused  persons and convicted 6 accused persons.  Each convicted accused was  sentenced for two years’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section  148 IPC and fine of Rs.500/-; five years’ rigorous imprisonment for offence  under Section 307/149 IPC and fine of Rs.500/-; and 3 years’ rigorous  imprisonment for offence under Section 324/149 IPC and fine of Rs.500/-. In  case of default of payment of fine, the accused persons shall undergo  additional rigorous imprisonment for 6 months under Section 148 IPC, one  year under Section 307/149 IPC and 6 months under Section 324/149 IPC. 2.      The convicted accused persons filed an appeal before the High Court  and the High Court by its judgment dated 10.2.2005 affirmed the conviction  and sentence of all the six accused persons but reduced their sentence under  Section 307/149 IPC from 5 years to 4 years. 3.      The present appeal by way of special leave has been filed by accused  Shakeel only.  4.      The case of the prosecution is that on 8.4.1997 at about 4.00 p.m. when  complainant Bharat Kumar (PW.1) with his mother Leelabai (PW.2), brother  Naresh Kumar and father were sitting in their house at Village Tagore Bedi,  all the accused persons attacked them and as a result of which they suffered  injuries.  In support of its case, the prosecution had examined PW.1 Bharat  Kumar (complainant) and PW.2 Leelabai.  PW.1 in his statement has not  named Shakeel as the person who  had attacked him.  In paragraph 16 of his  deposition he has stated that when he reached at the Police Station, Shakeel  was standing there and informed PW.1 that first he (PW.1) should get his  brother treated and thereafter  should lodge a report.  PW.2 Leelabai in her  statement has admitted that she did not know any of the accused persons and  the name of Shakeel was informed to her by her son. There is no test  identification parade conducted by the police to lend support to the  identification of the accused persons.  In the absence of any evidence against  Shakeel, the Sessions Judge and the High Court have wrongly convicted the  accused-appellant.   5.      Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is  allowed.  The judgment of the trial court as well as that of the High Court are  set aside.  The accused appellant shall be set at liberty immediately, if not  required in any other case.