NDLI: Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr Vs. Mohd. Parvez Abdul Kayuum Etc

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Art 32 POTA S.4 evidence Safeguards provided under PIL IPC Confessional statement Murder and attempt to murder
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (15 of 2002) Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15 Referred Case 16 Referred Case 17 Referred Case 18 Referred Case 19 Referred Case 20 Referred Case 21 Referred Case 22 Referred Case 23 Referred Case 24 Referred Case 25 Referred Case 26 Referred Case 27 Referred Case 28 Referred Case 29 Referred Case 30 Referred Case 31 Referred Case 32 Referred Case 33 Referred Case 34 Referred Case 35 Referred Case 36 Referred Case 37
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Others
Headnote	ss. 120B, 302, 307, 201/120B – ss. 25(1)(B)(a), 27(1) and 5 of Arms Act, 1959 – s. 3(1), (2), (3) and (4) and s.4 of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA)– Murder and attempt to murder – In two different incidents – Investigation by CBI – In investigation found that both incidents were part of same transaction and in pursuance of common conspiracy with the motive to spread terror among Hindu community after post-Godhra riots – 4 accused absconded – Trial of 12 accused – Conviction by trial court – Appeal before High Court by accused as well as CBI – However, no appeal was filed by CBI against A-2, A-3 and A-12 – High Court set aside the conviction u/s. 302/120B IPC and s. 3(1) of POTA against all the accused, while upholding conviction under rest of the provisions – High Court also reduced the sentence imposed on A-2 – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: There is ample evidence as to conspiracy leading to attempt of murder of PW-39 and fatal attack on the deceased – Testimony of the eye-witness is reliable and is amply corroborated by medical evidence – High Court adopted hyper-technical approach in assessing the evidence of the eyewitness and was moved by minor discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake basic version of prosecution case – Prosecution case is also proved by forensic evidence – Call-records of the accused and recovery of the vehicle used for the offence and the weapon of offence also support prosecution case – Confessional statements made by the accused,which have been recorded after due compliance of s. 32, as well as of s. 52 of POTA also proves involvement of each and every accused in the criminal conspiracy – The confessional statements have been duly corroborated by other evidence – Conviction and sentence of A-1, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10 and A-11 u/ss. 3(1), (2) and (3) of POTA and s. 302 r/w s. 120B IPC is restored – So far as A-2, A-3 and A-12 are concerned, no further interference is required and their appeals are dismissed. s. 174A – Absconded accused – Prosecution for the charges of murder and attempt to murder under the provisions of IPC and POTA – Also prosecuted u/s. 174A – Trial court convicted him u/s. 174A and acquitted him of all the charges giving him benefit of doubt – High Court modified the sentence by imposing fine of Rs. 21 lakhs with default clause – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Trial court rightly extended benefit of doubt to the accused – Since the accused has already served sentence of 17 months and also paid the fine, no interference is required.Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002: s. 32 – Confessional statement – Safeguards provided under – Discussed. Evidence: Medical evidence and ocular evidence – Inconsistency between – Effect of – Held: In case of such inconsistency, ocular evidence will prevail – Ocular evidence can be discarded only when the medical evidence completely improbablises the ocular evidence. Book – Evidentiary value – Held: Opinion of a person is not in the realm of the evidence – The opinion in the book may be based upon surmises, conjectures and suppositions and hence has no evidentiary value. Newspapers and magazine reports – Evidentiary value – Held: Reports in the Newspapers and Magazines do not constitute evidence – A statement in the Newspaper is merely a heresay and therefore inadmissible in evidence in absence of maker of the statement deposing in court to have perceived the fact reported. Constitution of India: Art. 32 – Writ petition/PIL – By an organization – Seeking further investigation in a criminal/murder case – On the basis that the High Court had acquitted the accused in the criminal case doubting the investigation – Propriety and maintainability of – Held: PIL was filed when the criminal case was being heard in the Supreme Court – It is apparent that the accused persons were instrumental in filing the PIL – The appropriate course would have been an application seeking further or re-investigation by the persons concerned or by the writ petitioner – The motive for filing the PIL was oblique, improper and against discipline and it is clearly misuse of forum of PIL – Even on merit there is no material or ground worthy to direct further investigation or re-investigation in the case – The writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/-. Public Interest Litigation: Scope of – Held: Public Interest Litigation cannot be filed for personal gain or political motive or any oblique consideration – Unnecessary interference in criminal case against prosecution at times may cause serious prejudice to the accused also. Advocates: Professional ethics – Rule of Professional ethics framed by Bar Council of India – Part VI, Chapter II, Section I, r. 8 – Prohibition for advocate to represent the organization/institution of which the advocate is Executive Member –Appearance of advocate in the Court, in defiance of such Rule, would amount to professional misconduct.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 724
Petitioner	Central Bureau Of Investigation & Anr
Respondent	Mohd. Parvez Abdul Kayuum Etc
SCR	[2019] 8 S.C.R. 439
Judgement Date	2019-07-05
Case Number	140

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr Vs. Mohd. Parvez Abdul Kayuum Etc

Please Log-in to view this content

Abu Salem Abdul Qayyum Ansari Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

Yashwant Sinha & Ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Through Its Director & Anr.

Suryakant Baburao @ Ramrao Phad Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohd. Jalees Ansari and Others Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. P.s. Jayaprakash Etc. Etc.

M/s. Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd and Ors. Etc. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another Etc.

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna

Sunderlal Kanaiyalal Bhatija Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr Vs. Mohd. Parvez Abdul Kayuum Etc

Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr Vs. Mohd. Parvez Abdul Kayuum Etc

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Abu Salem Abdul Qayyum Ansari Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

Yashwant Sinha & Ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Through Its Director & Anr.

Suryakant Baburao @ Ramrao Phad Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohd. Jalees Ansari and Others Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. P.s. Jayaprakash Etc. Etc.

M/s. Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd and Ors. Etc. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another Etc.

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna

Sunderlal Kanaiyalal Bhatija Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr Vs. Mohd. Parvez Abdul Kayuum Etc