New Delhi: A two-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court Thursday delivered a split verdict in a nine-year-old case involving the fatal shooting of a senior National Investigation Agency (NIA) officer Tanzeel Ahmed and his wife in their car in Bijnor.
While Justice Rajiv Gupta ruled in favour of the acquittal of the accused, Justice Harvir Singh partially upheld the May 2022 order of the Bijnor trial court, convicting Raiyyan while altering his death sentence to life imprisonment. Another accused, Munir, died before the case was decided by the Allahabad HC.
Owing to the divergent views, the matter has now been referred to Chief Justice Arun Bhansali, who will constitute a special bench of three judges to re-hear the case.
Justice Gupta cited reasons such as belated testimonies of the witnesses, and one of them turning hostile. He also cited previous personal enmity between the witnesses and the accused. However, Justice Singh relied on the crucial eyewitness, the couple’s daughter, who was in the car at the time of the incident.
Also Read: ‘No coercion plaint initially in FIR.’ Allahabad HC flags ‘strange facts’ in Sultanpur ‘conversion’
The case
The incident happened in April 2016 when NIA officer Tanzeel Ahmed and his wife Farzana had gone to attend a wedding in the Kasba Seohara town of the Bijnor district of Uttar Pradesh.
As they were driving back from the venue in their car, two bike-borne assialants—Raiyyan and Munir—overtook their car and fired multiple shots at them. Tanzeel died on the spot, while Farzana sustained fatal injuries, succumbing 10 days later.
Tanzeel at that time was posted as a deputy superintendent of police in the NIA, and was investigating several terror-related cases.
The trial court examined 19 witnesses including Tanzeel’s brother Raghib Masood, eyewitness Hasib, who confirmed the presence of the accused at the spot and the firing incident, and also the daughter of the late officer.
One of the witnesses, Inamul Haq, turned hostile during the trial after recording a statement earlier, confirming that the incident took place. Haq was present at the wedding party.
In May 2022, the sessions court convicted Raiyyan and Munir of murder and criminal act done jointly with a common intention, and sentenced them to death. It also imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh on them. They moved the Allahabad HC against this order.
Reasons for acquittal
Justice Gupta noted that the defence highlighted significant omissions and contradictions in the testimony of the eyewitnesses. For instance, the late officer’s brother and daughter had not revealed the assailants’ names at the time of registering the FIR.
However, during cross-examination, the two disclosed Raiyyan’s name, raising doubts in Justice Gupta’s mind about their statement’s reliability. The unanimous explanation offered by these witnesses for this was the fear and threat. But this argument failed to convince Justice Gupta.
He said the prosecution’s credibility was shaky, and that their version of the story was highly doubtful.
Notably, one of the eyewitnesses told the court that his testimony was recorded under police pressure and denied willingly saying it.
“This testimony of the aforesaid witness also does not lend any credence to the prosecution story, which further creates a serious dent in it and makes it difficult to believe,” Justice Gupta said.
Significantly, Justice Gupta noted that during the course of the investigation, which went on for a few months, there were repeated opportunities for the daughter and the brother of the officer to disclose the names of the accused.
For instance, the judge noted, TV interviews were given by the witnesses, but not once did they whisper about any involvement of Raiyyan.
The only explanation, given by them for not naming the accused-assailants during the course of investigation by all the three witnesses, is that on account of fear, Justice Gupta said, adding that the accused were in jail continuously.
“I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt… The accused-appellant is acquitted of the charges, for which he has been tried and convicted,” he said, setting aside the 2022 order of conviction by the trial court.
Why Justice Singh upheld conviction
Relying on a Supreme Court judgement, Justice Singh said if the evidence adduced by the witness has a ring of truth to it, then the discrepancies, inconsistencies and infirmities cannot be a ground for rejecting such evidence.
Noting that one of the witnesses who corroborated the shooting incident which led to Tanzeel’s death was his daughter, the court said the manner in which she gave the details of the incident “clearly” showed that she was the eyewitness and saw her father and mother being shot by the assailants with an intention to kill.
The defence had not been able to shake her credibility, the judge added.
He also rejected the accused’s argument that her testimony was unreliable, and said that being the daughter of the late NIA officer, she was under constant fear and threat, right from the beginning of the incident until the conclusion of the trial.
Justice Singh also noted that Munir had a history of criminal and nefarious activities. “As far as fear and threat are concerned, nothing more is required to be proved,” said the judge.
It is the duty of the court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring that they utterly destroy the confidence in the witness, Justice Singh ruled.
Who else could be a better witness than the children of tender age, sitting with their parents and witnessing the shooting of their parents by the assailant, he said.
The judge added these witnesses gave vivid details of the description and the manner in which the incident took place, and by no stretch of imagination, their testimonies could be said to be cooked up.
All of this, along with the post-mortem report, and the details of injuries of the victims, supported the prosecution’s case, corroborating the date, place and manner of the incident firmly and beyond reasonable doubt, Justice Singh concluded.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)
Also Read: Can a converted Christian claim Scheduled Caste benefits? HC takes up question on religious identity