Previous 5 / 35 Next

and Meerut and finally were admitted to the Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital, Delhi (RML Hospital). 14. On 06.08.2014, early in the morning at around 6.10 am all the three injured were brought to the casualty ward of the RML Hospital by Shafiq Ahmad (not examined). At 9.00 am, PW-1 (first informant) lodged a First Information Report with the Najibabad Police Station. In the FIR, the first informant alleged that it was the appellant-convict, who set his own son and two real brothers on fire, while they were sleeping on account of personal animosity. 15. The dying declaration of deceased Irshad was recorded on 07.08.2014 by the A.S.I. at the RML Hospital. Irshad passed away on 09.08.2014. In the same way, the dying declaration of Islamuddin was recorded on 07.08.2014. Islamuddin passed away on 18.08.2014. It appears that the dying declaration of Naushad could not be recorded. Naushad also passed away on 18.08.2014. The two dying declarations were videographed in the mobile of the A.S.I. 16. On the strength of the FIR, the investigation was undertaken and on conclusion, the chargesheet came to be filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnore, for the offences enumerated above, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 17. On 06.01.2015, the Additional District and Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 436, 302 and 326-A respectively of the IPC. The accused did not admit the charge and claimed to be tried. 5

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Irfan @ Naka

CASE BRIEF

Jurisdiction

India

Nationalities

Indian

Case Title: Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Age at Offence: 50

Age Group at Offence: Adult (18 to 59)

Gender: Male

Religious Group at Offence: Islam

Vulnerable/ Marginalised Group

Minorities: Religion
Socio-economic Status

Jurisdiction - Geolocation

Latitude: 20.5937

Longitude: 78.9629

Jurisdiction - Geolocation (linked CASE BRIEF): India

Contributing TRP Partner

The Square Circle Clinic (India)

Latest Country's Death Penalty Status

Retentionist

Case Current Status: Closed: Acquitted

Year when sentenced to Death Row: 2010s: 2017

Method of Execution: Hanging

Rights Allegedly Violated

Fair Trial and Due Process: Fair investigation & fair disclosure

Nature of Offences for Death Penalty

Murder: Multiple Victims

Expert Evidence

Forensic/Medical evidence: Fire investigation/arson analysis
Forensic/Medical evidence: Medical examination (victim/accused, age determination etc)

Case Background (300 words max): The accused allegedly murdered 3 blood-relatives.

The key circumstances against the accused are: motive, eye-witnesses, and dying declarations of two victims.

The Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death. The High Court confirmed the conviction as well as the sentence. The Supreme Court however overturned the conviction.

The case is particularly relevant as the judgment outlines methods to evaluate the veracity of dying declarations.

Defence Arguments (200 words max.)

   The ocular evidence and dying declarations materially contradict each other

   The dying declarations cannot be relied upon as it was recorded by the Investigating Officer (and not the Executive Magistrate), and it is unclear whether the victims were in a condition to provide a dying declaration – Medico-Legal Case reports noted “no BP readable” and the victims had suffered 80-95% burns

Judgement with Headnotes (200 words max)

The Supreme Court, while acquitting the accused, held the following:

   The dying declarations and the eye-witness testimonies contradict each other (regarding the role and position of eye-witnesses) and hence neither form of evidence presented inspired confidence.

   A conviction based solely on a dying declaration is unsafe when its veracity is in doubt. In such cases, courts should seek corroborative evidence and carefully assess the available evidence and material before relying on the dying declaration

Legal Representation Received

Second Appeal: Pro bono
Appeal: State Legal Aid
Pre-trial: Unknown
Trial: Unknown

Legislation Related to the Offence(s): Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 161, 313, and 366 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 8 and 32 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 302, 326A, and 436

Judicial Precedents: Mst. Dalbir Kaur and Ors. vs. State of Punjab; Laxman vs. State of Maharashtra; Muthu Kutty and Ors. vs. State; Nallapati Sivaiah vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, Guntur, A.P.; Bhajju vs. State of M.P.; Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam; Dharm Das Wadhwani vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh