Momin Khan
CASE BRIEF- Jurisdiction
- Nationalities
- Indian
- Case Title
- Jaikam v. State of Uttar Pradesh
- Age Group at Offence
- Adult (18 to 59)
- Gender
- Male
- Religious Group at Offence
- Islam
- Vulnerable/ Marginalised Group
- Minorities: Religion
- 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: 2016
- Method of Execution
- Hanging
- Rights Allegedly Violated
- Fair Trial and Due Process: Excessive and disproportionate punishment
- Fair Trial and Due Process: Fair investigation & fair disclosure
- Nature of Offences for Death Penalty
- Murder: Multiple Victims
- Expert Evidence
- Forensic/Medical evidence: Fingerprint/palmprint/footprint
- Case Background (300 words max)
"The case against the accused persons is that they assaulted and killed several of their relatives, including their father, mother, brother, sister-in-law, nephew and niece, and then fled the house.
The key circumstances against the accused are: eyewitness testimonies; presence of independent witnesses during the incident (villagers who had gathered around the house); recovery (of weapons) recorded in the arrest-cum-recovery memo in the presence of public witnesses; recovery (of blood-stained clothes) discovered by independent witnesses; fimgerprints taken from these recovered items; motive (deterioration of relations among the family and division of respective properties).
The trial court convicted the accused persons and the wife of one of the accused, and awarded the death sentence, on 11.01.2016. The High Court acquitted the wife but maintained the order of conviction and sentence for the accused, on 18.05.2018. The appeal before the Supreme Court was filed to challenge their conviction, on the grounds that the wife had been acquitted by the High Court, while the accused’s death sentence had been confirmed. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused on 15.12.2021.
This is an important case, as it emphasises the importance of subjecting the evidence of ‘related’ or ‘interested’ witnesses to greater care and caution, generally through independent corroboration, particularly if a death sentence is awarded. It has has good language on corroborating the reliability of the eyewitness testimonies against a site plan that was submitted, and held that they could not have witnessed what they claimed to. "
- Defence Arguments (200 words max.)
Witness testimonies
- Eyewitness’ testimony revealed a complete lack of knowledge about the family’s holdings.
- The site plans submitted by the prosecution placed serious doubt on whether the eyewitnesses had actually witnessed the incident.
- None of the eyewitnesses informed the police about the incident by calling them in the immediate aftermath.
- No independent witness was examined, despite the presumption that a large crowd gathered in the incident’s aftermath. Recovery Evidence: Impossible for Accused 3 to keep his bloodstained clothes at Accused 1’s house after the incident, as they were not members of the family. Forensic Evidence
- The fingerprint expert’s report was not placed on record by the prosecution.
- The forensic science laboratory’s reports were inconclusive. Motive: The partition of properties, and the two branches of the family had taken place long ago, and there was no evidence to show enmity between the two branches. No fair investigation/trial by lower courts
- Co-accused acquitted by the High Court on the basis of the same evidence and facts.
- The trial judge rejected the defence’s application for producing the Call Data Records of the eyewitnesses, not allowing for a verification of the prosecution’s case. Excessive punishment without justification: No engagement with issues considering the possibility of reform/rehabilitation or any alternative punishment.
- Judgement with Headnotes (200 words max)
Discrepancies in eyewitness evidence cited by the defence was accepted: Noted that the prosecution’s version contradicted the eyewitness’s testimony regarding the lodging of the First Information Report and subsequent arrests. Noted that the prosecution failed to explain their version of the accused’s escape and did not name or examine the allegded informer who provided information regarding the whereabouts of the accused after the incident. Forensic Evidence: Noted that the prosecution did not place relevant reports on record, including the fingerprint expert. Forensic science lab report being inconclusive weakened the prosecution’s case. Recovery evidence: No corroboration on recovery of evidence by police; recoveries were made from an open field, accessible to all, and thus not reliable. Motive:Prosecution failed to prove any motive. Criticism of the trial court and High Court’s judgements
- Held that the trial court’s assumptions of the ‘pre-planned’ nature of the murders were entirely baseless and not substantiated by any evidence.
- Criticised the HC’s non-engagement with the requirement to examine an independent witness, for dismissing the need for the prosecution to prove motive and for differentiating the accounts of arrest of the accused from the wife (who was acquitted), thus placing a burden on the accused even before the prosecution could prove the case ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.
- Legal Representation Received
- Second Appeal: Pro bono
- Pre-trial: Unknown
- Trial: Unknown
- Appeal: Unknown
- Legislation Related to the Offence(s)
"Section 313, Section 366 (1) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC);
Section 4, Section 25 - Indian Arms Act, 1878; Section 26, Section 27, Section 106 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 34, Section 302 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
- Judicial Precedents
Piara Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab; Anil Phukan vs. State of Assam; Vadivelu Thevar vs. The State of Madras; Pulukuri Kottaya and others vs. Emperor; The State of Rajasthan vs. Teja Singh and Ors.; Joydeb Patra and Ors. vs. State of West Bengal; Sucha Singh vs. State of Punjab; Vikramjit Singh vs. State of Punjab; The State of Punjab vs. Jagir Singh and Ors.; Anand Ramachandra Chougule and Ors. vs. Sidarai Laxman Chougala and Ors.; Sunil Kundu and Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand
- Language of Case Materials
- English