Central Bureau of
Investigation V. Azaz-ul-Haq & Ors.
CNR No.: DLCT110004942019
Case No.: CC
No. 110/19
Name of Judge: Shri
Arun Bharadwaj
Court: CBI
Court
Date of Judgment: 3rd
July, 2019
Background of the Case:
On
29th November, 2005 RamNaraian Rai, brother of Krishanad Rai, MLA
Mohammadabad, filed a complaint against MLA Mukhtar Ansari, Azaz and others for
murdering his brother and 6 others who was coming from village Siyari in his
vehicle after attending an inauguration program and to going to village Kanuwan
at around 2:45 pm.
Suddenly,
a car in which 7-8 persons were sitting came from opposite direction and
started firing at this vehicle as a result of which his brother and 6 others
died on the spot. He also stated that his brother was having political rivalry
with MLA Mukhtar Ansari and MP Afzal Ansari because he defeated Afzal Ansari in
the elections of the year 2002 and became MLA of the Mohmmadabad constituency
and since then he was receiving life threatening warnings from Afzal.
In
the meantime wife of the deceased namely Smt. Alka Rai filed a transferede
petition in Hon’ble apex court as a result the matter was transferred from the
trial court of Gazipur District, U.P. to Session Court, Delhi.
Statutes and provisions
involved:
1.
Section 120-B, 147, 149,
302, and 307 of Indian Penal Code.
2.
Section 161, 164, 437-A of Cr.P.C.
Issues Dealt:
1.
Whether the prosecution
has proved the charge framed against Ramu Mallah and Azaz-ul-Haq.
2. Whether
the prosecution has proved the charge framed against Mansoor Ansari including
the allegations that he had whisked away the assailants of Krishnanda Rai.
Facts of the Case:
On
29th November, 2005 Krishanad Rai, MLA Mohammadabad, was coming from
village Siyari in his vehicle after attending an inauguration program and to going
to village Kanuwan at around 2:45 pm and others were also sitting with him and
in the second vehicle in which complainant, RamNaraian Rai, was sitting with
other members.
At
around 2:45 pm, a car came from opposite direction in which 7-8 persons were sitting
started firing on the Krisnanda Rai, and others who were sitting with him in
that vehicle as a result of which his brother and 6 others died on the spot.
Krishnanand
Rai had political rivalry with MLA Mukhtar Ansari and MP Afzal Ansari. His brother had defeated Afzal Ansari to
become the MLA of Mohammadabad Constituency and since then they wanted to kill
him to establish their dominance for which attempts were made by them on the
life of late Krishnanand Rai earlier also. His brother had given intimation in
writing to the administration and the police and had demanded security and
because of this reason only a Government gunner named Nirbhay Narain Upadhaya,
used to be with him, but in the accident he also died with him.
So,
as a result of transfer petition by the wife of Krishnand Rai, the apex court
shifted the case from Gazipur District Court, UP to Session Court, Dehi.
Contentions of both the
Parties:
(a)
Counsel
on behalf of Petitioners: Shri A.K. Singh, Shri
Parth Awasthi.
It
was strongly contended by the counsel for petitioners that PW – 21 Prem Chandra
Rai where he stated that on 13th January, 2004, there were cross
cases registered against Mukhtar Ansari and against Krishnand Rai, and that PW-
21 was witness in FIR No.9A/2004.
It
was further contended by the senior counsel that there were threats to the life
of Krishnand Rai by Mukhtar Ansari and others and on the same issue he had
given a letter to Chief Minister of UP Mulayam Singh Yadav asking for more
security.
(b)
Counsel
on behalf to Respondents: Shri Surender Singh, Shri
R S Malik.
It
was contended by the respondents that during cross-examination of PW -20 it was
stated by him that his statements were based on the noting given to him by Ram
Chand Rai PW – 23 and he gave his statements under pressure and coercion.
In
the cross examination for Masood Ansari, the witness turned hostile and stated
that he had not seen any such incident which has been recorded allegedly by
CBI. PW- 23 during cross-examination stated that he had made false statement
before learned Magistrate under threat from Raju Tiwari and Ram Rattan Rai.
Judgment:
The
Hon’ble Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against
accusers and therefore the accusers are acquitted in the present case. It was
stated by the court that as trial of the case shifted from UP to Delhi all the
important witnesses turned hostile and therefore the prosecution was unable to
establish charges against the accusers.
It
was also concluded by the court in this case if the benefit of Witness
Protection Scheme, 2018 is given to the witnesses the results can be different.
Conclusion:
The
present case can be called as good example of the “miscarriage of justice”, as inspite of knowing the history and
certain self explanatory facts the court remained silent and unable to provide the
complete justice to the prosecution. It is the high time to raise the issue of
protection of witness, otherwise the laws will not be able to solve their real
purpose and courts would be the mute spectators of this issue.
The
facts that accused Masood Ansari was having 35 cases so far registered against
him and that immediately before the day when the accident took place MLA
Krishnanad Rai has given a letter to the CM of UP asking for additional
security as he was receiving death threats from his political rivals are in
itself explanatory that accusers were having mala fide intention against the
deceased. The death threats to the witness and his family are very common in
our legal system and because of which turns hostile and this hostility rate has
paralyzed the functioning of the court that have learnt to act like a pigeon
when a cat is around.
So,
it can be called as another case in which the violators of law are unleashed
free because of the loopholes and absurdness of the Indian Legal System.
Verified by Adv. Jyotishwar Bhosale
EXPERT JURIST LLP
