Criminal Law 3

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL
SESSION 2019-30
TRIMESTER lX
COURSE : BALLB
CRIMINAL LAW- III

PROJECT WORK
TOPIC: fadi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Submitted to:-
Prof. P.K. Shukla
Submitted by Siddhant Barmate 2017(BALLB)112
1
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the project has been prepared and submitted by Siddhant
Barmate, pursuing her B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) at National Law Institute University,
Bhopal. This is in the fulfilment of the Criminal Law III course. This is also to
certify that this is her original project work and this has not been submitted to any
other university.
Date: 7th March, 2020
Signature of student: …………………………
Signature of professor: …………………………
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank my Criminal Law teacher, Professor P.K. Shukla for
providing me with the opportunity of working on this project. It was a great
learning experience and it helped in enhancing my research skills. Also, it helped
me in widening my knowledge and analyzing criminal cases. I would also like to
thank the library ‘Gyanmandir’ for providing me resources essential for
completion of research.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 Acknowledgement
 Objective
 Methodology
 Introduction
 Material facts of the case
 Case history
 Legal issues
 Sections applied
 Arguments from both the sides
 Legal interpretation
 Judgement of the case
 Case analysis
 Conclusion
 Bibliography
Objectives :
 To find out the facts of the case.

 Read the judgement of the case
 To understand the reasoning of the case.
 To critically analyse and conclude from the same.
Methodology:
This project is based on doctrinal method.

INTRODUCTION
The project is a case study of the case, fadi vs st. of Madhya Pradesh.
Faddi appeals, by special leave, against the order of the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh confirming his conviction and sentence of death under s.
302 I.P.C. by the Additional Sessions Judge, Morena.
Several criminal appeals have been linked in this case, it is a murder
Bench : Three judge bench;
Honerable J.
BENCH:
DAYAL, RAGHUBAR
MAIN PARTIES TO THE CASE (Applellants, complainants, witnesses)
MATERIAL FACTS
1. Gulab faddi's stepson corpse was -recovered from a well of village Jarah
on January 21, 1963. It reached the mortuary at Morena at 5-15 p.m. that
day. It is noted on the postmortem report that it had been despatched from
the place of occurrence at 1 p.m. Dr. Nigam, on examination, found
an injury on the skull 'and has expressed the opinion that the boy died on
account of that injury within two or three days of the postmortem
examination.
2. Doctor stated in Court that no water was found inside either the lungs or
the abdomen or the larynx or in the middle ear. This rules out the
possibility of Gulab's dying due to drowning.
3. the appellant himself went to the police station, Saroichhola, and lodged a
first information report stating therein that on peeping into the well near
the peepul tree of Hadpai on the morning of January 20, 1962, he found
his son lying dead in the well.
4. the events leading to his observing the corpse and that narration of facts
accused Ramle, Bhanta and one cyclist of the offence of murdering
the boy Gulab. It was this information which took the police to the well
and to the recovery of the corpse.
5. investigation was taken over, under the orders of the Superintendent of

Police, by the Circle Inspector, Nazat Mohd. Khan from Rajender Singh,
who was the Station Officer of Police Station, Saraichhola. The Circle
Inspector arrested Faddi on January 27. He other arrested persons were
got released in due course.
6. Faddi took the Circle 3I5 Inspector to the house and, after taking out a
pair of shorts of Gulab, delivered them to the Circle Inspector.
7. The conviction of the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence, 'there
being no direct evidence about his actually murdering Gulab by throwing
him into the well or by murdering him first and then throwing the
dead body into the well.
8.
CASE HISORY
(i) The trial court found the accused person guilty of murder under
section IPC. And sentenced him to death
(ii) The convicted accused were now aggrieved by the decision of the trial
court and hence filed an appeal to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. On appeal
by special leave it was contended that the first information report
was inadmissible in evidence and should not have been, therefore,
taken on the record.
LEGAL ISSUES
 Can the statement be used against the person who had given it.
 Can an FIR be used as confession and is admissible before the court ?
SECTIONS APPLIED
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) ss. 21,25
-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898), s. 162.
,
ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH THE SIDES

Appellant’s side
(i) When the case was taken over by another investigating officer all the
accused were released and instead of them faddi was made accused.
(ii) Both the trial court and the high court relied on solely first information
report and they have taken no other evidence on account.
(iii) The conviction of the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence,
'there being no direct evidence about his actually murdering Gulab by
throwing him into the well or by murdering him first and then
throwing the dead body into the well.
(iv) If the High court is relying on the circumstantial as per the factual
matrix he heard only the sound that something was thrown inside the
well and he saw all the three men's running so I was near the well all
night searching for my stepson whom I saw last with them.
(v) As his son was missing and the last possible place to find his son was
near the well and then he saw something suspicious in well and he saw
a body which he recognized as of his son.
(vi) FIR is not an confession but here court has used FIR as an sole
evidence and they did not justify the release of those accused and
made the faddi accused.
Respondent’s side
(i) As the court is relying on the FIR which was given by faddi was
aganist him and on the basis on that faddi was accused and all the
other was released if they somehow were related they could have been
called back.
(ii) Facts were itself speaking for the case and according to the witnesses
the deceased was last seen by faddi.
(iii) Faddi was the one who located the body and according to postmortem
expert the body takes 3 to 4 days to come on the surface of water.
(iv) And according to factual matrix if he saw that 3 mens taking his
stepson away and after hearing the sound from the well he could have
informed anyone but he didn't instead before filing FIR he consulted
other people's.
(v) Facts like he is still no able to explain how fadi and his stepson was
separated, he accepted the body was recovered from an angle , why he
consulted anyone before filing FIR.
INTERPRETATION OF LAW
This Court did not meanas it had not to determine in that case-that a first
information report which is not a confession cannot be used as an
admission under s. 21 of the Evidence Act or as a relevant statement under
any other provision of that Act. We find also that this observation has been
understood in this way by the Rajasthan High Court in State v.
Balchand(2) and (1) [1957]S.C.R.657.
(2) A.I.R. 1960 Raj 101 in State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Singh(1) and by the
Allahabad High Court in Allahdia v. State(2).
JUDGEMENT (By Supreme Court)
therefore hold that the objection to the admissibility of the first information
report lodged by the appellant is not sound and that the Courts below have
rightly admitted it in evidence and have made proper use of it.
The circumstances held established by the High Court are sufficient, in our
opinion, to reach the conclusion that Gulab was murdered by the appellant who
was the last person in whose company the deceased was seen alive and who
knew where the dead body lay and who gave untrue explanation about his
knowing it in the report lodged by him and gave no explanation in Court as to
how he separated from the deceased.
We therefore dismiss the appeal.
CASE ANALYSIS
In the given case, the accused were being charged on the circumstantial
evidence and on the first information report which was lodged by accused. The
FIR or the statement which is taken on spot could be given in shock as
happened in this case as faddi's stepson was missing ,his mental state could have
been not normal.
No mens rea was there from the faddi's side and this aspect was never taken into
consideration, there was no motive to kill his stepson as well as no one saw him
doing an act which makes him the sole accused as there were no eye witnesses
who saw faddi killing his stepson or throwing him into the well.
CONCLUSION
The conclusion that can be drawn from the case study is that, in some cases the
court can accuse a person on the basis of circumstantial evidence and taking
statements as confession.
No discovery on new evidence and no serious investigation follows it. Courts

find culprits solely on the basis of facts no legal questions and doubts were
raised. No questions on illegality of law , the court made the case look like an
clear and cut case as simple as that. There were points against the accused but
the whole case was unclear. The case was followed by two stories of fact.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
https://www.casemine.com/
https://indiankanoon.org/
https://www.wikipedia.org/
https://www.lawnn.com/murder-section-300-indian-penal-code/

Criminal Law 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

CRIMINAL LAW- III

TOPIC: fadi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Submitted by Siddhant Barmate 2017(BALLB)112

Date: 7th March, 2020

Signature of student: …………………………

Signature of professor: …………………………

 To find out the facts of the case.

This project is based on doctrinal method.

Bench : Three judge bench;

5. investigation was taken over, under the orders of the Superintendent of

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH THE SIDES

No discovery on new evidence and no serious investigation follows it. Courts

You might also like