In a significant judgment reaffirming the credibility of related eyewitnesses and the principle of vicarious liability under criminal law, the Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the conviction of six men in the 2020 murder of Parvez Qureshi in Rajnandgaon, altering their conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal delivered a detailed 40-page verdict on March 25, 2025, in Criminal Appeals No. 1530, 1798, and 1800 of 2024, filed by appellants Sheikh Saleem, Salman @ Vicky Khan, Kartik Ram Tembekar, Premchand @ Bittu, Mukul Netam, and Simon Peter against the judgment of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, on July 23, 2024, in Sessions Trial No. 21/2021.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to September 21, 2020, when Parvez Qureshi and his friends Mohd. Sohail Raza and Raja Srivas were attacked near Srivas’s home in Kanchanbagh, Rajnandgaon. The trio had just finished dinner at Srivas’s residence when, as they approached their car parked outside, a group of six men emerged from behind a water tank and launched a violent assault.
Parvez Qureshi died on the spot after sustaining 34 grievous injuries, including chop wounds, stab wounds, and fractures, as confirmed by Dr. Akshay Kumar Ramteke, who conducted the postmortem. Injured eyewitnesses Raja Srivas, his daughter Pooja Srivas, and Mohd. Sohail Raza also testified in court about the coordinated attack by the assailants.
The prosecution case was led by Deputy Government Advocate S.S. Baghel, while the appellants were represented by Ms. Aditi Shinghvi, Mr. Chitendra Singh, and Mr. Aagney Sail.
Legal Issues and Court’s Findings
1. Nature of Death:
The Court upheld that the death of Parvez Qureshi was homicidal, based on the detailed medical evidence. The brutality and multiplicity of injuries indicated clear intent.
2. Credibility of Related Witnesses:
The Court dealt extensively with the defense’s argument that most eyewitnesses were related to the deceased and therefore “interested”. The bench rejected this, quoting the Supreme Court in Mohd. Rojali Ali v. State of Assam (2019):
“A related witness cannot be said to be an interested witness merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim. One of the earliest statements was made by this Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab where it was observed that a close relative would be the last to falsely implicate an innocent person.”
“Why a ‘related witness’ would spare the real culprit in order to falsely implicate some innocent person?” the Court rhetorically questioned.
3. Common Object and Vicarious Liability:
Though only some of the accused inflicted fatal blows, the Court relied on Section 149 IPC, holding all six accused vicariously liable for the murder as they acted with a common intention as part of an unlawful assembly. Citing Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka (2012) and Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel v. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel (2018), the Court stated:
“Section 149 IPC creates a constructive or vicarious liability… Mere knowledge of the likelihood of the commission of such an offence by members of the assembly is sufficient.”
The Court noted that the appellants were armed with swords, knives, rods, and axes, and arrived together with a shared motive, which made the application of Section 149 IPC inevitable.
Modification in Conviction
While the trial court had convicted all six under Section 302 IPC, the High Court modified the conviction to Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC (murder with common object) and upheld the convictions under Section 324 IPC for causing hurt to the three injured witnesses.
Final Sentence:
- Life imprisonment under Section 302/149 IPC and fine of ₹5,000 (in default, 2 years RI)
- Three years RI each for three counts under Section 324 IPC with ₹2,000 fine (in default, 1 month RI per count)
The court directed the Superintendent of Jail to inform the convicts about their right to appeal before the Supreme Court of India with assistance from the Legal Services Committee.
Key Observations
- “The presence of injured eyewitnesses cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions.”
- “The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies due to memory lapse should be discarded.”
- “Related is not equivalent to interested.”
