Allahabad High Court Upholds Life Term In Eight Time National Badminton Champion Syed Modi Murder Case

The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday upheld the life sentence awarded to an accused in connection with the murder of an eight-time National Badminton Champion Syed Modi, who represented India in various international championships.

The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav took into the record the evidence adduced before it to conclude that Modi was killed by firing made by convict/appellant along with one another accused by using fire arm.

The case in brief 

On July 28, 1988, Modi came to play badminton in the badminton hall situated inside the stadium of Lucknow. After playing, when he was going back on his scooter, somebody fired upon him with the intention to kill him.

One Prem Chand Yadav (P.W. 9) who was working in the canteen at the gate, came to him raising an alarm and told him that two persons were running in a white color Maruti Car after firing upon Syed Modi. He was taken to the Medical College in an injured condition where the doctor declared him dead.

The investigation of the case was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation. After investigation, CBI came to the conclusion that Sanjay Singh, Ameeta Kulkarni Modi, Akhilesh Singh, Amar Bahadur Singh, Bhagwati Singh alias Pappu (applicant), Jitendra Singh alias Tinku and Balai Singh were the miscreants who were behind the commission of murder of Modi.

However, the Court of Sessions discharged accused Sanjay Singh and Ameeta Kulkarni Modi and that order of discharge of Sanjay Singh and Ameeta Kulkarni Modi was upheld first by the High Court and thereafter by the Supreme Court.

Accused Akhilesh Singh was also discharged and Accused Balai Singh Amar Bahadur Singh were murdered and the case against him stood abated. Now only, two accused were left to be tried namely Bhagwati Singh alias Pappu (present applicant) and Jitendra Singh alias Tinku.

Later on, Pappu was convicted under Section 120-B of I.P.C. and Section 302 of I.P.C. read with Section 34 of I.P.C by sessions court. Challenging the same, he moved to the High Court.

Arguments put forth

It was argued by him that there was no evidence against him, he was not named in the FIR, and his name allegedly surfaced on the basis of the statement of one Prem Chand Yadav who, after about one month identified the convict in the jail during test identification parade.

It was also argued that there was no motive for the convict/appellant to commit the murder of the deceased and the car (allegedly used by miscreants) was found belonging to one Mr. Akhilesh Singh against whom charges were framed, but the High Court quashed the charges against him.

Court's observations 

The Court noted that the evidence of PW9 Prem Chand Yadav showed that he remained resolute and undeterred. The Court observed that while most of the witnesses of facts turned hostile, he (PW9) remained unswayed even in the condition when he was recalled after a gap of about four years of recording of his examination-in-chief that too in a condition when he became blind and one of his foot was amputated up to the heel.

"This witness has again and again reaffirmed that he saw the convict alongwith one another person firing upon the deceased Syed Modi. Nothing could be brought in his evidence by the defence counsel in crossexamination so as to create doubt on his testimony. This witness stood during his examination-in-chief and also cross examination unswayed, unyielded, and unbended. The direct evidence of this witness is sufficient enough to hold the convict/appellant guilty of committing the murder of Syed Modi."

Regarding the identification of the convict by PW9, the Court noted that he knew the convict prior to the incident by appearance but not by name because he used to come to the stadium occasionally.

He said that he was the first person who informed the Officer working in the stadium about the incident after witnessing the incident, thereafter, he identified the convict/appellant in jail during the test identification parade, and finally, he identified the convict/appellant before the trial court while deposing in the case.

Further, the Court noted that in spite of his inability to see the witness, he stressed that he correctly identified the convict during his previous statement made in the Court and also confirmed that he saw the killers of Syed Modi by his own eyes. His testiomony was also corraborated by the medical evidence.

Consequently, the court came to the conclusion that the deceased Syed Modi was killed by firing made by convict/appellant alongwith one another accused by using fire arm in contravention of Section 5 of the Arms Act, which is punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Hence, the conviction and sentence of the convict/appellant awarded by the trial court punishable under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. and under Section 27 of the Arms Act was confirmed and upheld.

Case title - Bhagwati Singh @ Pappu v. State of U.P

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 305

Click Here To Read/Download Order