HABEEB MOHAMMAD vs. THE STATE OF HYDERABAD.

Case Analysis

HABEEB MOHAMMAD vs. THE STATE OF HYDERABAD.

April 21, 2025

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case of Habeeb Mohammad v. The State of Hyderabad ([1954] SCR 475) presented a seminal discourse on judicial fairness, procedural due process, and prosecutorial obligation within the framework of criminal jurisprudence in India. The appellant, Habeeb Mohammad, then a Subedar in the Hyderabad State, stood convicted under various provisions of the Hyderabad Penal Code equivalent to offences of murder, attempt to murder, arson, wrongful confinement, and unlawful assembly under the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court of India, presided by Justices M.C. Mahajan, B.K. Mukherjea, and T.L. Venkatarama Aiyar, critically evaluated procedural lapses and miscarriage of justice due to non-examination of vital prosecution witnesses, failure to summon key defence witnesses, improper use of police diaries, and delay in investigation.

The trial’s fairness was profoundly compromised by the prosecution’s decision not to call Moulvi Afzal Biabani, the Deputy Commissioner of Police who was a critical eyewitness. Moreover, the Special Judge failed to issue process for credible defence witnesses and relied improperly on police diaries for corroboration post-trial. These cumulative lapses, coupled with potential motives to shield culpable officials, compelled the Supreme Court to overturn the conviction. This case marked an assertive stance on protecting accused persons from prejudicial trials and established enduring principles on calling essential witnesses, judicial discretion under procedural codes, and fair trial guarantees under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Keywords: fair trial, prosecution obligation, police diary misuse, Article 136, procedural irregularity, Supreme Court of India

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Habeeb Mohammad v. The State of Hyderabad

ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1952

iii) Judgement Date: 5th October 1953

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Justice M.C. Mahajan, Justice B.K. Mukherjea, Justice T.L. Venkatarama Aiyar

vi) Author: Justice M.C. Mahajan

vii) Citation: [1954] SCR 475

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

Article 136 of the Constitution of India
Sections 243, 248, 368, 282, 124 of Hyderabad Penal Code (equivalent to Sections 302, 307, 436, 342, 148 IPC)
Sections 162, 172, 257 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Sections 53, 114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None specifically overruled.

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Constitutional Law, Evidence Law, Procedural Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The backdrop of this case is situated in post-independence Hyderabad, a period fraught with communal tensions and the vestiges of princely rule. The appellant, Subedar Habeeb Mohammad, was part of a controversial and violent police operation in Gurtur village on 9th December 1947. Allegedly aimed at arresting anti-state elements, the operation resulted in multiple deaths, arson, and widespread allegations of human rights violations.

Following political changes in Hyderabad, a fresh complaint was lodged against the appellant in January 1949. The newly formed Indian administration pursued this trial under special procedural laws. However, the Supreme Court had to adjudicate not merely on factual guilt but whether the accused was afforded a fair and unbiased trial.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant led a contingent of 70 police personnel and Razakars to Gurtur village ostensibly to arrest suspected anti-state individuals. When villagers approached to protest or plead, police opened fire, killing at least four and injuring others. The appellant allegedly ordered arson of 191 homes and the wrongful confinement of about 70 villagers. These events were not denied by the defence; instead, justification was advanced based on self-defence and exigent law-and-order circumstances. Contradictions in official accounts and questionable withdrawal of initial charges against villagers further fueled the suspicion surrounding the integrity of the prosecution narrative.

The events took a legal turn after the integration of Hyderabad into India, and a fresh investigation was initiated leading to charges against the appellant under grave penal sections. The trial court convicted him based largely on limited eyewitness accounts, with key officers like Deputy Commissioner Biabani conspicuously omitted from testimony.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the prosecution’s failure to examine key eyewitnesses vitiated the trial?

ii. Whether the defence was unfairly prejudiced by the denial to summon relevant witnesses?

iii. Whether the trial judge’s reliance on police diaries post-evidence stage constituted a miscarriage of justice?

iv. Whether the delay in investigation and lack of proper record-keeping impaired a fair trial?

v. Whether the procedural irregularities justified intervention under Article 136 of the Constitution?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the entire trial was vitiated due to the gross miscarriage of procedural justice. The appellant asserted that Moulvi Afzal Biabani, the second highest officer present at the incident, was a material eyewitness and his deliberate omission from testimony deprived the court of an impartial version. It was argued that Ram Ranjan Roy v. Emperor (ILR 42 Cal 422) supported the necessity of calling all material witnesses, regardless of the consequences of their testimonies [1].

The defence also pointed to Stephen Senivaratne v. The King (AIR 1936 PC 289) which held that essential witnesses must be examined regardless of whether their testimony supports or hurts the prosecution’s case [2]. Furthermore, the appellant complained that his right to present a defence was curtailed when the Special Judge refused to summon six witnesses, including former government officials and police officers, who could corroborate the defence of lawful action or reveal ulterior political motives behind the trial [3].

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Respondent submitted that the prosecution had discretion in determining which witnesses to examine and that there was no mala fide in not examining Biabani. The reliance was placed on Adel Mohammad v. Attorney-General of Palestine (AIR 1945 PC 42) where it was held that the prosecution need not produce all names listed in the information if the discretionary choice was bona fide [4].

The State contended that the evidence of Kankiah, a police jamedar, sufficiently proved the accused’s command role. Additionally, the Government argued that delays or destruction of records during the Hyderabad police action were unavoidable and should not be presumed as acts of suppression or concealment [5].

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Article 136 of the Constitution of India – Grants Supreme Court discretionary power to correct grave injustice even in cases involving concurrent findings of fact.

ii. Section 162 and 172 of the CrPC – Restricts the use of police diaries except to assist the judge during inquiry or trial, not as substantive evidence.

iii. Section 257 of CrPC – Mandates that the court must issue process for defence witnesses unless it is vexatious or intended to delay justice.

iv. Section 114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act – Allows court to draw adverse inference where best evidence is withheld without justification.

v. Section 53 of the Indian Evidence Act – Permits evidence regarding good character of the accused as relevant in a criminal case.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i. The Supreme Court ruled that the failure to examine Moulvi Afzal Biabani, a vital eyewitness, constituted a fatal flaw. This omission attracted Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act permitting adverse inference against the prosecution. Furthermore, the refusal to summon defence witnesses under Section 257 CrPC deprived the accused of a fair opportunity to establish his innocence. The Court also condemned the improper reference to police diaries in the final judgment, stating that such materials could only assist during the trial, not form a basis for final determination of facts.

b. OBITER DICTA

i. The Supreme Court reflected on the ethical obligation of public prosecutors, stating that they represent not just the police but the entire criminal justice system. The judge sharply criticized the trial court’s discretionary biases and found that the judge exhibited prejudgment and partiality in dismissing defence applications without due consideration.

c. GUIDELINES

Essential eyewitnesses, especially those forming part of the event narrative, must be examined regardless of the expected result.
Police diaries can only assist judicial reasoning during trial; they must not be used to affirm credibility of witnesses in the final judgment.
Trial courts must summon defence witnesses unless there is a demonstrable intent to delay or obstruct justice.
Fairness in criminal trials includes timely and diligent investigation; unexplained delay may prejudice defence and invalidate trial.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment in Habeeb Mohammad v. The State of Hyderabad is a robust reaffirmation of fair trial rights and prosecutorial accountability. It stands as a constitutional safeguard against procedural arbitrariness, especially in politically charged trials. The Supreme Court’s nuanced application of evidentiary principles and procedural norms ensures that criminal trials do not descend into vindictive prosecutions. By overturning the conviction, the Court underscored the balance that must be maintained between state interests and individual liberty, particularly under Article 136. This case continues to resonate as a critical precedent on the necessity of examining material witnesses, proper use of police records, and judicial neutrality in criminal proceedings.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
[1] Ram Ranjan Roy v. Emperor, ILR 42 Cal 422
[2] Stephen Senivaratne v. The King, AIR 1936 PC 289
[3] Adel Mohammad v. Attorney-General of Palestine, AIR 1945 PC 42
[4] Rex v. Mannu, ILR 19 All 390

b. Important Statutes Referred