Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, JJ.
Sajjad Qurashi @ Husuru, Son of Muslim Quarashi - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.632 of 2010, Acquittal Appeal No.12 of 2010, Criminal Appeal No.687 of 2010, Criminal Revision No.741 of 2010
Decided On : 29-04-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 148, 302, 302/149, 201, 379 - Criminal appeals against conviction and acquittal - Conviction of appellants for murder and rioting upheld based on eyewitness testimony and corroborative evidence - Acquittal of one accused affirmed due to lack of direct evidence linking him to the crime - The prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the convicted appellants. (Paras 116, 124, 148)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of three individuals, with the prosecution alleging that they were part of an unlawful assembly that committed the crime on 03.09.2009. Eyewitnesses testified to seeing the appellants assaulting the victims. (Paras 5, 7, 76)
Findings of Court:
The trial court found the prosecution's evidence credible, particularly the eyewitness accounts, which were corroborated by medical evidence. The acquittal of one accused was upheld due to insufficient evidence against him. (Paras 116, 148)
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of eyewitness testimony and the sufficiency of evidence to support the convictions and acquittals. (Paras 26, 128)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of eyewitness testimony in establishing guilt, noting that discrepancies do not necessarily undermine the prosecution's case if the core facts remain intact. (Paras 28, 36)
Result: Criminal appeals dismissed; conviction upheld for two appellants, acquittal affirmed for one accused. (Paras 150, 152)
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 632 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No.687 of 2010 have been preferred by the accused/convicts against the Judgment of conviction dated 30.04.2010 and Order of sentence dated 10.05.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.04 of 2010 arising out of Chirkunda (Galpharbari) P.S. Case No.195 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2849 of 2009 convicting the appellants whereas Acquittal Appeal No.12 of 2010 has been preferred by the State challenging the acquittal of one accused, namely, Gullu Alam @ Gulzar Alam and Criminal Revision No.741 of 2010 has been preferred by the informant Sakaldeep Gaur @ Raja Khatik (now dead), challenging the same impugned Judgment for enhancement of sentence awarded to the appellants of Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos.632 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No.687 of 2010, as such, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, all the aforesaid cases have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.
Criminal Revision No.741 of 2010
2. The instant criminal revision application has been preferred by the informant Sakaldeep Gaur @ Raja Khatik for enhancement of sentence awarded to Sajjad Quraishi @ Husuru appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.632 of 2010 and convicts Guddu Alam @ Irfan Alam @ Rangeela and Sinu Ansari @ Sagar Ansari @ Sonu @ Sonu Ansari appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.687 of 2010 vide Judgment of conviction dated 30.04.2010 and Order of sentence dated 10.05.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.04 of 2010 arising out of Chirkunda (Galpharbari) P.S. Case No.195 of 2009 corresponding to G.R.Case No.2849 of 2009.
3. It appears from order dated 20th January, 2021 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court that the informant of the case/petitioner of Criminal Revision No.741 of 2010 has passed away during the pendency of the criminal revision and till date no application has been filed on behalf of his legal heirs to pursue the matter before this Court.
4. Since the informant has died during the pendency of Criminal Revision No.741 of 2010 and no application on his behalf by any of his legal heirs has been filed for substitution, therefore, this Court is of the view that in absence of any application to sue the case, the instant criminal revision cannot proceed and accordingly, stands dismissed.
Prayer made in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.632 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No.687 of 2010
5. The appeals are directed Judgment of conviction dated 30.04.2010 and Order of sentence dated 10.05.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.04 of 2010 arising out of Chirkunda (Galpharbari) P.S. Case No.195 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2849 of 2009, registered under Sections 302, 201, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Jitendra Gour, Pramod Verma and Firoz on 03.09.2009 which culminated into the judgment of conviction convicting accused/appellant namely, Sajjad Qurashi @ Husuru appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.632 of 2010 and Sonu Ansari @ Sagar Ansari appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.687 of 2010, under Sections 148, 302, 302/149 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Further accused, namely, Guddu Alam @ Irfan Alam @ Rangeela appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.687 of 2010 has also been convicted under 148, 302/149 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, Sajjad Qurashi @ Husuru, Guddu Alam @ Irfan Alam @ Rangeela and Sonu Ansari @ Sagar Ansari have been directed to undergo R.I. for three years and fine of Rs. 5000 for offence under Section 148 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, S.I. for 6 months, R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence under Section 201 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, S.I. for 6 months. The convicts Sajjad Quraishi @ Husuru and Sonu Ansari @ Sagar Ansari have been directed to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the off
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
