Back
2014 Supreme(All) 138
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ramesh Sinha, J.
Hanif Khan -Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 1898 of 1982
Decided On : 16-01-2014
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Conviction and Sentencing
Act Referred
Headnote
IPC - Criminal Law - Section 147, Section 304 (II), Section 149, Section 323/149 - The judgment discusses the conviction and sentencing of the appellants under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 147, Section 304 (II), Section 149, and Section 323/149. The court also addresses the abatement of appeals due to the death of some appellants. The case involves a dispute over land and a physical altercation resulting in injuries and death.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute over land, where the appellants were convicted and sentenced for their involvement in a physical altercation resulting in injuries and death. The court noted the abatement of appeals due to the death of some appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecution's evidence, including the testimony of the injured witnesses, to be sufficient for the conviction of the appellants. The court upheld the conviction and sentencing of the appellants as awarded by the trial court.
Issues: The issues revolve around the conviction and sentencing of the appellants under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, as well as the abatement of appeals due to the death of some appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the cautious approach of the court in cases involving factional fights and the careful shifting of evidence to extract the truth. The court also addressed the disbelieving of the cross version of the incident lodged by the accused and the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the rest of the sentence of the appellants was converted into fines, to be deposited in the Court of C.J.M. Ghazipur within three months from the date of the judgment.
For the Appellant :- C.S. Saran, Amar Saran, Azaz Ahmad Khan, V.P.Srivastava and Sanjay Vikram Singh
For the Respondent:- AGA, Ahmad Khan, Amit Misra, M.A Khan, Viresh Mishra, Sandeep Kumar Dubey
1.Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sanjay Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the appellant nos.4, 5 and 7, Sri Viresh Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sandeep Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the complainant, Sri Manish Dev, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2.This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10.9.1982 passed in Sessions Trial No.86 of 1982 State Vs. Haneef Khan and others by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to 6 months R.I. under Section 147 IPC, 4 years R.I. under Section 304 (II) IPC read with Section 149 IPC, and 3 months R.I. under Section 323/149 IPC.
3.As per office report dated 17.11.2013, it has been reported that the C.J.M. vide his report dated 5.12.2012 has reported that the appellant no.1 Haneef Khan, S/o Yusuf Khan, appellant no.2 Khalil Khan, S/o Hanif Khan have died in the year 2009 whereas the appellant no.3 Shakir Khan, S/o Hanif Khan has died in the year 2000 and appellant no.6 Samsuddin, S/o Aliyar Khan has died in the year 1990. Hence in view of the report of the C.J.M, their appeals stands abated.
4.The inter-se relationship as per the accused persons is that out of the accused Khalil Khan and Shakir Khan and Abul Khan are the sons of accused Haneef Khan. Accused Naseem Khan is the son of accused Abul Khan. Thus all these five accused belong to o ne and same family. Though it has been denied but the prosecution case is that the two other accused Shamsuddin and Aslam Khan also belong to the family and goal of accused Haneef Kha. The injured on the prosecution side and the accused admittedly belong to village Usia which is situate at a distance of about four miles to the east of P.S. Dildar Nagar.
5.The prosecution case is that to the north of village habitation Usia at a distance of about 100 lathas there is a chak bearing no.1702 belonging to Zahid Khan. This chak includes old plots nos. 8491 and 8492 and measures 2 biswas 17 dhurs. There is also a primary school in the village having some farm land. The farm land of primary school, which bears plot no.8486 measuring about 8 or 9 biswas in area lies just to the west of the chak of Zahid Khan. To the west of plot no.8486 there is a Dinia school which is known as Fazlur Rasool. Tasadduq Khan and Daud Khan allegedly belonging to the family of accused Haneef Khan, are said to be the President and Manager respectively of this institution. The persons interested in Dinia school wanted to grab the farm land as also plot no.1702 belonging to P.W.1 Zahid Khan. 5 or 6 months prior to the incident Zahid Khan had moved an application for the measurement of his plot no.1702 and Daud Khan, the Manager of Dinia School had also moved an application for recording the name of his institution over the farm land plot no.8486. It is said that the said application of Daud Khan had been rejected. It is alleged that at the time of occurrence onion was sown in plot no.1702 belonging to P.W.1 Zahid Khan and on 14.5.1981 around 5.30 p.m., he along with his sons Ishtiyaq, Ajaz, Yunus, Ibrar and one Meraj, cousin brother of his sons was digging out the onions in his said field when he found accused Haneef Khan, Khalil Khan Shakir Khan, Abdul Khan, Nisar Khan, Shamsuddin and Aslam Khan erecting a boundary wall encroaching upon his plot no.1702. He and his son Ishtiyaq went to the accused and forbade them from raising the construction of the wall, whereupon the accused Haneef Khan asked him to keep quiet. On this P.W.1 Zahid Khan told the accused that he had moved an application for measurement of his plot but the accused did not pay any heed to it and reiterated their stand to erect the wall. On this an altercation ensued and all the accused aforesaid fell upon Zahid Khan and Ishtiyaq and started beating. The victims raised an alarm which attracted Yunus Khan, Ibrar Khan, Ajaz Khan and Meraj Khan on the spot who too were attacked and beaten up b
