SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(All) 1404

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
BEFORE : P.K.S. BAGHEL AND RAJIV GUPTA, JJ.
RAEESUDDIN ....Appellant
Versus
STATE ....Respondent
(Criminal Appeal No. 1553 of 1989, decided on 5th October, 2018)

Advocates:
Counsel :
P.K. Sharma, Aditya Prasad Mishra and R.K. Sharma for the Appellant; D.G.A. for the Respondent.

Headnote:(A) (Indian) Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 299 and 300 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Section 304 Pt. I or Pt. II – Applicability – Some parts of tractor of deceased were found to be missing – He doubted involvement of some outsider who had accompanied accused-appellant in locality – Deceased asked accused-appellant not to bring outsider in locality – Aforesaid statement of deceased agitated accused appellant – Deceased had one stab wound on right side of abdomen and incised wound bone cut on base of right index finger on its outer side – There is simple muscle deep injury on deceased’s index finger – That was first injury which was caused when deceased tried to defend him from assault – Appellant thereafter assaulted him on his abdomen which proved fatal and without taking any undue advantage he fled from scene – Thus accused liable to be punished under Section 304 – Further on fact that appellant assaulted deceased in sudden fight due to some comments of deceased which provoked him and it cannot be said that he acted in any cruel manner – Conviction under Section 302 converted to one under Section 304 Part-I. [Paras 63, 64, 65 and 70]

       (B) (Indian) Penal Code, 1860 – Section 300 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 3 – Murder – Evidence – Eye-witnesses of incident were sitting with deceased when incident occurred – Discrepancies in their testimonies not directly relating to incident – Their evidence regarding attack by appellant on deceased has no discrepancy – Hence on basis of minor discrepancy evidence of eye-witness cannot be discarded. [Para 28]

       (C) (Indian) Penal Code, 1860 – Section 300 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 3 – Murder – Evidence – Related witnesses – Reliability – Evidence of related witnesses cannot be discarded on ground that they are brother and employer of deceased. [Para 37]

       (D) (Indian) Penal Code, 1860 – Section 300 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32(1) – Dying declaration – Statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. – Held, can be treated as dying declaration. [Para 41]

       Result; Appeal Partly Allowed.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—The appellant, who stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., has been sentenced to imprisonment for life by Sessions Judge, Meerut by judgment dated 17th June, 1989. The said case arises out of Sessions Trial No. 69 of 1989.

2. The incident took place on 8.12.1988 at 10.45 a.m.. According to the prosecution the appellant stabbed the deceased Firoz in broad daylight in front of his brother P.W.-1 Anisuddin, P.W.-2 Shahnawaz who was the employer of the deceased and Shaukin P.W.-3, a neighbour. After the occurrence of the incident the P.W.-1 submitted a written tahrir (complaint) in Police Station Brahmpuri, Meerut on the basis of which a chik F.I.R. was prepared by the P.W.-6 Rakesh Singh and a First Information Report was recorded at 11.15 a.m.. The investigation was entrusted to S.I. Laik Singh, P.W.-4.

In the F.I.R. it was stated that on 8.12.1988 in the morning the appellant/accused who is of bad character came in the locality of complainant alongwith a youngster. The deceased Firoz asked him not to bring undesirable elements in the locality. This led to an altercation between them. On the same day at about 10.45 a.m. when the first informant was sitting on a Chabutra (platform), opposite to Clinic of Dr. Atiqur Rehman, alongwith his younger brother deceased Firoz, Shahnawaz, a resident of the same locality, Shaukin and Gul Mohammad, the appellant came armed with knife in his hand and he hurled abuses on his brother Firoz and threatened him of dire consequences, and before Firoz could get alerted, he stabbed him in his abdomen and fled away from the scene towards Jatav Gate.

3. The investigation was set in motion. The injured Firoz was sent to hospital from the police station alongwith a constable. He was admitted in P.L. Sharma Hospital for treatment. The I.O. went to the Hospital and interrogated the injured Firoz and recorded his statement and gave report for recording dying declaration of the injured. In the hospital the I.O. was handed over shirt and sweater of Firoz which he was wearing at the time of incident and Fard was prepared.

4. The P.W.-5 Dr. S.C. Nigam examined the deceased Firoz at 11.35 a.m. on 8.12.1988 and he prepared an injury report wherein he has recorded three injuries. The Injury No. 1 was stabbed wound 3.5 cm x 1.5 cm abdominal cavity deep on front and upper part of right side of abdomen; an incised wound was also found which was muscle deep on the front and outer side of base of the right index finger, and one abrasion was also found on the front of right wrist.

5. On 9.12.1988 Firoz succumbed to his injuries in the hospital hence the case was altered into Section 302 I.P.C.

6. The I.O. conducted the inquest of the dead body and the body was sent for postmortem. Thereafter, the investigation was entrusted to S.O. Satendra Kumar Tomer. The P.W.-8 Dr. R.N. Khanna conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased and issued a postmortem report (Ext.K-16). In his opinion the death was due to shock and excessive bleeding. The details of injuries found on the body of the deceased shall be mentioned at the appropriate place in the judgment.

7. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant who stood trial before the Sessions Judge after the matter was committed to the said Court. The Sessions Judge framed the charges against the appellant.

8. The prosecution in support of his case examined the P.W.-1 Anisuddin—the elder brother of the deceased and P.W.-2 Shahnawaz who is stated to be an eye-witness. The deceased Firoz was driver of his tractor. The P.W.-3 Shaukin also claimed to be eye-witness. The P.W.-4, S.I. Laik Singh was the Investigating Officer at the initial stage. He had also recorded statement of injured Firoz under Section 161. Later, he submitted a report regarding dying declaration recor




















































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top