Back
2019 Supreme(All) 857
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ramesh Sinha, Dinesh Kumar Singh, JJ.
Raiyyan – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 7193, 7197, 7214 of 2018
Decided On : 31-07-2019
Sudhir Kumar Agarwal, Adv., Ajay Kumar Pandey, Adv., Ronak Chaturvedi, Adv., N.I. Jafri, Adv.
In order to secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that the evidence must be strong enough to convince a reasonable person that the accused is guilty.
Headnote:
The prosecution's case was that the accused-appellants, armed with weapons, tried to drag the injured towards their house and assaulted him. The injured snatched a gun from one of the accused and fired upon them in self-defense. The accused-appellants were convicted of attempt to murder, causing grievous hurt, and other offenses. On appeal, the High Court found that the prosecution's case was not believable. The injured's testimony was full of discrepancies, and the medical reports did not corroborate his claims of serious injuries. The place of occurrence was also not established. The High Court held that the trial court had erred in convicting the accused-appellants and acquitted them.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution's case was that the accused-appellants, armed with weapons, tried to drag the injured towards their house and assaulted him. The injured snatched a gun from one of the accused and fired upon them in self-defense. The accused-appellants were convicted of attempt to murder, causing grievous hurt, and other offenses.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the prosecution's case was not believable. The injured's testimony was full of discrepancies, and the medical reports did not corroborate his claims of serious injuries. The place of occurrence was also not established.
Issues: Whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the trial court had erred in convicting the accused-appellants and acquitted them.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeals and acquitted the accused-appellants.
JUDGMENT :
Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.
Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Sr. Advocate, assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri N.I. Jafri & Sri Ronak Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri J.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. These criminal appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.11.2018 passed by 11th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar in S.T. No. 724 of 2011 (State Vs. Khalil and two others), whereby accused-appellant Khalil, Raiyyan and Shakir have been convicted Section 307 IPC read with 34 IPC and sentenced with 10 years rigorous imprisonment, fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default of payment of fine one year additional simple imprisonment; u/s 504 IPC two years simple imprisonment each and under Section 506 IPC, five years simple imprisonment each.
3. Since Appeal Nos. 7193 of 2018, 7197 of 2018 and 7214 of 2018 have been preferred by appellants namely Raiyyan, Shakir and Khalil against common judgment mentioned above, they are being taken up together for being disposed of.
4. In brief, the prosecution case as disclosed from the F.I.R. is that son of Shaukat Ali namely Sarfaraz had gone for weighing the buggi of sugarcane at Kolhu in village 10 days ago, then a quarrel had taken place between Sarfaraz and Naseem S/o Shamshuddin of his village but some persons present there had got the matter compromised but Naseem had given threat to Sarfaraz that he would see him but ignoring the said threat Sarfaraz went on 25.2.2010 at about 2:30 pm to take medicines for his father from the medical store of Farrukh. It was then that Naseem, Khalil and Raiyyan sons of Shamshuddin and Shakir S/o Raiyyan came there at the said medical store armed with Lathi, country made pistols and guns and forcibly tried to drag Sarfaraz into their house and when they reached in the lane by the side of their house, in front of the lane, his son Sarfaraz was caused injuries by Lathis by Khalil and Raiyyan and Raiyyan, Khalil and Naseem, who were armed with guns, all caught hold of Sarfaraz, while Shakir exhorted "mar sale ko goli", at this, Shakir made fire upon his son Sarfaraz with an intention to kill by the country made pistol, which he was wielding in his hand. As soon as Naseem was seen about to make fire on him, his son sensing that he might loose his life, snatched away the gun from the hand of the Naseem and, thereafter, these persons chased Sarfaraz with an intention to kill but his son in order to defend himself made fire by the said gun, which he had snatched, upon all the four accused and thus, he saved his life and came home. It is further mentioned in the F.I.R. that the family of the accused was very big and all of them assembled at the house of the complainant/informant because of which the informant closed his doors and the windows and early in the dark hours somehow concealing themselves reached his Sasural Shernagar, where Sarfaraz was shown to the doctor in Government Hospital, Muzaffar Nagar. Because of fire arm injuries having been suffered by Sarfaraz, he was referred to Medical college, Meerut where he was medically examined. It is further mentioned that because of the fear of the accused, information with respect to this occurrence was given to DIG Sahab that police at Saharanpur had not registered his report. The entire occurrence was seen by Ifroz S/o Zabbar, Musarraf S/o Hardaulla, Gayoor S/o Ismail of his village. He had also annexed photo copies of doctor's report and reference slip along with said written report and prayed that the S.O. would be instructed to lodge the report and take action against the accused.
5. In the said written report dated 2.3.2003 given to DIG, Saharanpur, the order was passed for investigation of the case, whereon on 10.3.2010 at 18:30 pm, case crime no. 163A of 2010 was registered against Naseem, Khalil, Raiyyan and Shakir at P.S. Shahpura, under Section 307, 504 and 506 IPC by PW-3, Constable Sa
