IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Ritu Raj Awasthi, Virendra Kumar-II, JJ.
Sattar – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2518 of 2007
Decided On : 09-04-2019
Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313 – Murder – Appeal against conviction – Criminal appeal assailing impugned judgment and order delivered by court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, under Section 302 IPC, Co-accused expired during course of trial – Learned trial court abated/dropped proceedings against him – Whether based on testimony of eye witnesses or circumstantial evidence – Whether prosecution must fail because it failed to prove motive or even whether inability to prove motive would weaken the prosecution to any perceptible limit – Held, Learned trial court and found evidence adduced by witnesses and PW-10 reliable, trustworthy and cogent and acceptable – Other witnesses are formal witnesses. evidence of doctor extend support to and corroborate ocular evidence adduced by PW-1 and PW-2 – Prosecution has proved the charge framed against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial court has convicted him in correct perspective on the basis of evidence available on record – Appeal Dismissed (Paras: 136 to 138)
Facts of the case:
Appeal against conviction – Criminal appeal assailing impugned judgment and order delivered by court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, under Section 302 IPC, Co-accused expired during course of trial – Learned trial court abated/dropped proceedings against him – Whether based on testimony of eye witnesses or circumstantial evidence – Whether prosecution must fail because it failed to prove motive or even whether inability to prove motive would weaken the prosecution to any perceptible limit.
Findings of the court:
learned trial court and found evidence adduced by witnesses and PW-10 reliable, trustworthy and cogent and acceptable – Other witnesses are formal witnesses evidence of doctor extend support to and corroborate ocular evidence adduced by PW-1 and PW-2 – Prosecution has proved the charge framed against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial court has convicted him in correct perspective on the basis of evidence available on record.
Result: Appeal Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Virendra Kumar-II, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred on behalf of appellant assailing impugned judgment and order dated 09.10.2007 delivered by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5 Sitapur in Sessions Trial No. 913 of 2003 (State Vs. Jabbar and Sattar) arising out of Case Crime No. 222 of 2003 under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Talgaon, District Sitapur. Co-accused Jabbar expired during the course of trial. Learned trial court abated/dropped the proceedings against him on 19.03.2007.
2. The appellant Sattar has been convicted vide impugned judgment and order dated 09.10.2007 for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced for imprisonment for life and fine of amount of Rs. 5,000/- was also imposed with default stipulation to serve out additional rigorous imprisonment for three years.
3. Sri Izhar Hussain, Advocate has been appointed as amicus curiae vide order dated 24.01.2019 passed by this Court to conduct this appeal on behalf of the appellant.
4. We have heard Mr. Izhar Hussain, learned amicus curiae for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the lower court record.
5. As per prosecution version, the complainant PW-1 forwarded a written report (Ex. Ka-2) at the Police Station Talgon District Sitapur. PW-1 complainant Nattha has mentioned in his written report that he is the resident of Village Obari within limits of Police Station Ramkot, District Sitapur. His relatives reside in village Baldev Purwa, Mazra Madnapur within limits of Police Station Talgaon. He visited house of his relative Mahboob son of Bakhtawar Gaddi one day prior to the date of incident. The complainant has further mentioned that his brother Mustafa was working as labour at M/s Kanhaiya Transport, Sitapur. On 8.9.2003 his brother came at Kasaula Bridege Market from Sitapur by Truck No. UP 78 T 3486, in which, Maurang/building material was loaded. Sri Sandeep Sachan son of Ramkesh was driver of this truck. His brother and Nattha son of Huddi, resident of Village Kanba Kheda within limits of Police Station Kotwali District Sitapur, were unloading the truck near the place of occurrence. The complainant has mentioned that he was present near this place, where the aforesaid truck was being unloaded by the deceased. Other persons were also present on the shops situated near place of occurrence.
6. The complainant has also mentioned in his written report that appellant Sattar and co-accused Jabbar (since dead) came at about 9:30 a.m. and dragged his brother from the place where he was unloading truck, abused him and brought him behind shop of Kadir. They assaulted him with sickles (Banka). They gave several blows with sickle, therefore his brother fell down on the place of occurrence. The complainant and witnesses Haider Ali, Mahboob and other persons tried to save the deceased Mustafa, but the appellant and co-accused Jabbar threatened them brandishing Banka to eliminate them also and abused them by stating that they will cut all of them like the deceased. No body could muster courage to save the deceased. The appellant and co-accused fled away from the place of occurrence brandishing their Banka. The complainant disclosed this fact in the written report that deceased Mustafa solemnized marriage with wife of Jabbar eight years ago. The appellant and co-accused Jabbar (since dead) has committed murder of the deceased due to this reason. It is mentioned in the written report that dead body of the deceased was lying at the place of occurrence.
7. On the basis of written report of the complainant, check F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-4) of Crime No. 222 of 2003 under Sections 302, 504 and 506 IPC was registered on 8.9.2003 at 10:30 a.m. The G.D. (Ex. Ka-5) of registration of this crime was prepared.
8. The Investigating Officer prepared inquest report (Ex. Ka1) of the dead body and sent corpse of the deceased for autopsy. The postmortem report (Ex. Ka-3) was prepared by the concerned doctor. The Investigating
Aher Pitha Vajshi and Ors. v. State of Gujarat
Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat
Anil Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand
Banti @ Guddu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Bhagaloo Lodh v. State of U.P.
Bikau Pandey v. State of Bihar
Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of W.B.
Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab
Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab
Darya Singh v. State of Punjab
Dhanraj alias Shera Vs. State of Punjab
Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka
Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy
George and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Govindaraju Vs. State of Karnataka
Guli Chand v. State of Rajasthan
Hari Obula Reddy v. State of A.P.
Hukam Singh and others Vs. State of Rajasthan
Hukum Singh and others Vs. State of Rajasthan
Jaffar Hussain Dastagir v. State of Maharashtra
Jagdish Narain & Anr vs State Of U.P.
Jugendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.
K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P.
Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar
Lallan Rai and Ors. v. State of Bihar
Natarajan Vs. Union Territory of Pondicherry, rep. by the Inspector of Police, Pondicherry
Nihal Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab
Nirmal Singh and another Vs. State of Bihar
Pattipati Venkaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Piara Singh v. State of Punjab
Raghubir Singh v. State of U.P.
Ram Bali Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Ramashish Rai v. Jagdish Singh
Ramkisan and others vs. State of U.P.
Razik Ram v. Jaswant Singh Chouhan
Sanjay Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Shakti Patra and another v. State of West Bengal
Sham Singh Vs. State of Haryana
Shamshul Kanwar v. State of U.P.
Shiv Ram and anr. vs. State of U.P.
State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu : 2005 CrLJ 3950
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil
State of Haryana V. Prem Chand and others
State of M.P. Vs. Badari Yadav and another
State of M.P. Vs. Paltan Mallah
State of Maharashtra Vs. Bharat Fakira Dhiwar
State of Punjab Vs. Hakim Singh
State of Rajasthan v. Bhup Singh
State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram : (1999) 3 SCC 507
State of Rajasthan Vs. Hanuman
State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhayaya
State of U.P. Versus Krishna Master
State of U.P. Vs Deoman Upadhyaya:
State of U.P. Vs. Devendra Singh
State of U.P. Vs. M.K. Anthony
Sukhwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Surendra Narain alias Munna Pandey vs. State of U.P.
Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P.
Transport Commr., A.P., Hyderabad v. S. Sardar Ali
Vijendra Singh v. State of U.P.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.