IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAMESH SINHA, RENU AGARWAL, JJ.
Mumtazim And Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 736 of 1984
Decided on : 05-12-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 147, 302, 149, 148 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313, 374(2) – Offence of murder – Punishment for rioting – Rioting, armed with deadly weapon – Power to examine the accused – Appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C has been preferred by convicted appellants against judgment and order passed III-Additional Sessions Judge, Barabanki in Sessions Trial convicting and sentencing appellants under Section 147 IPC to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment, and to further undergo 1½ years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 IPC and to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC read with section 149 IPC – Held, According to the forensic science laboratory report human blood was found in the sample – Injuries found on body of deceased are well in consonance with the prosecution case. Accused Mustakim was said to have axe in his hand at the time of incident however, no injury of axe was found on body of deceased – It is stated that Mustakim was using the stick of axe and his presence at place of occurrence was proved – It is also stated that the motive accrue only to accused Israr who has expired during the course of trial but it is admitted in statement of Section 313 Cr.P.C and during the course of evidence that all the accused formed unlawful assembly and attacked the deceased with common object to kill him – Participation of all accused is proved in this incident – Learned trial court discussed evidence of all prosecution witnesses and formal witnesses at length – There is no infirmity or perversity in judgment and order passed by learned trial court – Hence, Court do not find any reason to interfere with judgment of trial court passed in Sessions Trial whereby accused are convicted by trial court – Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Renu Agarwal, J.
1. This appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C has been preferred by the convicted appellants Muntazim, Mustaqim, Rhimuddin and Idris against the judgment and order dated 19.09.1984 passed by Shri H.L. Kurel III-Additional Sessions Judge, Barabanki in Sessions Trial No. 241 of 1982 convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 147 IPC to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment, and to further undergo 1½ years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 IPC and to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC read with section 149 IPC.
2. Wrapping the facts in brief the deceased Haji Majid Ashraf Khan owned a house in Village Sipahiya, Police Station Mawai District Barabanki. He had raised his house on his own land adjoining to his house. The accused Idris claimed that adjoining land. There was unfriendly atmosphere between the two families A case was registered against the accused but he was acquitted of that offence. On account of this enmity, accused Idris had beaten Haji Ashraf Khan at Madhwa Nala.
3. Parnala of complainant’s house falls in Kolia between the house of the complainant and the accused Muntazim. The accused person had taken out parnala, raised a wall in the said kolia and prevented thereby flow of water of parnala. When the father of the complainant abstained the accused appellants from doing so, the accused started abusing and threatening his father. Complainant went to register a report in this regard to the police station concerned but the accused restrained their way and kept a watch standing in the ambush on their way. Therefore they could not lodged the FIR immediately.
4. The complainant along with other relatives Ejaz and Ashraf moved to the police station at about 4 p.m. As soon as they reached ‘Phool ka talab’ near Naya Purwa all the accused person appeared from their hiding place in the Behaya and chased them. The complainant any how managed to escaped by raising alarm but Haji Ashraf was an old man, therefore, he was overpowered by the accused Idris holding Ballam, accused Muntazir holding axe and the rest of accused person with lathi and continued to beat the deceased till his death near the house of Jagjeevan. The incident was witnessed by Sifat Ahmad, Abrar Ahmad, Nizamuddin, Ejaz Ahmad, Shahnawaz and Shabbir.
5. The matter was reported to police station Mawai and a case was registered as Crime No. 84 under Section 147, 148, 149 , 302 IPC Police Station Mawai and endorsed on G.D No. 22 on the same date. Investigation was conducted by Investigating Officer Gulab Singh Bhatia who recorded the statement of witnesses, inspected and prepared the site plan (Ex. Ka-6) and conducted inquest of deceased, prepared photo lash, challan lash, letter to C.M.O and other relevant papers and send the body of the deceased for inquest through constables recorded the statements of witnesses. He collected plain and blood stained earth, sealed and prepared the recovery memo on the spot (Exhibit Ka 7 and 8), and prepared recovery memo of blood stained cloth (Ghamcha) of deceased (Exhibit Ka-9). After collecting all the relevant evidences and noting down the result of post-mortem the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet No. 22 of 1979 in court under Section 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC.
7. Convict appellants appeared in the Court and after taking cognizance, the Court concerned committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
8. The Sessions Court framed charges against all the accused. The accused abjured from the charges and claimed to be tried.
9. In order to prove the case against the convict appellants, the prosecution produced the following witnesses:
(B) P.W.-2 Nijamuddin.
(C) P.W.-3 Gulab Chand Bhatiya Investigating officer.
(D) P.W.-4 Dr. Gopal Swaroop who conducted the autopsy on 08.08.1979 at 3 p.m. and found injuries on the body of the deceased.
(E) P.W.-5 Head Constable 35 Onkar Nath who prepared the chik report on the basis of written report. He proved the G.D entr
Amit v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab 1954 SCR 145
Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy
Ganapathi v. State of Tamil Nadu
Gulam Sabar Vs. State of Bihar reported at (2014) 3 SCC 401
Jayabalan v. Union Territory of Pondicherry
Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar (1996) 1 SCC 614
Mohd. Rojali Versus State of Assam: (2019) 19 SCC 567
Rameshwar v. The State of Rajasthan [1952] SCR 377= AIR 1952 SC 54
Eyewitness testimony from injured relatives is credible and can support a conviction, provided it is consistent and corroborated by medical evidence.
The court reiterated the importance of scrutinizing testimony from interested witnesses, considering the relevance of motive in establishing guilt, and disregarding minor discrepancies in witness tes....
Interested witnesses, such as close relatives of the deceased, can provide credible testimony and their evidence should be carefully scrutinized but not automatically discarded. In cases of direct ev....
The burden of proof rests on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and contradictions in eyewitness testimonies may result in acquittal.
Conviction for mass murder under 302/149 IPC set aside due to unreliable, contradictory ocular evidence from related witnesses; doubtful night identification, improbable presence/story; benefit of do....
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.