IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Afjaal Husain - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of U.P. - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. - 280 OF 2002.
Decided On : 23-05-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. arguments presented by the parties. (Para 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. court's reasoning on intent and injury. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. application of section 324 ipc. (Para 24 , 26) |
| 5. final order and conclusion of the court. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT
Suresh Kumar Gupta, J.
This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 23.1.2002 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-I, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 746 of 2001 arising out of Case Crime No. 4 of 2001 relating to Police Station- Chinhat, District- Lucknow, convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under Section- 307 I.P.C. for four years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/and in default of payment of fine six months additional simple imprisonment; and under Section- 452 I.P.C. for one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine six months additional simple imprisonment.
2. The prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Mohd. Shakil is the resident of Kanchanpur Matiyari, Chinhat, Lucknow, the accused Afjaal Husain is the resident of Amarsanda, Barabanki and Smt. Nazni Khatun who was the erstwhile wife of the accused Afjaal got divorce from the accused Afjaal Husain. Afterwards the complainant got married with Smt. Nazni and at the time of incident she resided with the complainant and her daughter Sabina. Due to this enmity on 3.1.2001 the accused persons namely, Afjaal armed with .315 bore country made pistol, Sahid armed with .303 bore country made pistol, Mansoor, Javed @ Guddu, Dinesh and Raja Jaswal armed with knife entered into the shop of the complainant Shakil and in order to commit murder immediately the accused Afjaal opened fire with .12 bore country made pistol. Due to this, the complainant had got gunshot injury in his chest and another fire was opened by the accused Sahid which inflicted in his thigh and due to this, the complainant fell on the earth. After hearing the sound of the fire and shriek the villagers namely, Irfan Pradhan, Parvez, Mohd. Latif and Sabbu rushed to the spot and on exhortation of the villagers, the accused rushed to Malhaur Station. This incident happened at around 5.30 pm. With the help of one Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal, the complainant rushed to the Chinhat police station. During intervening period someone informed the police, then immediately the sub inspector and other police personnel rushed to the spot and arrested the accused persons namely, Mansoor, Sahid, Javed, Raja and Dinesh. On the basis of written report, the FIR was lodged against the accused persons as case crime No. 04/2001, Under section 147,148,149,307 IPC and after arrest of these accused persons, the Fard was prepared by police personnel and case Under section 25 ARMS ACT was also lodged against the accused persons namely, Afjaal, Mansoor, Sahid, Dinesh, Raja and Javed alias Guddu as case crime Nos. 05/2001, 06/2001, 07/2001, 08/2001, 09/2001, 10/2001 respectively.
3. The case lodged against six accused persons including the appellant Afjaal Under section 147,148,149,307 IPC was investigated by Shri S.K. Katiyar, Sub Inspector and the case Under section 25 ARMS ACT was investigated by the S.I., Satyadeen Kanaujia.
4. After investigation, the charge sheet against the accused-appellant Afjaal and five other accused persons Under Section 147 ,148,149,307 IPC was submitted before the magistrate court who took cognizance and case was committed to the court of sessions and the sessions court framed the charges against Afjaal, Javed, Mansoor, Sahid, Dinesh and Raja Under Section 147 ,148, 307/149,452/149 IPC and Section 25 ARMS ACT . The charges were read over the accused persons in Hindi, but they denied the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. Since the offence was committed by the accused persons in single transa
Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 6 SCC 770
Jitendra Singh v. State of U.P. (2013) 11 SCC 193
Merambhai Punjabhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat AIR 1996 SC 3236
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove mens rea for the offence under Section 307 IPC and the interpretation of the nature of the injury in determining the ap....
Point of law: It is evident that proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is not a sine qua non for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the act....
Proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is not essential for the offence punishable u/s 307 of the IPC. The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury and surrounding circu....
The prosecution failed to prove grievous injuries beyond reasonable doubt, leading to a modified conviction under Section 324 IPC with increased fines.
A conviction for attempt to murder requires independent proof of murderous mens rea, which cannot be presumed solely from the severity of injuries. When an assault is spontaneous and lacks evidence o....
To sustain a conviction under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution must prove intent or knowledge to endanger life, which was not established in this case, resulting in an altered conviction to Section 3....
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.