IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, SANJIV KUMAR, JJ.
Shakar and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2855 of 1984
Decided On : 15-05-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural context and initial case facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. evidentiary assessment of witness testimonies and medical reports. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 3. summary of rival contentions and established grounds for appeal. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 4. analysis of prosecution's failure to explain cross-case injuries and suppression of material facts. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 47 , 48) |
| 5. legal standard for the right of private defense and benefit of doubt upon suppression of evidence. (Para 46 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 6. final acquittal and consequential administrative orders. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJIV KUMAR, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred, under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., by appellants Shakar, Yusuf, Unus, Irfan and Manjar against the judgment and order dated 09.10.1984 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Session Trial No.143 of 1983, under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 307/149 Indian Penal Code (in short ‘I.P.C.’), Police Station Bhojpur, District Ghaziabad.
2. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants, Shakar, Irfan and Manjar were held guilty and convicted and sentenced to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 147 I.P.C. appellants Unus and Yusuf were sentenced to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 148 I.P.C. all the five appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and all of them were further convicted and sentenced to undergo three years’ rigorous imprisonment each for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. It was further directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by all the five convicts. During the pendency of this criminal appeal, appellant No.1, Shakar and appellant No.4 Irfan have died and the appeal against them stood abated vide order dated 03.08.2018. Therefore, the appeal has been heard in respect of the surviving appellants, Unus, Yusuf and Manjar.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the first informant, Kabir Ahmad submitted a written application (Tehrir) (Ext. Ka-1) at Police Station Bhojpur, District Ghaziabad on 24.04.1982, stating therein that few days ago there erupted a dispute between him and Shakar over raising a wall, due to which, Shakar had developed a grudge against him. On 24.04.1982 at about 7:00 p.m., while the informant Kabir Ahmad, Nasir, Yamin, his nephew, sister-in-law, Smt. Bano and grandson Matloob @ Kallwa were present in his house, Shakar, Yusuf, Unus, Irfan, Fayyaz and Manjar, all natives of his village, reached armed with lathi and farsa. They started hurling abuses and upon objection, assaulted them with lathi and farsa. Upon alarm, Abbas, Taki, Ibrahim, Mohd. Sharif and many persons came and saved them. The condition of injured Nasir and Kallwa was very critical and the informant also sustained fracture on his left wrist.
5. Upon this information, an FIR bearing Case Crime No. 51 of 1982, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 324, 325, and 307 I.P.C., was lodged at Police Station Bhojpur, District Ghaziabad, on 24.04.1982 at 9:15 p.m. The investigation commenced and the Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of the informant and other witnesses, inspected the place of occurrence, and prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka-9). The injured were sent for medical examination. Kallwa, son of Nashir, subsequently died as a result of the injuries sustained by him. His inquest was conducted and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. In post-mortem examination, three ante-mortem injuries were found on the body and in the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was shock and com
(1) A case and counter case arising out of same incident should always be tried by same Court.(2) Right to private defence – Reasonable apprehension of death or genuine apprehension of grievous hurt ....
Point of Law : Criminal Trial - Private defence - The law of private defence does not require that the person assaulted or facing an apprehension of an assault must run away for safety. It entitles h....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the right of private defence arises only when this burden is met, which was not established in this case.
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.