Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 8 (JK)

Inzar Ahmad v. State of J & K

2011-01-02

J.P.SINGH

body2011
Convicted for Culpable Homicide Not Amounting To Murder, Forming Unlawful Assembly In Prosecution Of Common Object, and Rioting, besides Criminal Trespass, the appellant-Inzar Ahmad, was sentenced to, five years' Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-, besides default sentence of one month under Section 304-II RPC, three years' Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 148 RPC, two years' Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, besides default sentence of fifteen days under Section 4/27 Arms Act, one year's Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 324/149 RPC, and two months' Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 447 RPC, by the learned Sessions Judge, Poonch vide his Order of August 02, 2005, pursuant to the conviction recorded vide his Judgment of August 01, 2005. He has filed this Appeal questioning his conviction and sentence. The prosecution case against the appellant is that pursuant to a tiff between Mohd. Raqib and Fatima Bi, when the former was not permitted by the later to repair the Electric Line on 02.07.2000, the appellant along with Mohd. Azam, Mohd. Bashir, Mst. Fatima Bi, Shamim Akhter and Havela Khatoon, with common object to commit murder, trespassed the fields of Mohd. Raqib armed with deadly weapons at about 4.30 PM when Mohd. Hafeez Complainant along with his wife, daughterin- law and Mohd. Raqib were busy weeding out grass from the maize crop sown in the fields. Inzar Ahmed was armed with a knife and Mohd. Azam with a Hoe, known as Rumbi. Inzar Ahmed hit Mohd. Raqib on the buttocks with the knife whereas Mohd. Azam hit Mohd. Hafeez on his head. Rest of the accused pelted stones and hit the complainant party with blows. The appellant and others fled away from the spot when they came to know that Mohd. Raqib had died because of the injury sustained by him in the occurrence. Relying upon the statements of PWs Mohd. Hafeez, Parveen Akhter and Resham Bi, who were eye witnesses to the occurrence and other corroborative evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of the offences, referred to at the threshold. Besides the appellant, Mohd. Azam, Mohd. Bashir, Mst. Fatima, Mst. Haveli and Mst. Shamim Akhter too were convicted and sentenced to various terms of Imprisonment. Restricting appellant's challenge to his conviction and sentence, as awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, the appellant's learned counsel, Mr. Besides the appellant, Mohd. Azam, Mohd. Bashir, Mst. Fatima, Mst. Haveli and Mst. Shamim Akhter too were convicted and sentenced to various terms of Imprisonment. Restricting appellant's challenge to his conviction and sentence, as awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, the appellant's learned counsel, Mr. Arif submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case, as projected by the prosecution, would not prove the appellant to have committed the offence of Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder and in this view of the matter his conviction and sentence needed to be modified. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, submitted that the trial Court, having already taken a lenient view in the matter, in view of the young age of the appellant, no further reduction in the sentence may be warranted as the act of the appellant in attacking the deceased and others with a knife amply demonstrated his knowledge that he was likely by his act to cause death of Mohd. Raqib and in this view of the matter the appellant's conviction for the offences found proved against him may not warrant any modification. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence and the material that the prosecution and the defence had produced during the trial of the case. The evidence of the eye witnesses including those who were injured in the attack, mounted by the appellant and others on the complainant party where they were weeding grass from the maize crop, is not found discredited in their crossexamination and when considered in totality of the circumstances, establishes the presence of the appellant and his associates, on the place of occurrence. It further proves the appellant and others to have committed criminal trespass into the Complainant's field with the common object of Rioting, having formed Unlawful Assembly for the purpose. It was because of the overwhelming evidence on records proving the appellant's involvement in the occurrence in which Mohd. Raqib died because of the injury received by him at the hands of the appellant, that the appellant's learned counsel, and rightly so, restricted his submission only to urge about the offence that the appellant may be said to have committed in the circumstances of the case. I, however, do not see any merit in the appellant's learned counsel's restrictive submission that the offence committed by the appellant in causing death of Mohd. I, however, do not see any merit in the appellant's learned counsel's restrictive submission that the offence committed by the appellant in causing death of Mohd. Raqib would not amount to Culpable Homicide Not Amounting To Murder, in view of the part played by the appellant in becoming the member of the Unlawful Assembly and proceeding towards the fields of the Complainant party, armed with a sharp edged weapon i.e. knife 13 inches long, which he actually used in hitting Mohd. Raqib at his buttocks severing the major blood vessel in Pelvic Artery and Veins, causing massive hemorrhage, which resulted in his instant death. Causing injuries with a sharp edged weapon of 13 inches length would certainly attribute knowledge to the appellant that the injury caused therewith would result in death. Therefore, in the proved facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is found to have been rightly convicted by under Section 304-II RPC for causing death of Mohd. Raqib by the trial Court. Sentence of Imprisonment of five years awarded by the trial Court to the appellant, being already on the lower side, no interference in the impugned conviction and sentence may be warranted. There is, thus, no merit in the appellant's learned counsel's submission, which is, accordingly, rejected. Finding no merit in the Appeal, it fails and is, therefore, dismissed.