Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2347 (ALL)

Mohammad Mohsin and Anr. v. State of U. P.

2013-09-19

NAHEED ARA MOONIS

body2013
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA and have been taken through the record. Admit, Summon the lower court record. 2. The instant appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant against the judgment and order dated 2.5.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge court No.3 Aligarh whereby the appellants have been convicted and awarded maximum sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment with default stipulation of fine in Sessions Trial No. 849 of 2011 (State vs. Mohammad Mohsin & others ) arising out of Case Crime No.207 of 2010 under sections 328/34, 379/34 IPC Police Station G.R.P. District Aligarh. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that vague allegations have been levelled against the appellants showing their complicity in the commission of the said crime. The appellants have been convicted and sentenced on the dint of suspicion.The prosecution case is that the complainant and other persons were going from Amritsar to their residence at Katihar by Amrapali Train. Six unknown persons boarded in the said train and developed their intimacy. When the train reached at Aligarh, one accused person alighted from the train and brought three bottles mango juice and 10 to 12 glasses. As the train left Aligarh station, they handed over one bottle mango juice to the complainant and kept two bottles with them. On drinking the said juice, the complainant and his associates fell unconscious. The accused persons disappeared. The first information report was lodged at G.R.P.Aligarh vide Case Crime No. 525/2010 under sections 328/379 IPC. The name of the appellants & other accused persons came into light during investigation. There is material inconsistency in the prosecution version and the statement of the witnesses which creates doubt about the probity of the offence. The entire prosecution story is rested on suspicion as no identification took place. During trial except complainant, no other witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Mere suspicion that the accused may have put poisonous substance is not sufficient for holding them liable for the offence under section 328 IPC. The appellants are absolutely innocent and is languishing in jail since long. There is remote chances of appeal being heard in near future on account of heavy dockets. Mere suspicion that the accused may have put poisonous substance is not sufficient for holding them liable for the offence under section 328 IPC. The appellants are absolutely innocent and is languishing in jail since long. There is remote chances of appeal being heard in near future on account of heavy dockets. In case the appellants are not released on bail during the pendency of appeal, the appellants would suffer irreparable harm culminating into curtailment of his right to life & liberty. 4. Per contra learned AGA contended that the appellants were charged with administering poisonous substance to the complainant and his associates with the object of removing their articles.The trial court found the prosecution evidence reliable on the basis of which conviction of the accused appellants was held. The appellants belong to different State hence they will abscond in case they are released on bail. 5. Having considered the aforesaid submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is directed that the appellants Mohammad Mohsin & Mohammad Junaid Alam convicted & sentenced in Sessions Trial No. 849 of 2011 (State vs. Mohammad Mohsin & others ) arising out of Case Crime No.207 of 2010 under sections 328/34, 379/34 IPC Police Station G.R.P. District Aligarh be enlarged on bail on their executing a personal bond & two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. Proof of address of sureties be verified before accepting bail bonds of the appellants. 6. The photo copies of the bonds so furnished be transmitted to this Court to be kept on record of the appeal. 7. It is made clear that the realization of fine is not stayed. 8. After receipt of the record, the office is directed to prepare the paper books and list the appeal for hearing in due course. _____________