Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3451 (ALL)

ANIS v. STATE OF U. P.

2014-11-20

RAKESH TIWARI, VIJAY LAKSHMI

body2014
JUDGMENT Accused appellant-Anis has preferred this criminal appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 25.5.1995 passed by VIIth Addl. Sessions Judge, Muaffarnagar in S.T. No. 422 of 1993, State Vs. Anis, by which he has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under section 302, 307 IPC. We have heard Sri K.K. Singh, Amicus Curiae for the appellant and learned A.G.A. and perused the record. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that on 20.8.1993 Alimuddin submitted a report at police station Khatauli, district Muzaffarnagar stating that at about 2.30 P.M. while he was taking medicines from the clinic of his brother-in-law (Saroo) Hakim Akhlaq, accused Anis son of Najir with an adze in his hand had come there after having attacked and injuring Haji Saddiq; that entering the shop he started abusing saying that today I have done away Haji Saddiq and since you were also involved in the Panchayat as Sarpanch and ordered for removal of his Gumti (Khokha), gave blows on the head of Hakim Aklaq saying that he will not leave him alive today; that on the hue and cry raised, Kallu, Shamshuddin, Rayees Ahamd and many other persons as well as contable Sunil Kumar and Homeguard Sukhbir came there and challenged Anis who tried to escape but was caught on the spot ; injured Haji Saddiq and Hakim Akhlaq have been taken to Meerut by their family members for treatment whereas complainant has come to lodge the FIR. Injured Hakim Akhlaq was admitted in M. Prakash Nursing home, Meerut where he was treated by Dr. Pradeep Bharti, Assistant Professor in Meerut Medical College. The following injuries were found on his person : flj ij chp ls ck;s gkFk dh rjQ dVk gqvk ?kko 12 lsaVhehVj dk FkkA bl pksV ls gM~Mh VwVus ds ckn fnekx ckgj fudy vk;k FkkA pksV rktk Fkh rFkk 6 ?kaVs ds vUnj dh FkhA ;g pksV ejht ds fnekx esa Fkh blls bldh e`R;q Hkh gks ldrh FkhA Injured Hakim Akhlaq was operated and had toremain admitted in hospital till 17.9.1993. When he was discharged, he was unable to speak and was suffering from paralysis due to the aforesaid injury. Injured Haji Saddiq was treated in Medical College, Meerut where he died on 21.8.1993. His body was identified by the persons attending him. Postmortem examination on the cadaver of Haji Saddiq was conducted by Dr. When he was discharged, he was unable to speak and was suffering from paralysis due to the aforesaid injury. Injured Haji Saddiq was treated in Medical College, Meerut where he died on 21.8.1993. His body was identified by the persons attending him. Postmortem examination on the cadaver of Haji Saddiq was conducted by Dr. R.P. Mishra on 21.8.1993 at 4.45 P.M., and the following injuries were found : 1& dVk gqvk ?kko 6 lsaVhehVj 1-5 lsaVhehVj fnekx rd xgjk ftlls fnekx dk Hkkx ckgj fudyk gqvk FkkA ;g pksV flj ds nkfgus Hkkx es ¼isjhVy cksu½ ;g pksV nkfgus dku ls 10 lsaVhehVj Åij FkhA 2& dVk gqvk ?kko flj ds nkfgus Hkkx 6 lsaVhehVj 1-5 lsaVhehVj gM~Mh rd xgjkA ;g pksV ua01 ls 3 lsaVhehVj uhps dh rjQ FkhA blesa cksu dVh gqbZ ikbZ xbZA 3& dVk gqvk ?kko flj ds nkfguh fgLls es 6-5 lsaVhehVj 1-5 lsaVhehVj gM~Mh rd xgjkA fnekx dk dqN fgLlk ckgj fudyk gqvk FkkA gM~Mh dVh gqbZ FkhA blesa e`R;q dk dkj.k dksek gS tks fd flj esa pksV yxus dh otg ls gqvk gSA e`R;q dk le; 10-45 cts jkf= 20-8-93 dks esfMdy dkyst esa gqbZ gSA bldk iksLV ekVZe 4-45 ih0,e0 ij fnukad 21-8-93 dks fd;k FkkA e`R;q ds yxHkx 6&8 ?kaVs igys pksV vkuk laHko gSA ;g lHkh pksVsa /kkjnkj gfFk;kj elyu fclkSyk] Qjlk vkfn ls vk ldrh gSA iksLV ekVZe fjiksVZ i=koyh ij gS tks izn'kZ d&6 gSA The matter was investigated and blood stained articles of the deceased were sent to forensic lab for testing. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused appellant and the case was committed to the court of sessions. Charges under section 302, 307 IPC were framed against him which he denied. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined, P.W- Alimuddin, P.W.2-injured Hakim Akhlaq, P.W.3- Mohd. Isha, P.W.4- Mamchand, P.W.5-Dr. Pradeep Bharti, P.W.6-Constable Gajendra, P.W.7-Dr. R.P. Mishra, P.W.8-IO Ram Pal Singh and P.W.9- SI D.S. Pawar. The accused appellant in his statement under section 313,Cr.P.C. stated that he has been falsely implicated on account of enmity. He did not adduce any witness or documentary evidence in his defence. P.W.-1 Alimuddin in his examination in chief stated that he knew accused Anis who is present and narrated the manner in which he had attacked Hakim Akhlaq who had escaped death. He did not adduce any witness or documentary evidence in his defence. P.W.-1 Alimuddin in his examination in chief stated that he knew accused Anis who is present and narrated the manner in which he had attacked Hakim Akhlaq who had escaped death. He reiterated the version of FIR saying that Anis was caught on the spot alongwith weapon of assault i.e. adze. P.W.2-injured Hakim Akhlaq in his examination in chief stated that he knew accused Anis who is present in court; that he had given a verdict in Panchayat against him for removing his Gumti within a period of four months; that time of four months was subsequently extended, due to which he harbored enmity; that deceased Haji Sadiq, Meghraj Singh and Kanhaiya etc. were also in the aforesaid Panchayat alongwith him. P.W.2 also narrated the manner he was attacked by the accused by blood stained adze saying he will not leave him alive for giving decision against him and compelling him to remove his Gumti (Khokha). Lastly, he stated that he fainted due to injury on his head caused by the accused by adze. P.W.3 Mohd. Isha, who was brother of deceased Haji Saddiq, stated that deceased Haji Saddiq was a carpenter and elaborately described the manner in which Haji Saddiq (since deceased) was assaulted by the accused by adze; that on hue and cry raised, Yamin had also come on the spot and tried to save Haji Saddiq but accused Anis escaped giving threats towards shop of Hakim Akhlaq which is nearby towards Holi chowk. P.W.4-Mamchand denied having seen the incident, so he was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.5 Dr. Pradeep Bharti proved the injury report of P.W.2-injured Hakim Akhlaq whereas P.W.7-Dr.R.P. Misra, proved the postmortem examination report of the deceased. P.W.8- SI Ram Pal Singh is the investigating officer while PW9- SI D.S. Pawar had conducted Panchayatnama of body of the deceased. After appreciation of the evidence on record and hearing submission of the counsel for parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that charges under section 302,307 were proved against the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to life imprisonment thereunder, vide impugned judgment and order dated 25.5.1995. After appreciation of the evidence on record and hearing submission of the counsel for parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that charges under section 302,307 were proved against the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to life imprisonment thereunder, vide impugned judgment and order dated 25.5.1995. The impugned judgment and order is assailed on the ground that conviction and sentence of the accused appellant is against the weight of evidence on record and that sentence awarded is too severe. Counsel for the appellant has argued that it is clear from narration of the facts that there are two different incidents; that injuries on the body of deceased Haji Saddiq are incised wounds whereas injuries sustained by injured Hakim Akhlaq are by blunt object, therefore, it cannot be said that they have been inflicted by the same weapon. Learned A.G.A has submitted that incident has been witnessed by eye witnesses and the injured P.W.2 himself has come in evidence deposing the manner in which he was assaulted. Learned trial court after appreciation of evidence on record, has found thus : mDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij eS bl fu"d"kZ ij igWqprk gWw fd dh fnukad 20-8-93 dks yXkHkx 2-30 cts fnu vfHk;qDr vuhl us gkth ln~nhd dh nwdku ij tkdj xkyh xykSp dh In our considered opinion, the learned trial court has not committed any error either on fact or law in arriving at the conclusion that prosecution has been able to establish its case against the accused appellant and awarding punishment of life imprisonment to the accused appellant, hence the impugned judgment and order deserves to be upheld in the facts and circumstances of the case. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. ——————