Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1627 (ALL)

HASIM v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-04-29

HARSH KUMAR, SHASHI KANT GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : (Delivered by Hon'ble S.K. Gupta, J.) This criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant Hasim against the judgement and order dated 19.3.1983 passed by Sri S.L. Adarsh VIIth Addl. Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Session Trial No.179 of 1981 convicting the appellant Hasim for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. and Section 25 (1)(a) Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life for the said offence and one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 25 (1)(a) Arms Act. Both the sentences of the accused appellant were directed to run concurrently. The facts of the case, as unfolded by the informant Nafeesul Hasan in the written report Ext. Ka-1, are that on 15.7.1980, the informant Nafeesul Hasan had gone along with Laddan to his sister's house, who was married to Gulam Rasool and residing in Kasba Karari. The informant, Laddan and deceased Gulam Rasool reached the grain market at about 2.00 p.m. The accused Hasim, Nisar, Shankar and Chiraunji emerged suddenly from behind the cloth shop of Achche and the appellant Hashim shouted that enemy was there and revenge should be taken and thereafter fired a shot at Gulam Rasool (deceased) with his country made pistol and on sustaining injury, he fell down after running for some distance.The informant raised a hue and cry. In the meantime, accused Nisar also fired a shot at Gulam Rasool with his country made pistol from a short distance. On being instigated by the accused Chiraunji, accused Shankar inflicted a knife blow on the abdomen of Gulam Rasool who died on the spot. On hearing the outcry of the informant, Laik Ahmed, Nankau, Abdul Hamid, Mohammed Yunus, Syed Mohamed Sibte Aktar alias Bassan and other reached the spot and tried to chase the miscreants, whereupon the accused Nisar, finding no way to escape, fired another shot to scare them. However, accused Nisar and Hashim, after being beaten were overpowered and apprehended at Ram Leela ground along with country made pistols and live cartridges.Accused Shanker and Chiraunji succeeded in fleeing away. When accused Hashim and Nisar were being taken to the police station along with pistol and cartridges recovered from them, Nisar died on the way to the police station. Thereafter, the appellant Hashim was handed over to the police at the police station along with the dead body of Nisar. When accused Hashim and Nisar were being taken to the police station along with pistol and cartridges recovered from them, Nisar died on the way to the police station. Thereafter, the appellant Hashim was handed over to the police at the police station along with the dead body of Nisar. The informant submitted a written report (Ext. Ka-1) of the occurrence at the police station Karari, on the basis of which, a case under sections 302/307 I.P.C. and section 25 Arms Act was registered against the accused Hasim, Chiraunji, Shankar and the deceased Nisar. After preparation of inquest report, post-mortem examinations on the dead bodies of the deceased persons were carried out and after investigation, the accused were challaned and were thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions for trial on 21.5.1981 by Sri S.C. Bose, Munsif Magistrate, Allahabad under sections 302 and 307 I.P.C. and 25 Arms Act for committing murder of Gulam Rasool, attempting to commit murder of Nafeesul Hasan and others and being in possession of country made pistol and live cartridges on 15.7.1980 at about 2.00 p.m. at grain market Karari within police circle Karari district Allahabad. Co accused Chiraunji died during the trial. The accused Hashim and Shankar were charged and tried under sections 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and accused Hashim was further charged and tried under section 25 (1) (a) Arms Act by the Court of VII Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and relied upon various documents. P.W. 1 Nafeesul Hasan is the informant of this case and an eye witness of the occurrence. He supported the prosecution case as it is. He proved, inter alia, written report (Ext. Ka-1), country made pistols (Exts. 1 and 2) live cartridges (Exts. 3 to 9) and clothes (Exts. 10 and 11) P.W. 2 Ladan is another eye witness of the occurrence. He also supported the prosecution case . P.W.3 S.I., B.P. Kanaujia is the Investigating Officer of this case.He recorded the statements of the witnesses, made inquest of the dead bodies, visited the spot, made recoveries, prepared site plans and submitted charge sheet. He proved, inter alia, the site plan (Ext. Ka-3), inquest report, photo nash and challan nash of dead body of Gulam Rasool (Exts. Ka-4 to Ka-6), Fard blood stained and plain earth (Ext. Ka-7), fard blank cartridges (Ext. He proved, inter alia, the site plan (Ext. Ka-3), inquest report, photo nash and challan nash of dead body of Gulam Rasool (Exts. Ka-4 to Ka-6), Fard blood stained and plain earth (Ext. Ka-7), fard blank cartridges (Ext. Ka-8 and Ka-9) inquest report, photo nash of dead body, challan nash of dead body of Nisar (Exts. Ka-10 to Ka-12), site plan of recovery under section 25 Arms Act (Ext. Ka-13), charge sheets (Ext. Ka-14 and Ka-15), application for obtaining sanction (Ext. Ka-16),prosecution sanction (Ext-Ka-17), container of blood stained earth (material Ext. 12),container of plain earth ( material Ext. 13) and two L.G. Blank cartridges ( material Exts. 14 and 15). P.W. 4, Dr. H.S. Tewari conducted the post mortem examinations on the dead bodies of Gulam Rasool and Nisar. He found two lacerated wounds, two contusions, one abrasion and a defused swelling as ante mortem injuries on the body of Nisar. The injuries as noted by P.W. 4, Dr. H.S. Tewari on the post mortem report of Gulam Rasool are as under:- External Examination A man of average built. Eyes and mouth closed. Rigour mortis passed from upper limbs and present in lower limbs. Abdomen and scrotum distended. Ante mortem injuries 1. Incised wound 4 cm x 3 cm x abdominal cavity deep on the abdomen from above the umbilicus in middle and placed vertically. 2. Fire-arm wound 3 cm x 3 cm x chest cavity deep on the left side of chest in mid axillary line 12 cm below axilla. Blackening and tattooing around the wound. Margins lacerated, irregular, directed inverted. 3. Fire arm wound of 2 cm x 2 cm x chest cavity deep on right side chest just below the inner end of right clavicle. Margins lacerated, irregular, inverted. Blackening around the wound. 4. Fire arm wound 1 ½ cm x ½ cm x chest cavity deep on right side chest just below the middle of right clavicle. Blackening around the wound. Margins lacerated, irregular, directed backwards. 5. Abrasion 2 " x ½ " on the front of nose. 6. Abrasion 1 "x 1/2" on the forehead. Internal examination Stomach contained semi digested food matter. Intestine partly full. Cause of death Shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injujries. He recovered some pellets from the body of the deceased. He proved post mortem examination report (Ext. Ka-18). 6. Abrasion 1 "x 1/2" on the forehead. Internal examination Stomach contained semi digested food matter. Intestine partly full. Cause of death Shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injujries. He recovered some pellets from the body of the deceased. He proved post mortem examination report (Ext. Ka-18). He stated that the death of the deceased was possible on 15.7.1980 at 2.00 p.m. and his injury No. 1 was possible with knife. He proved post mortem examination report of Nisar (Ext. Ka-19) and stated that his death also was possible on 15.7.1980 at about 2.00 p.m. P.W. 6 Constable Moharrir Bhagawati Prasad Shukla is a formal witness. He proved F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-21), copy of G.D. report No. 22 (Ext. ka-22) and fard (Ext. ka-2). In his cross examination he proved copy of G.D. report No. 21 (Ext. kha-1). P.W. 7 Constable Bhim Singh took the dead bodies for post mortem examination. He stated that till the dead bodies remained in his custody their seals remained intact and he did not allow any body to touch them. Sri Budul Rai (P.W.5) is the ballestic expert. He proved copy of Test report (Ext. Ka-20), negatives (Ext. 16), photo graphs (Ext. 17 to 22) and cartridges (Exts. 23 and 24). According to him, some of the blank cartridges recovered from the spot, were used in those very country made pistols which were recovered from the possession of the accused Hashim and Nisar on the spot. The accused pleaded not guilty and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity with the police. Accused Hashim set up a case that he was called from his house in the evening to the police station and was challaned in this case. Regarding Gulam Rasool, he stated that he was a man of bad character and had enmity with so many persons. None of the accused gave oral evidence in defence. However, they filed 24 papers (Exts. Kha-2 to kha-25) in defence. Trial court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record found that the prosecution had fully succeeded in bringing home the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and vide impugned judgment and order dated 19.3.1983 convicted and sentenced the accused appellant Hasim, hence the present appeal. Kha-2 to kha-25) in defence. Trial court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record found that the prosecution had fully succeeded in bringing home the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and vide impugned judgment and order dated 19.3.1983 convicted and sentenced the accused appellant Hasim, hence the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant castigated the impugned judgement and order and submitted that the F.I.R. is ante timed and it was prepared after consultation with the police. It was further submitted that the presence of the P.W. 1, Nafeesul Hasan (first informant) and P.W. 2 Laddan on the spot is highly doubtful. It was further submitted that no reason has been assigned in the F.I.R. by the informant for visiting his sister. It was further submitted that,as per prosecution version, two shots were fired but the post mortem report shows that the deceased had received three gun shot injuries, as such there is flagrant conflict between the oral and the medical evidence. It was further submitted that the co accused Nisar (now deceased) and the appellant Hasim were allegedly beaten by the public at the spot and co-accused Nisar succumbed to his injuries while being taken to the police station, however, the appellant Hasim , on the other hand, did not receive even a scratch, this fact by itself creates doubt about the presence of the appellant Hasim on the spot at the time of alleged incident. It was further submitted that the recovery of alleged pistol and cartridges were planted by the police. It was further submitted that the co accused Shanker, who was assigned the specific role of causing knife injury to the deceased, has been acquitted while other co accused Hasim (appellant) against whom similar allegations of causing injuries were made, has been convicted, as such the contradictory observations/views have been expressed in the impugned judgement. It was further submitted that it is very surprising that the widow of the deceased who had also visited the spot soon after the incident, had neither been shown as witness of Panchayatnama nor has been produced as a prosecution witness. It was further submitted that it was most improbable that the appellant Hasim would fire only one shot although he was allegedly carrying four live cartridges with him. Per contra, Mr. Rajiv Gupta, learned Addl. It was further submitted that it was most improbable that the appellant Hasim would fire only one shot although he was allegedly carrying four live cartridges with him. Per contra, Mr. Rajiv Gupta, learned Addl. Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State,while supporting the impugned judgement and order of conviction submitted that the prosecution witnesses proved the case to the hilt and no dent could be caused by the defence in the prosecution case. It was further submitted that it was a broad day light murder at the market place at 2.00 P.M. and accused Hasim and Nisar were nabbed on the spot and were beaten by the public, as a result thereof, co accused Nisar, while he was being taken to the police station succumbed to his injuries and appellant Hasim was handed over to the police at the police station.Thus, the appellant was apprehended on the spot alongwith his pistol and live cartridges. It was further submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution does not suffer from any inconsistency and infirmity. P.W. 2 Laddan is an independent witness and there is nothing on record to show that the P.Ws. 1 and 2 were not present on the spot. It was further submitted that it was not necessary for the informant to have assigned the reasons for visiting his sister's house. The medical evidence also corroborates the testimonies of the witnesses. The report of ballistic expert also supports the prosecution case. We have heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava holding the brief of Mr. Kamal Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.N. Tripathi, Mr. Rajiv Gupta, Mr. R. Y. Pandey,Mr. Rahul Mishra, Mr. Ram Sagar and Mr. U. K. Mishra,learned A.G.As. for the State and perused the record. As per prosecution version, on 15.7.1980 the informant Nafeesul Hasan had gone along with Laddan to his sister's house, who was married to Gulam Rasool residing in Kasba Karari. From there, they along with the deceased Gulam Rasool went to the grain market at about 2.00 P.M. when they reached there, the accused Hasim,Nisar, and Chiraunji emerged suddenly from behind the cloth shop of Achche. The appellant Hashim shouted " the enemies have come today, revenge be taken" and then he fired a shot at Gulam Rasool (deceased) with his country made pistol.On sustaining the injury, the deceased Gulam Rasool fell down after running some distance. The appellant Hashim shouted " the enemies have come today, revenge be taken" and then he fired a shot at Gulam Rasool (deceased) with his country made pistol.On sustaining the injury, the deceased Gulam Rasool fell down after running some distance. Upon raising hue and cry by the informant, accused Nisar also fired a shot at Gulam Rasool with his country made pistol from a short distance. Accused Shankar, on being instigated by the accused Chiraunji, inflicted a knife blow on the abdomen of Gulam Rasool who died on the spot. On hearing the outcry of the informant, Laik Ahmed, Nankau, Abdul Hamid, Mohammed Yunus, Syed Mohamed Sibte Aktar alias Bassan and others also reached the spot and tried to chase the miscreants, whereupon the accused Nisar, finding no way to escape, fired another shot to frighten them. However, accused Nisar and Hashim, after being beaten by public were overpowered and apprehended at Ram Leela ground along with country made pistols and live cartridges. Accused Shanker and Chiraunji succeeded in fleeing away. When accused Hashim and Nisar were being taken to the police station along with material recovered from them, Nisar died on the way to the police station. Thereafter, the accused Hashim was handed over to the police at the police station along with the dead body of the co accused Nisar. While appraising the testimony of witnesses of fact Nafeesul Hasan and Laddan, we would also examine as to whether these witnesses were present at the time of occurrence. Nafeesul Hasan has stated that his sister was married to the deceased Gulam Rasool. There is no dispute about it. He is a resident of village Basohara which is about six miles from Karari. In paragraph 26 of his statement he has stated that on being informed about the arm of his sister being dislocated, he took P.W.2, Laddan to her for doing the needful. Laddan resident of Manjhanpur which is about six miles from Karari stated that Nafeesul Hasan took him to Karari for the aforesaid purpose. Purpose of visit was not necessary to be mentioned in the written report. Nafeesul Hasan could have been called being a near relative of the deceased, but not Laddan, hence presence of Laddan at the time of occurrence cannot be doubted. There is nothing to show that the F.I.R. was ante timed. Referring to inquest report (Ext. Purpose of visit was not necessary to be mentioned in the written report. Nafeesul Hasan could have been called being a near relative of the deceased, but not Laddan, hence presence of Laddan at the time of occurrence cannot be doubted. There is nothing to show that the F.I.R. was ante timed. Referring to inquest report (Ext. ka-4) it has been urged that had Nafeesul Hasan been present at the time of preparation of this document, he would not have allowed residence of Gulam Rasool being written as village Arahara. It has come in his statement that Gulam Rasool had houses at Arahara and Karari both. If only one address was written , it does not make any difference if the other address was not mentioned. The Investigating Officer should have been cross examined as to why he wrote Arahara and not Kararai but no such explanation was sought from this witness. In the circumstances, presence of Nafeesul Hasan also stands proved. It is notable that the murder of the deceased was committed in broad day light at around 2.00 P.M. Specific role of causing gun shot injuries to the deceased was assigned to the appellant Hasim . Co accused Nasir was also assigned the role of causing fire arm injury to the deceased and co accused Shanker was assigned the role of causing knife injuries and co accused Chiraunji was assigned the role of exhortation. It is also notable that the accused appellant Hasim as well as the co accused Nisar were nabbed on the spot by the public and accused Nisar in order to save himself fired shot at the members of the public to scare them, who were trying to chase him. Both the accused were overpowered and apprehended along with their weapons at the Ram Leela ground. Thereafter, the co-accused Nisar was severely beaten by the members of the public and while the appellant Hasim and accused Nisar were being taken to the police,Nisar succumbed to his injuries. Thereafter Hasim was handed over to the police at the police station. Thus, in the present case , the appellant was apprehended on the spot along with pistol and live cartridges. The report of the ballistic expert is also on record which indicates that fire was shot on the deceased by that very pistol which was used by the appellant in the commission of the alleged offence. Thus, in the present case , the appellant was apprehended on the spot along with pistol and live cartridges. The report of the ballistic expert is also on record which indicates that fire was shot on the deceased by that very pistol which was used by the appellant in the commission of the alleged offence. The record further reveals that it has been deposed by the informant Nafeesul Hasan that he had appeared as a witness against Gulam Haider alias Aggan ( brother of appellant Hasim) who was involved in a murder case of his maternal uncle namely Yadgar Hussain. Had there been any designs to take any revenge, he would have definitely implicated his brother Gulam Haider also and not the other accused alone. The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was necessary for the informant to have assigned reasons in the F.I.R. for visiting his sister's house has no merits because it is quite natural for the informant being a brother to visit his sister's house as and when he desired. Moreover, in the testimony, it has been stated that the arm of his sister was dislocated, due to which, he had taken P.W.2, Laddan for doing the needful. It is also noteable that Laddan is an independent witness and he in a very clear and cogent manner has described the incident and supported the prosecution story. There is nothing on record to show that Laddan was in any way inimical to the accused appellant or any other accused. The eye witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have very categorically stated that both the appellant Hasim and co accused Nisar fired at the deceased and co accused Shanker caused knife injury and soon thereafter the public apprehended the appellant and accused Nisar who were nabbed at the spot carrying pistol and live cartridges was severely beaten by the public and thereafter the appellant was handed over to the police at the police station and the dead body of Nisaar, who succumbed to injures on the way to the police station, was also handed over to the police . It is notable that the incident occurred at 2.00 P.M. and soon thereafter the F.I.R. was lodged at the police station which was at a distance of only one Furlong from the place of the incident. It is notable that the incident occurred at 2.00 P.M. and soon thereafter the F.I.R. was lodged at the police station which was at a distance of only one Furlong from the place of the incident. Written reports (Ext ka-1) and Fard Dakhila, two country made pistols, live cartridges ( Ext.ka- 2) and post mortem examination reports of Gulam Rasool and co accused Nisar (Exts Ka-18 and Ka-19) corroborates the testimonies of the witnesses. According to the Doctor, who conducted the post mortem report opined that the death of Gulam Rasool and Nisar was possible on 15.7.1980 at about 2.00 P.M. The post mortem report ( Ext. Ka-18) of Gulam Rasool shows that he had sustained one incised wound, three fire arm wounds and two abrasions. Abrasion could come by falling and rubbing against hard substance. According to the said Doctor, incised wound was possible by knife. We do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the injuries no. 2 to 4 were caused by three gun shots opened by the assailants and not by two gun shots as alleged by the witnesses. It is notable that injury no.2 is on the left side of chest whereas injury no. 3 and 4 are on right side of chest. Injuries no. 3 and 4 could be caused by one gun shot fire. The concerned Doctor was not cross examined on this point. Had such a question been put to him on this point, the doctor would have been in a position to explain that all the three injuries were possible with only two gun shots. Injuries of co accused Nisar could come due to beating by public at the time of his arrest. Neither any hue and cry was made by the kith and kin of Nisar, nor any legal proceedings were taken in this regard qua the death of Nisar. This fact by itself reflects that he died in the manner as alleged by the prosecution and his kith and kin had no grievance in relation thereto. While referring to the statement of P.W. 6, constable Bhagwati Prasad Shukla, who prepared the F.I.R. and proved the G.D. Report (Kha-1), it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that after going from the police station vide G.D. (Kha-1)the investigating officer, Mr. While referring to the statement of P.W. 6, constable Bhagwati Prasad Shukla, who prepared the F.I.R. and proved the G.D. Report (Kha-1), it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that after going from the police station vide G.D. (Kha-1)the investigating officer, Mr. B. P. Kanaujia did not go to the police station till 17.7.80. We do not find any substance in the said contention because there is no evidence that the constable Moharrir Bhagwati Prasad Shukla remained at the police station round the clock. It was possible that he may not have been there when the investigating officer had gone there. The spot arrest of the appellants along with the weapons, the death of co accused Nisar on way to police station and report of the ballistic expert and other clinching evidence clearly goes to show that the prosecution has proved its case to the hilt. While cross examining the eye witnesses P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, their presence on the spot has not been challenged nor there is any evidence to indicate that the F.I.R. is ante timed. All the relevant details, as required, have been given in the Panchayatnama. Learned counsel for the appellant could not show any lacuna , irregularity, illegality or infirmity in the Panchayatnama. While referring to the statement of appellant Hasim recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. that he was called from his house in the evening and was challaned, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that had he been involved in the present murder case, he would not have remained at his house after the occurrence to enable the police to arrest him. We do not find any substance in this contention also because he has not adduced any evidence in this regard to prove that he was called by the police to the police station from his house. Perusal of the record clearly establishes that one country made pistol from the appellant Hasim and one country made pistol from the co accused Nisar were recovered along with some live cartridges when they were apprehended soon after the occurrence. The Investigating Officer also recovered some blank cartridges from the spot. Perusal of the record clearly establishes that one country made pistol from the appellant Hasim and one country made pistol from the co accused Nisar were recovered along with some live cartridges when they were apprehended soon after the occurrence. The Investigating Officer also recovered some blank cartridges from the spot. The blank cartridges and country made pistols recovered from accused Hasim and Nisar were sent to the ballistic expert for examination, who duly proved that most of the cartridges recovered from the accused persons were fired by the disputed pistols. Recovery of country made pistol from his possession soon after the occurrence is an evidence of a gravely incriminating character. Much emphasis has been given to the fact that as to why the appellant Hasim did not receive even a scratch whereas the co accused Nisar, who was also allegedly nabbed by the public along with Hasim, was beaten to death by public and this fact itself shows that he was not nabbed on the spot and, in fact, he was called from his house in the evening and was challaned. This contention of the appellant also does not hold good in view of the circumstances that even according to the prosecution case, appellant Hasim after firing upon the victim Gulam Rasul did not indulge in any overt act furthering his object. However, Nisar not only fired upon the deceased Gulam Rasul but in a bid to make his escape made indiscriminate firing upon the witnesses as well as the mob due to which members of the public got enraged and apprehended him and had beaten him mercilessly. As such the role of Nisar is distinguishable from the role of appellant Hasim. This circumstance clearly explicit the reason why Nasir was mercilessly beaten. So far as non examination of the injuries of the appellant Hasim is concerned, it is quite possible that he may not have suffered visible injuries , as such his injuries could not be noticed . Learned counsel for the appellant has placed great emphasis on the fact that co accused Shanker was acquitted although he was assigned the role of causing injury by knife. We do not agree with the submission so made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The case of co accused Shanker stands on a different footing. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed great emphasis on the fact that co accused Shanker was acquitted although he was assigned the role of causing injury by knife. We do not agree with the submission so made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The case of co accused Shanker stands on a different footing. From perusal of the record, it reflects that neither he was bearing any enmity with the informant's side including deceased nor any motive has been assigned to him. The reasons recorded by the trial court while acquitting him was quite possible, and as such it can not be said that merely because the co accused Shanker has been acquitted, the appellant should also have been acquitted. As per the material available on record against the appellant Hasim, the trial court was fully justified in passing the order of conviction against him. The last submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the widow sister of the informant should also have been produced as a witness before the court but the prosecution did not do so and the presence of the witnesses at the time of incident is doubtful. The said argument also does not hold any water. It is absolutely on the prosecution to choose as to whom and how many witnesses have to be produced before the court. Moreover, the sister of the informant was also not an eye witness of the incident. She came to know about the incident only after her husband was murdered. The testimony of P.W1, Nafisul and P.W.2 Laddan, who are the independent witnesses and have no axe to grind, have fully supported the prosecution story and despite extensive cross examination by the defence, the defence has not been able to point out any material contradiction in their statements which may create any doubt upon their presence at the time of incident and the manner in which the witnesses have described the incident, clearly establishes their eye witness account and by no stretch of imagination their presence can be doubted. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that trial court has rightly held the accused appellant Hasim guilty for committing the offence under Sections 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and 25(1)(a) Arms Act. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that trial court has rightly held the accused appellant Hasim guilty for committing the offence under Sections 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and 25(1)(a) Arms Act. Therefore, the finding recorded by the trial court regarding the guilt of the accused appellant is not liable to be interfered. Considering the entire aspects of the matter and looking to the circumstances, we are of the view that the judgment and order passed by the trial court is well discussed. Trial court has rightly held that the prosecution has succeeded to prove the guilt of the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt.As such, the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court is liable to be upheld and the appeal having no force is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. Impugned judgement and order dated 19.3.1983 passed by the trial court in Session Trial No. 179 of 1981 is hereby confirmed. The appellant is on bail. His personal and surety bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned immediately to serve out the remaining sentence imposed upon him by the trial court. In case he fails to surrender, as directed above, the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned is directed to take coercive action against him in this regard. Copy of this judgment along with lower court record be sent immediately to the concerned Sessions Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate for compliance. Compliance report be also sent to this Court.