Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 50 (MP)

Dilawar Khan v. State of M. P.

2018-01-11

NANDITA DUBEY, R.S.JHA

body2018
JUDGMENT Jha, J.--1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by judgment dated 26.8.1994 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore in Sessions Trial No.148/1992, whereby the appellants Dilawar Khan and Ali Hussain have been found guilty of an offence punishable under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default thereof further R.I for three years. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.2.1992, on account of a land dispute between the parties who are related, the accused appellants assaulted Shahjad Khan, the deceased and Sharif Khan (PW1), brother of the deceased, as a result of which Shahjad Khan succumbed to his injuries whereas Sharif Khan (PW1) suffered 6 injuries on his person out of which 5 were contusions and one is a lacerated wound, all of which were simple in nature. 3. The prosecution case is that on the date of the incident the deceased along with his brother Sharif Khan (PW1) had employed 3 persons to construct bricks at the site where the dispute occurred. While they were doing so, the appellants along with one Peeru Khan confronted them and objected to the deceased and his brother undertaking the work of making bricks at the disputed site whereafter the appellants and Peeru Khan inflicted farsa injuries on the head of the deceased and also attacked Sharif Khan who tried to intervene. The record indicates that the deceased suffered 2 injuries out of which the fatal injury with the farsa was on the parietal, temporal, tempora mendicular bone. 4. The defence of the appellants was that it was Sharif Khan who had infact attacked them and that they had inflicted the injuries in their self-defence. 5. The trial Court has relied upon the statements of the injured witnesses Sharif Khan (PW1), Majeed Khan (PW2), Raeesa Bi (PW4) and Khatoon Bi (PW5) who were also said to be the eye-witnesses to the incident, the statement of Dr. P. N. Chaturvedi (PW9) and the FSL report (Exhibit P/21) to record a finding of guilt against the appellants. 6. We have carefully perused the judgment of the trial court as well as gone through the statements of the aforesaid eye-witnesses. P. N. Chaturvedi (PW9) and the FSL report (Exhibit P/21) to record a finding of guilt against the appellants. 6. We have carefully perused the judgment of the trial court as well as gone through the statements of the aforesaid eye-witnesses. From a perusal of the statement of the injured eye-witness Sharif Khan (PW1) as well as the statement of Majid Khan (PW2), Raeesa Bi (PW4) and Khatoon Bi (PW5) and the case diary statements, it is apparent that they are consistent in their deposition in respect of the involvement of the appellants, the weapons used by them and the injuries inflicted by them upon the deceased as well as the injured eye-witness Sharif Khan (PW1). Their statements are apparently reliable and trustworthy. The FSL report also indicates that the offending weapons were seized from the appellants and that there were blood stains on them. 7. The statement of Dr. P. N. Chaturvedi (PW9) also supports the prosecution case and indicates that the injuries on the person of the deceased corresponded to the weapons seized from the appellants and that the deceased died on account of the said injuries inflicted by the appellants. 8. As far as the injuries on the person of the appellants is concerned, they have themselves stated that the appellants received the injuries in a previous altercation with Sharif Khan and that the only injury that the appellant No. 1 suffered in the altercation was the incised wound on the right leg. 9. In view of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on record, we find that the trial Court has rightly analyzed and appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record to arrive at a finding of guilt against the appellants. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the appellants committed the crime and that they attacked the deceased and his brother with a common intention of committing the offence. 10. In the circumstances the appeal filed by the appellants being meritless is, accordingly, dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court upon the appellants is upheld and affirmed. 11. It is informed that appellant No. 1 Dilawar Khan is in jail while the appellant No. 2 Ali Hussain is on bail. 10. In the circumstances the appeal filed by the appellants being meritless is, accordingly, dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court upon the appellants is upheld and affirmed. 11. It is informed that appellant No. 1 Dilawar Khan is in jail while the appellant No. 2 Ali Hussain is on bail. It is, accordingly, directed that appellant No. 1 Dilawar Khan shall remain incarcerated in jail for serving out the remaining part of the sentence and appellant No. 2 Ali Hussain shall be taken into custody forthwith to undergo the remain part of the sentence. 12. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal filed by the appellants stands dismissed.