Dismissed

Taharuddin and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2018CRLR/1900/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision No. 1900 of 1998, the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of accused Taharuddin and another under Sections 323, 324, and 34 IPC. The Court found the injured witnesses credible given their firearm injuries and dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision dismissed; impugned judgment and order upheld; compliance report directed within three months.

Taharuddin and Another Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Reserved on 24.7.2018 Delivered on 06.08.2018

¶2

Court No. 41

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1900 of 1998

¶4

Revisionist :- Taharuddin & Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

¶5

Counsel for Revisionist :- Malik Sayeed Uddin, Lal Prabhakar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶6

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh, J.

¶7

1- This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionistsTaharuddin and Intzar against the orders dated 22.4.1998 passed by II Additional Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun in Criminal Case No. 846 of 1994, under Sections 324, 323 and 504 I.P.C., Police Station Dataganj, District Budaun whereby both the revisionists were convicted under Sections 323/34 and 324/34 I.P.C. for six months simple imprisonment and two years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- each. Against which revisionists filed Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1998 before the Sessions Judge, Budaun, which was partly allowed vide order dated 29.10.1998 and accused-revisionists were acquitted under Section 323/34 I.P.C. dismissing the appeal under Section 324/34 I.P.C. and further directing the revisionists to pay Rs.500/- to the injured out of the amount of fine so realised as ordered by the learned Magistrate which is impugned in the present revision.

¶8

2- In brief, the facts of the case are that one First Information Report was lodged against both the revisionists alleging that on 3.12.1988 at 7- 30 evening accused Tahar Uddin and Intzar, who armed with gun and country made pistol shot fired on Nabbi and Jaheer Husain. Jaheer Husain received following injuries :-

¶9

Injuries of Jaheer Husain:-

¶10

“1-Multiple spherical lacerated wound .3 cm X .3 cm on the right aspect of thigh in an area of 21 cm X 09 cm X.

¶11

2-Two spherical lacerated wounds of the size 0.3 cm X 0.3 cm each on the back of right leg.

¶12

3-One abrasion 0.4 cm X 0.4 cm in the back of the right forearm”.

¶13

Injury No.3 could be caused by blunt-object and the other injuries by firearm.

¶14

Injuries of Nabbi:-

¶15

1- Two abrasion of the size o.5 cm X 0.5 cm. each on the back of the right leg.

¶16

2- Two abrasions on the right back of the size 0.5 cm. X 0.5 cm.

¶17

The above injuries were caused by firearm and the same were kept under observation.

¶18

3-After completing other formalities, charge-sheet was submitted before the court under Section 323, 324 and 504 I.P.C against the accusedrevisionists and charges were framed under Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 506 I.P.C., to which they pleaded not guilty.

¶19

4- In order to prove the charges on behalf of prosecution besides documentary evidence, Court examined P.W. 1 Hari Ram, P.W. 2 Jaheer Husain, P.W. 3 Doctor P.K. Pathak, P.W. 4 Nabbi and P.W.5 S.I. Pheru Singh Yadav.

¶20

5- After closure of prosecution evidence, statements of accusedpersons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. They specifically stated in their statements that they are innocent, they have not committed any offence and have been falsely implicated.

¶21

6-Trial Court after hearing parties, vide impugned judgment and order, convicted and sentenced the accused revisionists for the offences under Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 506 I.P.C. and appeal was partly allowed and dismissed the appeal under Section 324/34 I.P.C. Hence this revision.

¶22

7- Heard Sri Lal Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶23

8- Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that P.W. 1 Hari Ram so called eye witness had not supported the prosecution case, hence there was no independent witness. No X-ray was done and there were

¶24

contradictions between the statements of the witnesses. Injuries are superficial simple in nature. The incident is of night and no source of light has been disclosed. Statement of P.W. 1 was wrongly discorded by both the courts.

¶25

9- Learned A. G.A. submitted that there is sufficient evidence against the accused revisionists to convict them under Sections 324/34 I.P.C.

¶26

10- We have considered rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State and gone through entire record.

¶27

11- This Court after scanning the evidence on record, has to adjudicate whether the prosecution has proved charges levelled against accused revisionists beyond reasonable doubt or not. Word 'proved' is defined under Section 3 of Evidence Act as under :-

¶28

“Proved”.- A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.”

¶29

12- The question is whether a prudent man under these circumstances can believe that the facts deposed by the witnesses do exist beyond reasonable doubt.

¶30

13- In the case of Jarnail Sing vs. State of Punjab, 2009 (6) Supreme 526 , the Court has held that deposition of an injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies for the reason that his presence on the scene of stands established in the case and it is proved that he suffered the injuries during the said incident.

¶31

14- In the case of Maqsoodan vs. State of U.P., (1983) 1 SCC 218 , the Apex Court has held that presence of the injured witnesses at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted as they had received injuries during the course of incident and they should normally be not disbelieved.

¶32

15- From perusal of the record, it appears that both the accused have

¶33

sought fired on the injured. They received fire arm injuries on thigh, legs and back of the right forearm. Injuries received by above injured are fire arm injuries and both are the injured witnesses, hence evidence of injured witnesses is very material and due to fire arm injuries, this Court finds that no lenient view is desirable against both the revisionists. Two years simple imprisonment awarded by the trial court as well as appellate court is just and proper considering the facts of the case.

¶34

16- Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment and order. The present revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶35

17- The revision is dismissed.

¶36

18- Copy of this judgment along with original record of the court below be transmitted to the court concerned for necessary compliance.

¶37

19- Compliance report be sent to this Court within three months. Office is directed to keep the compliance report on record. Order Date :-06.08.2018 OP

Taharuddin and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taharuddin and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sagar Vs State of U.P.

Radhey and Ors. Vs State

Chuhi Alias Uma Alias Huma Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ram Veer Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sahid @ Shahid Vs State of U.P. and Anr.