Sayyad Salman Ahmed @ Sayyad Hamza v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2024CRLA/5036/2024

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

Sayyad Salman Ahmed @ Sayyad Hamza vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶16

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellantapplicant that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated. It has been further submitted that the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge is against the weight of evidence on record. The trial court has misread the evidence on record and convicted the appellant. The prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Appellant is in jail since 23.7.2022. Appellant have no criminal history to his credit. It is also submitted that entire prosecution story is false and fabricated. As per the F.I.R. of this case, the incident happened on 15.6.2022 at 16.00 p.m. whereas in the F.I.R. it has been mentioned that while the police party was on gasht on 14.6.2022 at 23.49 pm it was informed regarding the cow slaughtering and it reached the spot and two accused persons were held alongwith cow progenies but it is very strange that in the F.I.R. itself the incident is shown to have taken place on 15.6.2022 at 16.00 p.m. and there is no explanation regarding the inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. by the prosecution. It is further submitted that in the F.I.R. it is also mentioned that two accused were taken into custody by the police at about 16.00 p.m., which makes the entire prosecution story very suspicious and fabricated. F.I.R. of this case was lodged on 16.6.2022 at 01.41 p.m. and again there is no explanation for this inordinate delay. It is also submitted that as per the prosecution story two accused persons Wazid and Kalim were held on the spot and the name of the rest of the accused persons came into light in their statements. It is further submitted that as per the prosecution story itself no actual slaughtering took place in this case and cause of death of cow progenies was the cruel manner under which they were kept in the Container and they died due to hypovolemic shock and suffocation, as found in the post mortem reports. It is also submitted that it is not disclosed till trial as to who was the owner of the said cow progenies. It has been further submitted that the appellant was on bail during trial and has not misused the liberty of bail. Since there is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal in near future, the appellant may be released on bail pending appeal. Besides the above submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has also tried to touch upon at length the circumstances which led to the false implication of accused -

Sayyad Salman Ahmed @ Sayyad Hamza v. State of U.P.

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Irman Sher vs State of Up and Another

Santosh Gupta @ Santosh Kaushal @ Santosh Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

Chaani Yadav and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Vinod Kumar vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sayyad Salman Ahmed @ Sayyad Hamza v. State of U.P.

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Irman Sher vs State of Up and Another

Santosh Gupta @ Santosh Kaushal @ Santosh Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

Chaani Yadav and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Vinod Kumar vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Durgesh vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj vs State of U.P.