Dismissed¶10

Mohd.Taufeeq and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2024CRLA/892/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Shamim Ahmed J., Criminal Appeal No. 892 of 2003, order dated 19.3.2024 (2024:AHC-LKO:23905): dismissal of appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. affirming conviction under Section 323/325/34 I.P.C. with release on probation of good conduct under the Probation of Offender Act (one year; two sureties of Rs.5000/- each; Rs.200/- each compensation to injured Mohd. Rafi); abatement of appeal upon death of appellant No.3; no interference with trial court's order for want of illegality or perversity.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; appeal dismissed qua appellant Nos.1 and 2 (abated qua appellant No.3) and the trial court's order dated 04.06.2003 upheld in respect of appellant Nos.1 and 2. ¶10

Mohd.Taufeeq and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; appeal dismissed qua appellant Nos.1 and 2 (abated qua appellant No.3) and the trial court's order dated 04.06.2003 upheld in respect of appellant Nos.1 and 2.

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned judgment and order dated 04.06.2003 of the trial court, convicting the appellants under Section 323/325/34 I.P.C. and releasing them on probation of good conduct, suffers from any illegality, perversity or error of jurisdiction warranting interference by this Court in the appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

The impugned judgment and order does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or error of jurisdiction warranting interference; even on the averments in the appeal, the appellants could point out no such illegality or impropriety, and no relief as sought by them can be granted.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

In view of the report dated 05.03.2024 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raebareli, the appeal stands abated in respect of appellant No.3 (Mohd. Shabeer), who had expired four years ago; the Court proceeds only in respect of appellant Nos.1 and 2, who are alive.

¶5

Key takeaways

The trial court had already taken a liberal view by granting the appellants the benefit of the Probation of Offender Act; the one-year period of good conduct had elapsed without any complaint, and the sureties, bonds and Rs.200/- compensation were very meager, so the trial court's order, passed keeping in mind the facts and circumstances, does not suffer any illegality.ratio¶8
The present appeal is dismissed in respect of appellant No.1 and appellant No.2, and the trial court's order dated 04.06.2003 is upheld in respect of them.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal (No. 892 of 2003) under Section 374 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Shamim Ahmed, J.), against the judgment and order dated 04.06.2003 of Fast Track Court No.4/Additional Sessions Judge, Raebareli in Sessions Trial No.864/1997 convicting the appellants under Section 323/325/34 I.P.C. and releasing them on probation of good conduct for one year on two sureties of Rs.5000/- each with personal bond of like amount, and directing payment of Rs.200/- each as compensation to the injured Mohd. Rafi. On the report dated 05.03.2024 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raebareli, the appeal abated qua appellant No.3 (Mohd. Shabeer), deceased. Holding that the impugned order suffered no illegality, perversity or error of jurisdiction, that the trial court had taken a liberal view under the Probation of Offender Act (probation period elapsed without complaint; sureties and compensation meager), the Court dismissed the appeal qua appellant Nos.1 and 2 and upheld the trial court's order (Paras 5, 8-10; Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:23905; decided 19.3.2024).

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:23905

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 892 of 2003

¶4

Appellant :- Mohd.Taufeeq And 2 Ors. Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Amitabh Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

No one has put in appearance on behalf of the appellants, however, Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A-I for the State-respondent is present.

¶8

The instant appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellants against the judgement and order dated 04.06.2003 passed by learned Fast Track Court No.4/Additional Sessions Judge, Raebareli in Sessions Trial No.864/1997, State vs. Mohd. Taufeeq and others, Crime No.47A/1997, under Section 323/325/307/504/506 I.P.C., Police Station-Naseerabad, District-Raebareli convicting the appellants under Section 323/325/34 I.P.C. and releasing them on probation of good conduct for a period of one year on furnishing two sureties of Rs.5000/- each and personal bond of same amount. The appellants have further been ordered to pay Rs.200/- each as compensation to the injured Mohd. Rafi.

¶9

As per the report dated 05.03.2024 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raebareli, the appellant No.1 and appellant No.2, namely-Mohd Taufeeq and Mohd. Shakeel @ Shafeeq are alive and appellant No.3, namely-Mohd. Shabeer had expired four years ago.

¶10

Thus, in view of the report dated 05.03.2024 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raebareli, the present appeal stands abated in respect of appellant No.3. This Court is proceeding only in respect of appellant No.1 and appellant No.2 who are alive as per the report dated 05.03.2024 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raebareli.

¶11

As per the averments made in this appeal, the trial court has committed patent error in appreciating the evidence available on record and has convicted the appellants. It is further alleged that only one grievous injury in the form of fracture found on

¶12

the finger of the injured and other injuries were simple in nature but there is no evidence on record as to who has caused the injury, which resulted in the aforesaid fracture of finger of the injured. It is also alleged that from the evidence on record, it is apparent that neither there was any premeditation or prior meeting of mind or there was any common intention to cause any injury to the injured and as such the conviction of the appellant is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further alleged that the trial court has given much importance to the prosecution witnesses rather than appreciating the material placed on record and has wrongly convicted the appellants in the aforesaid case.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A-I for the State-respondents submits that the trial court has passed the impugned order after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the statements of the appellants, in such circumstances to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order does not require any interference by this Court. There is no illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned order and also there seems to be no abuse of court's process.

¶14

After hearing learned A.G.A-I for the State-respondent and after going through the averments made in this appeal and considering the entire material placed on record, it cannot be said that the impugned judgment and order suffers from any such illegality, perversity or error of jurisdiction so as to warrant any interference by this Court and even as per the averments made in this appeal, the appellants are unable to point out any such illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order which may persuade this Court to interfere in the same. In such circumstances to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order does not require any interference. There is no illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned order and also there seems to be no abuse of court's process. It is further observed here that the trial court has already taken a liberal view by giving the appellants the benefit of Probation of Offender Act by releasing them on probation of good conduct for a period of one year on furnishing two sureties of Rs.5000/each and personal bond of same amount. The appellants have further been ordered to pay Rs.200/- each as compensation to the injured Mohd. Rafi. It is further observed that the period of one year for maintaining good conduct by the appellants had already elapsed and till date no complaint has been received by any authority and the trial court had also fixed a very meager amount as sureties and bonds and also fixed a compensation of Rs.200/- only to be paid to the injured, thus, the order passed by the trial court does not suffer any illegality and has been passed keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case,

¶15

therefore, no relief as sought by the appellants can be granted at this stage.

¶16

Accordingly, the present appeal is hereby dismissed in respect of appellant No.1 and appellant No.2.

¶17

The order dated 04.06.2003 passed by learned Fast Track Court No.4/Additional Sessions Judge, Raebareli in Sessions Trial No.864/1997, State vs. Mohd. Taufeeq and others, Crime No.47A/1997, under Section 323/325/307/504/506 I.P.C., Police Station-Naseerabad, District-Raebareli convicting the appellants under Section 323/325/34 I.P.C. and releasing them on probation of good conduct for a period of one year on furnishing two sureties of Rs.5000/- each and personal bond of same amount. The appellants have further been ordered to pay Rs.200/- each as compensation to the injured Mohd. Rafi is upheld in respect of the appellant No.1 and appellant No.2.

¶18

Consigned to record.

¶19

Trial court record, if any, be returned back to the court concerned.

¶20

Order Date :- 19.3.2024 Piyush/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd.Taufeeq and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd.Taufeeq and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gautam Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Bhallu Vs State of U.P.

Ram Manorath and Another Vs State of U.P.

Jagmohan Vs State of U.P.

Neelam Pal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Anuradha Dubey vs Principal Judge Family Court Faizabad and Another