Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

STATE OF U.P. versus MOHAMMAD MIAN & THREE OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


State of U.P. v. Mohammad Mian & three others - GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. 907 of 1982 [2005] RD-AH 4224 (7 October 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Reserved                          

                   Government Appeal  No. 907 of  1982

State of U.P..........................................................Appellant

              Versus

1.Mohammad Mian

2.Ahmad Mian

3.Shamim Mian

4.Zamir Mian.........................................................Accused

                    Respondents                            

                    Connected with

                     Criminal Appeal No. 2731 of 1981

Mohammad Mian................................................Accused

                    Appellant

                             

              Versus

State of U.P.......................................................Respondent

Hon'ble M.C. Jain, J.

Hon'ble M. Chaudhary, J.

                 (Delivered by Hon'ble M. Chaudhary, J.)

Since both the appeals have arisen out of the one and the same judgment dated 19th of November, 1981 passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Sessions  Trial No. 436 of 1980 State vs. Mohd. Mian & others, they have been taken up together and are being disposed of by one and the same judgment.

Government appeal has been filed on behalf of the State from the impugned judgment and order passed  by  VI Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Sessions Trial aforesaid acquitting  accused  Zamir Mian, Ahmad Mian and  Shamim Mian of the charge levelled against them under sections 302 and 307   each read with 34 IPC.  Mohammad Mian  was also acquitted of the charge levelled against him under section 302 read with section 34 IPC.   However accused Mohammad Mian who was convicted  by the Additional Sessions Judge under section 307 IPC  and sentenced  to undergo  six years' rigorous imprisonment thereunder has filed criminal appeal.

Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that at 9: 10 a.m.  on 24th of April, 1980 Sharafat Husain handed over an FIR  at police station Shahi situate at a distance of four miles from village Firozpur alleging that Zamir Mian, Ahmad Mian and Shamim  Mian are  sons of accused Mohammad Mian.  Sharafat Husain and Firasat Husain are sons of Riyasat Husain.  Mohammad Mian used to run a fair price shop in the outer portion of his house. At about 7: 00 a.m. that very morning Iqrar Mohammad son of Firasat Husain went to the  fair price shop of Mohammad Mian to buy sugar who supplied him 1 kg sugar instead of  2 kgs against his ration card. Then Firasat  Husain went to the shop of  Mohammad Mian and  asked him as to why he had supplied only 1 kg of sugar when  he used to get  2 kgs of sugar  on his ration card.   Thereon  Mohammad Mian  started abusing him stating that he  would provide only 1 kg of sugar and  it was upto him to take  the same or not which resulted in an altercation between  them  and immediately Mohammad Mian fired at Firasat  Husain with his gun hitting him on his thigh and as he  turned  back Zamir Mian son of  Mohammad Mian  fired at him with  countrymade pistol hitting him  at his  upper right  gluteal region and  sustaining the injuries he fell down. On hearing the sound of shots, Riyasat Husain went out of his house and proceeded towards the scene of occurrence.  After seeing his son Firasat Hussain  lying injured there  he questioned Mohammad Mian  as to why it was done which resulted in a brawl between them. Thereon Mohammad Mian  asked his sons to kill Riyasat Husain  and immediately Ahmad Mian  taking gun and   Shamim Mian  with countrymade pistol went on the roof and as Riyasat Husain turned back both of them fired at him with their respective weapons in quick succession and sustaining the fatal injuries Riyasat Husain fell down  2- 3 paces ahead of Firasat Husain. On hearing the sound of several shots, Sharafat Husain went out of his house and proceeded towards the scene of occurrence. The said incident was witnessed by Sabir Husain, Mohd Aslam, Summeri, Rahat Husain and others who were going to the shop for purchasing sugar. Immediately Sharafat Husain went to his father Riyasat Husain who was lying in precarious condition and gasping.  Then he with the help of others took his injured father  to his house; but by that time he succumbed to the fatal injuries sustained by him. He kept the dead body of his father in the ''Dalan' of his house. In the meanwhile injured Firasat Husain was also brought from the place of occurrence.

The police registered a crime against the accused and made  entry  regarding  registration of the crime in the General  Diary accordingly.  After receiving information at village Mohanpur SI Srinivas Sharma  to whom  investigation of the crime  was entrusted went to the  scene of occurrence  and  then to  the house  of  Sharafat Husain where the dead body of the  deceased was kept. Injured  Firasat Husain was sent to the  District Hospital for his  medical examination.   He drew inquest proceedings on the dead body of  Riyasat Husain, prepared the inquest report of the dead body (Ext Ka 4) and other necessary papers  ( Exts Ka 5 & Ka 6 ) and handed over the dead body in a sealed cover alongwith necessary papers to Constables Raj Kumar and Vijai Kumar for being taken for post mortem.  Then he recorded statements of the witnesses.  He also inspected the scene of occurrence and  prepared  its site plan  showing the  streak of blood  from the  spot to the house of the deceased ( Ext Ka 7).  He also collected blood stained  and simple earth from two places at  the scene of occurrence  and also  from the place  where the dead body of  Riyasat Husain was kept, sealed them in  separate  packets and prepared  their memo ( Ext Ka 10).  He also picked up a pellet lying at the scene of occurrence and prepared  its memo (Ext Ka 9).

Injured Firasat Hussain was medically examined by Dr. J.N. Bhargava, Medical Officer, District Hospital, Bareilly  at 12:25 p.m. the  same noon.   Medical examination of injured  Firasat Husain revealed  below noted injuries on the person:

(1)  Gun shot   wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm on right iliac fossa 2 cm below anterior superior  iliac spine with margins inverted.  No blackening, charring or tattooing present  around the wound.  

(2) Gun shot  wound  of  exit  1.5 cm x 1.5 cm over right buttock upper outer quadrant  with  margins  everted. No  blackening, charring or tattooing  present.

              The doctor opined  that injuries were caused by firearm and  fresh in duration.  The doctor advised x-ray  and the  injuries were kept under observation.

   Dr. K.S. Tiwari, Senior Radiologist , District Hospital, Bareilly  who conducted  autopsy on the dead body  of Riyasat Hussain on 25th of April, 1980 at 2:30 p.m. found below noted  ante mortem injuries on the dead body:

(1) Gun shot  wound of entry  1 cm x 1 cm x chest  cavity deep on back  of chest  6 cm below the spine of  scapula lateral end, margins inverted and ragged. No blackening or tattooing present.  Under the injury humerus bone was fractured on upper part.

(2) Gun shot wound  of entry 1 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep  on left side back of  chest  5 cm below injury no.1.  Margins  inverted and ragged.  No  blackening  or tattooing present.

(3) Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on left side back of chest  8 cm away from midline and 19 cm below root of neck. Margins inverted and ragged. No blackening or tattooing present.

(4) Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on left side back 10 cm below injury no. 3.

(5) Gun shot wound of exit 1.2 cm  x 1 cm on the front of left shoulder 2 cm below top of shoulder  corresponding to injury no.1, margins everted.

(6) Gun shot  wound of exit  1.2 cm x .1.1 cm on front  of chest left side  upper part  4 cm above left nipple  corresponding to injury no. 2, margins everted

(7) Gun shot wound of  exit on left side chest 6.5 cm  below left nipple corresponding to injury no.2 , margins everted.

(8) Gun shot  wound of exit 1.2 cm x 1 cm on front of chest left side 2.1 cm from mid line and 19 cm  from umbilicus corresponding to injury no. 4, margins everted.

(9) Abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm on outer aspect of left buttock 10 cm below anterior superior iliac spine

On an internal examination left humerus bone  was found fractured.  5th rib on left side was found fractured, 7th  costal cartilage was found  fractured on  front side.  Left  Pleura torn  upto plueral cavity containing   1 litre   of blood.  Left  lung was found punctured through and through at two places . Pericardium was also punctured and cavity contained  300 cc.  blood.  Left atrium  and right ventricle  were punctured through and through. Stomach contained about 50 gm semi digested  food material.

The  doctor  opined that the death was  caused due to shock and haemorrhage  as a result of  ante mortem injuries  about  1 to  1 ½  day ago.  

                              After completing investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the accused accordingly.

                After framing of charge against the accused the prosecution examined  Sharafat Husain (PW1), Firasat Husain (PW2) and Summeri (PW3) as eye witnesses of the occurrence.  PW4  Dr. J.N. Bhagarva who medically examined injured Firasat  Husain on 24th of April, 1980 at 12:25 a.m. has proved the injury report (Ext Ka 2).  PW5 K.S. Tiwari who conducted autopsy on the dead body  of Riyasat Husain has proved the post mortem report ( Ext. Ka 3) stating that the ante mortem injuries sustained by  Riyasat  Husain were  sufficient  to cause his death in ordinary course of nature.   PW6  SI Srinivas Sharma  who investigated the crime in main has proved the police papers .  PW7  HC Raghvendra Pal  Singh who prepared check report on the basis of  written report of the  occurrence and  made entry in the  General Diary regarding registration of the crime has proved  these papers (Ext. Ka 13 & Ka 14).  PW8 Constable Raj Kumar  to whom the dead body  of Riyasat Husain  in a sealed cover alongwith necessary papers  was entrusted  for its post mortem has stated the said fact.

The accused pleaded not guilty denying the alleged occurrence altogether stating that they were implicated in the case falsely on account of enmity.

On an appraisal of evidence and other material on the record the trial judge  disbelieved the prosecution  case regarding latter part of the occurrence and giving benefit of doubt to all the accused acquitted them of the charge levelled against them under section 302 read with section 34 IPC. However he held only accused Mohammad Mian guilty of the charge levelled against him under section 307 IPC   convicting him under section 307 IPC and sentencing him to six years' rigorous imprisonment thereunder .He acquitted the remaining accused of the charge levelled  against them under section 307 read with section 34 IPC.

       Feeling dissatisfied with the impugned judgment an appeal has been preferred by the State assailing acquittal of the accused respondents.

       Feeling aggrieved by his conviction under section 307 IPC and sentence awarded thereunder accused Mohammad Mian also filed  an appeal for redress.

We have heard learned AGA Sri R.S. Sengar for the State appellant and Sri G.S.Chaturvedi learned Senior Advocate for the accused respondents.

We have also heard the appellant's learned counsel Sri G.S.Chaturvedi and learned AGA Sri R.S.Sengar for the State respondent in the criminal appeal.

Learned AGA for the State appellant .submitted that the learned trial judge  has not properly appreciated evidence of the eye witnesses and has ignored  their testimony regarding murder of Riyasat Husain on  tenuous ground resulting in gross miscarriage of justice.  On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused appellant vehemently  argued that the learned trial judge wrongly placed reliance on the testimony  of the eye witnesses  and hence conviction  of accused appellant Mohammad Miyan can not be maintained in law.  He further contended that finding of acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial court  should not be interfered with in appeal as the learned trial judge has given cogent and convincing reasons in support of the judgment of the acquittal.

We are conscious of the fact that  an Appellate Court entertaining an appeal from the judgment of acquittal by the trial court though entitled to reappreciate the evidence and come to an independent conclusion ,  but in doing so  the Appellate Court should consider every matter on record and reasons given by the trial court in support of the order of acquittal  and should interfere only on being satisfied that the view taken by the trial judge is perverse or unreasonable resulting in miscarriage of justice.  If two views are possible on a set of evidence then the Appellate Court  should not substitute its own view in preference to the view of the trial court which has recorded acquittal.  If the trial court acquits an accused by giving undue importance to minor discrepancies  and taking a suspicious view  of the evidence  based on conjectures and surmises then the Appellate Court would be justified in interfering with the order of acquittal.

A perusal of statements of the eye witnesses examined by the prosecution goes to show that PW 1 Sharafat Husain, son of the deceased is the first informant who lodged FIR of the occurrence  at police station Shahi situate at a distance of four miles from the place of occurrence at 9:10 a.m. without losing any time.  He stated that soon after the occurrence he with the help of others brought his injured father  in precarious condition and injured brother Firasat Husain from the spot to his house though his father Firasat Husain succumbed to the firearm injuries sustained by him  by the time he reached his house. Then after knowing the fact of firing at Firasat Husain by Mohammad Mian and Zamir Mian he got a report of the occurrence scribed  by Meharban, the co-villager and then went to the police station and handed over written report of the occurrence to the police there.  He also stated that he could not take his injured brother Firasat Husain to the police station as no vehicle was available there.  The police registered a crime on the basis of the written report handed over at the police station against the accused at 9:10 a.m. the same morning and made entry regarding registration of the crime in the general diary (Exts Ka 13 & Ka 14). We see no plausible reason to doubt the veracity of the GD entry  prepared by the police official in the discharge of his official duties and time of registration of the case mentioned in the check report. We therefore find that FIR of the occurrence was lodged by Sharafat Husain, son of the deceased  at the police station promptly.

              A perusal of the record goes to show  that PW 2 Firasat Husain, the injured and PW 3 Summeri appeared as witnesses of the entire occurrence and PW 1 Sharafat Husain only as a witness of murder of Riyasat Husain.  No doubt PW 1Sharafat Husain nowhere mentioned in the FIR that he witnessed the murder of his father Riyasat Husain but his statement regarding thereto is quite natural and

coherent. He stated that he got the FIR  of the occurrence  scribed  by Meharban according to what he himself saw and what was told to him by his injured brother Firasat Husain. PW6 SI Sri Nivas Sharma, the investigating officer deposed that after receiving information of the crime at village Mohanpur he alongwith the police force  immediately rushed to the scene of occurrence and after drawing inquest proceedings on the dead body of Riyasat Husain and entrusting the same to constables Raj Kumar and Vijai Kumar he recorded statement of Sharafat Husain (PW1) and then he inspected the scene of occurrence in the presence of Sharafat Husain. A perusal of the site plan map goes to show that Sharafat Husain witnessed the occurrence by standing  near the dilapidated ''baithak' of Chhotey Pradhan. He gave an eye witness account of the murder of Riyasat Husain  deposing that Mohammad Mian used to run a fair price shop in the outer portion  of his house situate at a distance of 60- 70 paces from his house, that at about 7:00 a.m. the alleged morning Iqrar, son of Firasat Husain went to take sugar from the said fair price shop; that ration card was deposited  at the fair price shop of Mohammad Mian since before and the sugar was issued on ration card; that he brought only one kg sugar whereas Firasat used to get two kgs sugar at his ration card ; that then Firasat went to the shop of Mohammad Mian  to complain as to why he had supplied only one kg sugar; that after a little while he heard sound of shots and then he and his father went out of  their house; that Riyasat Husain proceeded towards the fair price shop and he stood near the dilapidated ''baithak' of Chhotey Pradhan where Summeri and Mohammad Aslam were also standing; that after seeing his son Firasat  Husain lying injured  Riyasat Husain went towards the fair price shop and a wrangling took place between Riyasat Husain and Mohammad Mian; that  thereon Mohammad Mian  asked his sons that he should be killed; that immediately Ahmad Mian taking gun and Shamim Mian with countrymade pistol went at the roof of the verandah abutting the shop; that by that time Riyasat Husain  was about to turn that immediately Ahmad Mian and Shamim Mian fired shots at Riyasat Husain in quick succession thereby causing fatal injuries to him and sustaining injuries he fell down and both the miscreants took to their heels and that then he with the help of co-villagers took his injured father Riyasat Husain  to his house but by the time he reached his house he succumbed to the firearm injuries sustained by him.  He also took his injured brother Firasat Husain to his house.  There is no room for any  doubt that he himself witnessed the murder of his father Riyasat Husain.  It has to be kept in mind that  due to sudden murder of his father and serious injuries caused to his brother Firasat Husain he must have  gone baffled and confounded and in that condition of mind whatever he thought necessary he mentioned in the FIR. The very fact that  soon after returning from the police station  he gave eye witness account of his father's murder  to the investigating officer who reached the spot can not be thrown away  merely because he did not mention in the FIR that he also witnessed the occurrence.   PW 2 Firasat Husain, the injured has narrated all the facts of the occurrence from the beginning to the end as stated above.  After receiving the firearm injury Firasat Husain  fell down at a distance of some 7-8 paces from the fair price shop of Mohammad Mian.  After receiving the firearm injury injured Firasat Husain  was mentally alert as he had received injury  at right iliac fossa having a  communicating wound of exit over right buttock without getting any vital organ of his body damaged.  We find that though lying injured  he was quite  alert and was very much in a position to see the assault at his father.  PW 3 Summeri also narrated all the facts of the occurrence from the beginning to the end deposing that at about 7:00 a.m. the alleged morning he was going to the fair price shop of Mohammad Mian  to take sugar and as he reached near the dilapidated ''baithak' of Chhotey Pradhan he saw that some altercation was going on  between Firasat Husain  and Mohammad Mian over the quantity of sugar supplied; that in the meanwhile Mohammad Mian fired at  Firasat Husain with his gun causing injuries to him and after taking  turn he proceeded few paces ahead that his son Jamir Mian fired at him with countrymade pistol and he could not see if that fire hit Firasat Husain or not; that on hearing the sound of shots, Riyasat Husain and Sharafat Husain went out of their house and Sharafat Husain  stood with him and Riyasat Husain  went to see his son lying injured and then talked to Mohammad Mian as to why he had done so which resulted in a brawl  between them; that in the meanwhile  Mohammad Mian asked his sons that he should be killed; that immediately Ahmad Mian taking gun and Shamim Mian with countrymade pistol  went at the roof of their verandah adjoining  the shop and fired at Riyasat Husain in quick succession and that  sustaining the fatal injuries Riyasat Husain fell down and then the miscreants ran away shouting that if any one  would chase them he would also be shot dead.  PW 1 Sharafat Husain, son of the deceased and PW 2 Firasat Husain,the injured were subjected to searching and gruelling  cross-examination but nothing tangible to discredit their testimony could be brought on record.  No doubt,  PW 3 Summeri stated in his cross-examination that two shots were fired by Ahmad Mian and Shamim Mian from the roof  at Riyasat Husain and two shots were fired by Mohammad Mian and Jamir Mian from the shop at him. But it is  not  of far  reaching  consequence.  By and large, the testimony of PW 3 Summeri has remained intact in all respects and he  corroborated both the eye witnesses abovenamed on all the material points The principle of ''falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' is not to be blindly  invoked in appraising evidence  adduced in our courts where witnesses seldom tell the whole truth  and often resort to exaggerations, embellishments and ''padding up' to support a story, however, true in the  main.  It is the function of the Court to disengage the truth  from falsehood and to accept what it finds to be true and reject the rest.  Otherwise too, memory of the witness may be in fault due to his  power of observation and perception. On a careful scanning  the evidence of the three eye witnesses it is  established that at about 7:00 a.m. the alleged morning an altercation took place between Firasat Husain  and Mohammad Mian over supply of less quantity of sugar and during altercation  Mohammad Mian fired at Firasat Husain with firearm causing injuries to him; that on hearing  the sound of shot, Riyasat Husain and his son Sharafat Husain went out of their house, that as Riyasat Husain saw his son lying injured near the said fair price shop  a wrangling  took place between Riyasat Husain and Mohammad Mian and that at the exhortation of Mohammad Mian  his sons Ahmad Mian and Shamim Mian fired with gun and countrymade pistol from the roof of the verandah of their house at Riyasat Husain causing fatal injuries to him resulting in his death.

The learned trial judge disbelieved the testimony of the eye witnesses regarding murder of Riyasat Husain mainly on the ground that since all the four shots were fired by Ahmad Mian and Shamim Mian at Riyasat Husain from the roof of their verandah from a distance of some 10- 11 paces, direction of ante mortem injury no.1 found on the dead body upwards falsifies the prosecution version. In making the said observation the learned trial judge committed grave error.  After receiving two  or three firearm injuries  at back of his chest having communicating wounds of exit  at the chest the injured must have staggered  and stumbled  and in the course of  stumbling down if a shot hit him at his back its direction would be upwards. Out of four firearm wounds of entry direction of gunshot wound of entrty no.1  corresponding to wound  of  exit no.5 is upwards.  Direction of gunshot  wound of entry no.2 corresponding to wound  of exit no. 6 is at the same level and direction of gunshot wounds of entry nos. 3 and 4  corresponding to gunshot wounds of exit nos. 7 and 8 respectively is downwards. Since  the learned trial judge did  not advert to this aspect of medical evidence from the said angle  his approach that since the  shots  were fired  at the victim from  the roof ante mortem gunshot wound of entry no.1  corresponding to gunshot wound of exit no. 5 being upwards could not be caused is wholly erroneous.

When the shots are fired in quick succession  it is very difficult  for the witnesses to tell with exactitude as to which shot fired at the victim landed at which portion of his body.  The victim  apprehending  imminent danger to his life can not remain static or stationary for a moment even and at the moment the shot fired hit him at what position he was can not be said.  It also can not be said with certainty if all the shots fired at the  victim hit him.  Therefore discrepancies in the statements of witnesses in this regard should be ignored.

There was streak of bad blood  between the two sides  as 15-16 years ago Ausaf Ali, brother-in-law (Sala) of Mohammad Mian   and Riyasat Husain had contested  the election of Gram Pradhan and Mohammad Mian and his family members had supported Ausaf Ali.  However Ausaf Ali was  trounced  and Riyasat Husain  was elected Pradhan.   An election petition was also litigated between the two  which was decided in favour of Riyasat Husain.  This backdrop of enmity was allegedly responsible for the murder of Riyasat Husain in this incident as it was sparked by wrangling between the two the fateful morning.

It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the accused respondents that Riyasat Husain had several enemies and it is quite possible that he might have been done to death and his son Firasat Husain assaulted by one of them at some dark hour of night and the accused were implicated in the crime on account of long standing enmity. The said argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused respondents is far fetched and deserves outright rejection for twofold reasons: (i) because  injured Firasat Husain was medically examined by Dr J.N.Bhargava at District Hospital Bareilly on 24th of April 1980 at 12: 25 noon and at the time of his medical examination  his injuries were found fresh. Normally injuries caused within six hours of  medical examination are said to be  fresh.  Had the injuries been  caused before sunbreak they would not  have been found  fresh.  (ii) a perusal of the  post mortem report goes to show that the doctor conducting autopsy on the dead body of Riyasat Husain mentioned that stomach contained  about 50 grams semi digested food material which goes to show that within half an hour prior to the incident  Riyasat Husain would have taken something solid in the breakfast. Had he been done to death at some hour before sunbreak his stomach would have been found empty.

A perusal of the site plan map goes to show  that the investigating  officer found streak of blood from the spot to the house of the deceased.   Sworn testimony of the three eye witnesses which is of unimpeachable character stands well corroborated by the medical evidence and FIR of the occurrence lodged promptly by Sharafat Husain, son of the deceased at the police station. The medical evidence leaves no room for doubt  as to the factum of the occurrence and the prosecution case with regard  to its time and manner, and the weapon used in the assault also receives corroboration from it.  Therefore the benefit of doubt rendered  by the trial court to accused Mohammad Mian, Ahmad Mian and Shamim Mian  runs straight in the teeth of ocular evidence.  On appreciation of oral evidence of the three eye witnesses and other material on the record we are of the view that the prosecution has proved that at the exhortation of Mohammad Mian his sons Ahmad Mian and Shamim Mian fired at Riyasat Husain with gun and countrymade pistol respectively thereby causing fatal injuries to him resulting in his death beyond all reasonable doubt. Mohammad Mian was  at the root of the problem and he  shared  the common  intention  with his sons  Ahmad Mian and Shamim Mian who shot  dead Riyasat Husain at his  exhortation. The learned trial judge acquitted all the three accused abovenamed giving benefit of doubt on tenuous grounds.

Since the shot allegedly  fired by  Zamir Mian at Firasat Husain did not hit him and no overt act has been assigned to him in the murder of Riyasat Husain   he should be given benefit of doubt, and hence his acquittal is affirmed.

The State appeal is allowed in part and the impugned judgment acquitting accused Mohammad Mian, Ahmad Mian and Shamim Mian under section 302 read with section 34 IPC is hereby set aside.   Accused respondents Mohammad Mian, Ahmad Mian and Shamim Mian  are hereby convicted under section 302 read with section 34 IPC and each of them is sentenced to imprisonment for life thereunder. Criminal Appeal filed by accused Mohammad Mian is dismissed. Conviction of Mohammad Mian under section 307 IPC and sentence of six years' rigorous imprisonment awarded to him thereunder is affirmed.    Both the sentences  awarded to accused respondent Mohammad Mian shall run concurrently. All the three accused respondents, namely, Mohammad Mian, Ahmad Mian and Shamin Mian are on bail. Their bail bonds are hereby cancelled. Acquittal  of Zamir Mian  is hereby  affirmed .  He is  on bail.  His bail bonds  are hereby discharged.

Let the judgment be certified to the court below immediately.    Chief Judicial Magistrate Bareilly is directed to get all the three accused respondents abovenamed  arrested and sent them to jail  to serve out the sentences imposed upon   them.   Record of the  case be transmitted to the court below  immediately for   necessary compliance.

Dated: 7. 10. 2005

GA 907-82 with

Connected Crl A 2731-81


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.