Anis vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Accused-appellant-Anis has preferred this criminal appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 25.5.1995 passed by VIIth Addl. Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar in S.T. No. 422 of 1993, State v. Anis, by which he has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 302 and 307, I.P.C. We have heard Sri K.K. Singh, amicus curiae for the appellant and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

Briefly stated the prosecution story is that on 20.8.1993 Alimuddin submitted a report at police station Khatauli, district Muzaffarnagar stating that at about 2.30 p.m. while he was taking medicines from the clinic of his brother-in-law (Saroo) Hakim Akhlaq, accused Anis son of Najir with an adze in his hand had come there after having attacked and injuring Haji Saddiq; that entering the shop he started abusing saying that today I have done away Haji Saddiq and since you were also involved in the panchayat as sarpanch and ordered for removal of his gumti (khokha), gave blows on the head of Hakim Akhlaq saying that he will not leave him alive today; that on the hue and cry raised, Kallu, Shamshuddin, Rayees Ahamd and many other persons as well as constable Sunil Kumar and Homeguard Sukhbir came there and challenged Anis who tried to escape but was caught on the spot; injured Haji Saddiq and Hakim Akhlaq have been taken to Meerut by their family members for treatment whereas complainant has come to lodge the F.I.R.

Injured Hakim Akhlaq was admitted in M. Prakash Nursing Home, Meerut where he was treated by Dr. Pradeep Bharti, Assistant Professor in Meerut Medical College. The following injuries were found on his person:

Injured Hakim Akhlaq was operated and had toremain admitted in hospital till 17.9.1993. When he was discharged, he was unable to speak and was suffering from paralysis due to the aforesaid injury.

Injured Haji Saddiq was treated in Medical College, Meerut where he died on 21.8.1993. His body was identified by the persons attending him. Postmortem examination on the cadaver of Haji Saddiq was conducted by Dr. R.P. Mishra on 21.8.1993 at 4.45 p.m., and the following injuries were found:

The matter was investigated and blood stained articles of the deceased were sent to forensic lab for testing. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused appellant and the case was committed to the court of sessions. Charges under Sections 302 and 307, I.P.C. were framed against him which he denied.

The prosecution in order to prove its case examined, P.W. Alimuddin, P.W. 2-injured Hakim Akhlaq, P.W. 3 - Mohd. Isha, P.W. 4 - Mamchand, P.W. 5 - Dr. Pradeep Bharti, P.W. 6 - Constable Gajendra, P.W. 7 - Dr. R.P. Mishra, P.W. 8-Investigating Officer Ram Pal Singh and P.W. 9 - S.I. D.S. Pawar.

The accused-appellant in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. stated that he has been falsely implicated on account of enmity. He did not adduce any witness or documentary evidence in his defence.

P.W. 1 Alimuddin in his examination-in-chief stated that he knew accused Anis who is present and narrated the manner in which he had attacked Hakim Akhlaq who had escaped death. He reiterated the version of F.I.R. saying that Anis was caught on the spot alongwith weapon of assault, i.e., adze.

P.W. 2 injured Hakim Akhlaq in his examination-in-chief stated that he knew accused Anis who is present in court; that he had given a verdict in panchayat against him for removing his gumti within a period of four months; that time of four months was subsequently extended, due to which he harbored enmity; that deceased Haji Saddiq, Meghraj Singh and Kanhaiya etc. were also in the aforesaid panchayat alongwith him. P.W. 2 also narrated the manner he was attacked by the accused by blood stained adze saying he will not leave him alive for giving decision against him and compelling him to remove his gumti (khokha). Lastly, he stated that he fainted due to injury on his head caused by the accused by adze.

P.W. 3 Mohd. Isha, who was brother of deceased Haji Saddiq, stated that deceased Haji Saddiq was a carpenter and elaborately described the manner in which Haji Saddiq (since deceased) was assaulted by the accused by adze; that on hue and cry raised, Yamin had also come on the spot and tried to save Haji Saddiq but accused Anis escaped giving threats towards shop of Hakim Akhlaq which is nearby towards Holi chowk.

P.W. 4-Mamchand denied having seen the incident, so he was declared hostile by the prosecution.

P.W. 5 Dr. Pradeep Bharti proved the injury report of P.W. 2 - injured Hakim Akhlaq whereas P.W. 7-Dr. R.P. Misra, proved the postmortem examination report of the deceased. P.W. 8 - S.I. Ram Pal Singh is the Investigating Officer while P.W. 9 - S.I. D. S. Pawar had conducted panchayatnama of body of the deceased.

After appreciation of the evidence on record and hearing submission of the counsel for parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that charges under Sections 302 and 307 were proved against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to life imprisonment thereunder, vide impugned judgment and order dated 25.5.1995.

The impugned judgment and order is assailed on the ground that conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant is against the weight of evidence on record and that sentence awarded is too severe.

Counsel for the appellant has argued that it is clear from narration of the facts that there are two different incidents; that injuries on the body of deceased Haji Saddiq are incised wounds whereas injuries sustained by injured Hakim Akhlaq are by blunt object, therefore, it cannot be said that they have been inflicted by the same weapon.

Learned A.G.A. has submitted that incident has been witnessed by eye-witnesses and the injured P.W. 2 himself has come in evidence deposing the manner in which he was assaulted.

Learned trial court after appreciation of evidence on record, has found thus:

We find from the record as well as findings recorded by the trial court that there are not only eyewitness to the assault on Haji Saddiq (since deceased), whose brother P.W. 3 Mohd. Isha has narrated the incident and the manner in which accused Anis had assaulted his brother inflicting incised wounds. Similarly, there is also eye-witness to the assault by the accused Anis by adze on injured P.W. 2 Hakim Akhlaq. Both the incidents may be at different places but have not been committed at far places from each other. Both the places of incident are in close vicinity of the same village and both deceased as well as the injured are the persons with whom the accused was annoyed, for they had directed in panchayat for removal of accused''s gumti (khokha). The weapon used in the two incidents which have been committed within minutes of each other, is adze which is used by carpenters. It has one cutting edge and other side of which is blunt edge. Deceased Haji Saddiq had incised wounds on his body whereas blow from the blunt side was given to the injured Hakim Akhlaq and the injury was so grave that brain matter had come out and he described the manner of assault as well as motive for assault on him by the accused appellant, who immediately after assault on Hakim Akhlaq was caught within 5-6 feet of the place of occurrence by the persons who had come there and seen the assault. There are ocular witnesses to both the incidents. The weapon of assault, i.e., adze was also seized from the hands of the accused.

In our considered opinion, the learned trial court has not committed any error either on fact or law in arriving at the conclusion that prosecution has been able to establish its case against the accused-appellant and awarding punishment of life imprisonment to the accused-appellant, hence the impugned judgment and order deserves to be upheld in the facts and circumstances of the case. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sri K.K. Singh, who has assisted this Court as amicus curiae for the appellant, shall be paid Rs. 7.000 (Seven thousand) as his fees.