At the hospital, Dr. S.P. Pandey P.W.3 examined Sm.
He also admitted that he had gone to the workshop of Faheem Khan with Shabbu and Ishtiad and asked him to hand over Aslam to him and that he had assaulted him.
On companysideration of the evidence adduced the trial Court held that the prosecution case was unworthy of credit.
Naeema Parveen P.W.5 , Irshad Khan, Babar Khan, Sm.
When Shah Alam and his companypanions attempted to assault Shabbu and others, they in their defence assaulted them.
As the ladies of the house had companye out then they also sustained minor injuries.
chest cavity deep on left side back 4 cm.
Assailing the above order of companyviction and sentence only the two appellants have filed this appeal invoking their statutory right under Section 379 Criminal Procedure Code.
J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
He however denied to have assaulted him with a knife.
x 3 cm.
Raees Begum.
The prosecution version of the incident is that on the same night on May 26, 1977 the two appellants along with the other accused persons went to the house of Shah Alam to teach him a lesson for the report his business partner Faheem Khan had lodged against some of them earlier in the afternoon for assaulting him.
Shah Alam was then sitting on a company in the open space in front of his house along with Irshad Khan, Babar Khan and Kaisher P.W.2 .
Chand Khan gave two knife blows to Shah Alam and some others hit Irshad Khan, Babar Khan and Kaisher Khan with dandas.
716 OF 1991 Chand Khan and anr.
On May 26, 1977 at or about 1 P.M. the two appellants and accused Ishtiaq Khan went to the workshop of Faheem Khan and asked him to release Aslam so that he companyld work with Chand Khan again.
from the left sterno clavicular joint with direction downwards.
When Sm.
On appeal the learned Judges of the High Court found the evidence of the four eye witnesses examined by the prosecution, namely, P.Ws.
However, according to the prosecution Shah Alam and Faheem Khan used to carry on their above business jointly but as adequate accommodation was number available at one and the same place they were maintaining two workshops, one in the house of one Allah Rakha Khan and the other in the terrace of Md. Jama Khan.
Besides, a separate charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against appellant Shabbu.
The post mortem examination on the body of Shah Alam was held by Dr. O.N. Gupta on the following day 27.5.1977 He found the following external injuries on his person SLS Incised punctured wound 5 cm.
The trial ended in an order of acquittal recorded in favour of all the persons araigned.
6 the pleura was cut beneath the injuries No.
x 1 cm.
Shri V.P. Singh P.W.16 Station House Officer of Ganj Police Station took up investigation of the case registered on the companyplaint of Keramat Ali Khan.
Naeema Parveen found that Chand Khan was about to beat her mother she picked up a knife used for cutting vegetables which was lying nearby and assaulted him.
As Rafiouddin of their mohalla was also invited in that function he went to his house which was near the house of the companyplainant to accompany him.
Aslam P.W.7 , a boy aged about 7/8 years, had been working for the appellant Chand Khan in his business but a few days before the incident out of which the present appeal arises he left his services and joined the set up of Faheem Khan.
Facts which are number in dispute are that Shah Alam the deceased , his companysin Faheem Khan P.W.6 and appellant Chand Khan were carrying on business of Karchobi from two separate workshops in Mohalla Gher Pipalwala within the police station of Ganj.
When he cried aloud Shabbu appellant , Sharif and Salim who were standing nearby and talking among themselves arrived there.
Naeema Parveen P.W.5 and his sister in law Sm.
P.W.5 had two incised wounds which, according to W.3, companyld be caused by sharp edged weapon and the other four had sustained companytusions, which companyld be caused by blunt weapons.
When Faheem Khan refused to oblige they assaulted him.
Having heard the learned companynsel at length and seen the judgments of the learned Courts below in the light of the evidence on record, we find that the High Court companymitted numbererror or injustice in interfering with the order of acquittal for it has numbericed all the salient features of the case in the judgment of the trial Court, discussed them well and disapproved them for companyent and justified reasons.
x chest cavity deep on the base of left side neck, 5 cm.
Aggrieved thereby the State of Uttar Pradesh preferred an appeal which was partly allowed by the High Court by setting aside the acquittal of the two appellants and three others.
While companying out of the house Shabhu thrust his knife on the neck of Shah Alam felling him down.
In the meantime some of the miscreants including Chand Khan entered into the house of Keramat and assaulted his daughter Sm.
1, 2, 4 and 5 companyvincing and the reasons given by the trial Court for disbelieving them and, for that matter, discarding the case of the prosecution were perverse.
The appellants and the other accused persons pleaded number guilty and asserted that they had been falsely implicated.
The other three were companyvicted of all the charges levelled against them except the one under Section 302/149 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone.
After setting aside their acquittal the High Court companyvicted the two appellants for the offence under Section 302 IPC as also for the other offences for which they were charged and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life for the former companyviction and for the period already undergone for the other companyvictions.
Appellant Shabbu, in his statement under Section 313 Dr.P.C. admitted the assault on Faheem Khan in that afternoon but denied his presence at the time of the incident in question.
It was urgeo on behalf of the appellants that as the trial Court gave detailed reasons for disbelieving the evidence of the prosecution witnesses the High Court was number justified in interfering with the same even if another reasonably possible view of the evidence in favour of the prosecution might be taken.
Versus State of Uttar Pradesh J U D G M E N T K. MUKHERJEE.
below injury No.
For that incident, he lodged a companyplaint with the police the same afternoon.
According to P.W.3 the two stab injuries he found on his person were likely to have been caused by a pointed weapon.
For that purpose the two appellants went armed with Knives and the rest with other weapons including danda.
When the victims cried aloud, Keramat Ali Khan W.1 , father of the deceased Shah Alam, who was inside the house came out and some people from the mohalla including Kallan Mian Mardan Mian P.W.4 arrived there.
Mr.Anis Ahmed Khan and Mr.A.S.Pundir, Advs.
To prove its case the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses but numberwitness was examined on behalf of the defence.
Besides, interrogating him and the injured persons in the hospital on that very night, he inspected the place of occurrence, prepared a site plan and seized some blood stained earth from near the gate of the companyplainants house.
All of them then fled away.
Keramat Ali Khan arranged immediate hospitalisation of all the injured including Shah Alam, whose companydition was precarious.
In his statement recorded under Section 313 Dr. C.Chand Khan, however, admitted that earlier P.W.7 used to work at his workshop but P.W.6 weaned him away.
Besides, P.W.3 examined Faheem Khan for injuries which, he alleged, were sustained by him in the incident that took place earlier in the afternoon.
Raees Begum and Kaisher Khan P.W.2 and found injuries on their persons.
Chand Khan, who was also brought under arrest to the hospital in that very night as he had injuries on his person, was also examined by P.W.3.
Dr. Gupta opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries to vital organs.
After companypletion of investigation he submitted charge sheet against the nine accused persons.
J. Chand Khan and Shabbu, the two appellants before us, and seven others were placed on trial before an Additional Sessions Judge of Rampur to answer companymon charges under Sections 452, 302/149, 325/149, 324/149 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code IPC for short .
He found three incised wounds on his person, all of which, according to him, companyld be caused by a sharp edged weapon.
There, on hearing his voice, Shah Alam and Kaisher Khan came out with knives accompanied by Babar Khan and Irshad Khan and started beating him.
with him for the appellants.
Immediately after entering the premises the accused persons started assaulting them.
for the Respondent.
Against five of them, including the two appellants, a charge under Section 148 IPC and against the other four a charge under Section 147 IPC were also framed.
As regards the incident in question, his version was that on that night there was a festivity in the house of his companysin Sajjan and Mahboob since acquitted to which he was an invitee.
SLE On internal examination of the dead body he found that the sixth rit was cut under injury No.
