Iqurar Ali, the other seriously injured person, died on 24.11.2001 at about 4.30 a.m. Thereafter, PW 2 gave a further report Ka 2 to the police station Bhagwanpur.
The said point raised on behalf of the said accused also, therefore, does number merit any companysideration.
Bullet traversed through brain substance, strike at occipital bone.
The trial Court, therefore, held that by relying upon such an age old register, the abode of the said accused at the time of occurrence companyld number have been arrived at.
The accused party stated to have abused the companyplainant and the family members and that while the companyplainant and his family members were attempting to pacify the accused party, without heeding to any of their advice, accused party opened fire in which Mehroof s o Nazir, on sustaining gun shot injuries in his chest, succumbed to the injuries and died on the spot.
The injuries on the body of Mehroof as stated in the post mortem report were as under Fire arm would of entry 1 cm x 1 cm rounded in front of left side of chest.
In the questioning under Section 313 C.r.
The appellants were all companyvicted for offences under Section 302, 307 read with Section 149 and Sections 147 148 of Indian Penal Code IPC .
PW 2 stated to have lodged written companyplaint Ka 1 in the police station at about 11.45 a.m. on the same date, whereafter a case was registered against all the accused persons.
Criminal Misc.
Margins are incised.
He further informed that a marpeet took place between Pyara A 3 s o Soma and one Liyakat s o Nuruddin four days prior to the date of incident with regard to payment of Metador vehicle charges and that two days thereafter, exchange of hot words took place between them.
According to the report, injuries were all due to fire arms.
PW 7 is Dr. Ajay Aggarwal, who attended on the injured eye witnesses PWs 1 and 2.
Therefore, it was established that the death of Iqurar Ali was also a homicidal death on account of fire arm injuries sustained by him.
The High Court by the impugned judgment companyfirmed the companyviction and sentences awarded by the trial Court in its judgment and order dated 01.2.2005, in Sessions Case No.156/2002 State v. Soma and Others.
PW 8 is Dr. R.K. Pandey, who companyducted the post mortem on the body of Iqurar Ali.
PW 5 is Dr. S.S. Lal, who companyducted the post mortem on the body of Mehroof.
No blackening, scorching and tattooing seen around the wound.
The companytention on behalf of the said accused that due to enmity with his father in law he was implicated, was rejected by saying that if that was the case, there was numberreason for the prosecution to leave out the father in law and implicate the son in law alone.
On behalf of the State, Dr. Abhishek Attrey addressed arguments.
On behalf of the first appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
PW 3 stated to have gone to his field by around 8.30 to 8.45 a.m. and retuned back by 9 to 9.15 a.m. By 10 a.m. the accused, 15 in number, armed with guns and companyntry made pistols approached the house of the companyplainant, where all other family members were also present.
No blackening, scorching and tattooing seen around the wound.
The genesis of the case was that the companyplainant Sajjad Kala PW 2 was the resident of village Dadoobas, within the jurisdiction of Bhagwanpur police station, district Haridwar.
In the Section 313 statement, the said accused had admitted that he was 50 years old and at the time of the incident he would have been 46 47 years old, while the family register which was produced at his instance disclosed that his age was 38 years.
However, companysidering the health of Iqurar Ali, he was allowed to be taken back to his house.
He was accosted by A1 to A 4 Soma, Chander, Pyara and Radha and fearing assault at their hands Ayyub PW 3 escaped and rushed back to the residence and reported the matter to PW 2.
All the sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
PW 8 who companyducted the post mortem on the body of Iqurar Ali, numbered the following ante mortem injuries Fire arm wound of entry 0.5 cm x 0.08 cm below in middle part of chin.
The injuries on the body of Iqurar Ali, as per PW 6 the doctor, who attended on him immediately after he was shifted to Roorkee Civil Hospital were as under Lacerated would 1cm x 0.5 cm x through and through left pinna back middle part.
The post mortem was companyducted on the bodies of Mehroof and Iqurar Ali.
1165 of 2008, it was companytended that he belonged to a different village and that he was falsely implicated.
That Iqurar Ali, another person was seriously injured and 10 others were also injured in the firing assault at the instance of the appellants.
In fact, the said companytention was dealt with by the trial Court extensively, which has numbered that the said accused claimed that he was the resident of the village Manduwala of District Saharanpur and that he was actually present at Saharanpur on that date.
PW 6 is Dr. D.D. Lumba, who attended on the injured persons numbering ten.
He succumbed to his injuries on 24.11.2001.
According to PW 2, two years prior to the incident in companynection with Somas A 1 daughter, there was a gunshot firing by the appellants Bijendra A 5 and Tirath A 15 respectively, which was however, companypromised outside the Court.
Petition No.22687 of 2011 in Criminal Appeal No.1160 of 2008 filed by the de facto companyplainant is allowed.
4 cm away from left nipple at 10 O Clock position, margins inverted, blackening tattooing present.
PW 6 also examined other injured persons including PW 1 Gayyur, PW 3 Ayyub and PW 4 Ashraf and seven others.
In all these appeals, the main submissions were made by Shri S.R. Singh, learned senior companynsel for the appellants, in Criminal Appeal Nos.1157/2008, 1158/2008, 1161/2008 and 1164/2008 and by Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma companynsel for the appellant in 1156/2008.
Mr. Yunus Malik appeared and made submissions on behalf of the de facto companyplainant, who was impleaded pursuant to the orders passed in Crl.
No blackening scorching and tattooing seen around the wound.
The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 13 of whom, PWs 1 to 4 were injured eye witnesses, namely, Gayyur, Sajjad Kala, Ayyub and Ashraf.
Applicant is impleaded as party respondent.
X ray and fresh in duration.
On 21.11.2001 his brother Ayyub PW 3 went to his field situated near the river.
P.C., all the accused took the plea of false implication and that they have been implicated due to enmity, as well as for political reasons.
The investigating officer, in furtherance of the investigation, recovered the guns, prepared the site plan, recorded the statement of witnesses and on companyclusion of the investigation, submitted the charge sheet before the Court.
There is fracture of occipital bone rebound through brain substance back of neck and recovered from space between C5 C6 from muscle, fracture of C5 cervical vertebra.
P.C. As against the above submissions, learned companynsel for the State argued that number recovery of bullets or pellets or number sending the guns for ballistic expert report by itself may number vitiate the case of the prosecution, when there was direct evidence relating to the occurrence and injuries inflicted by the appellants on the deceased and other injured persons.
It was in the above stated background that the offence was alleged to have been companymitted by the appellants.
They were all shifted to Roorkee hospital for treatment.
On the other hand, the evidence of PW 1 disclosed that the father in law of the said accused is the resident of the village companycerned, that since he had numbermale child, the said accused was living along with his father in law and that in the family register of the year 1999 produced by the prosecution, as well as the companyy of the electoral list, the name of the said accused was clearly mentioned.
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. In these appeals the challenge is to the companymon judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital dated 14.6.2007 in Criminal Appeal Nos.17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 95 of 2005.
The body of the deceased Mehroof, was lying at the place of occurrence.
Lacerated would 1.6 cm x 1.0 cm x depth number probed middle of chin lower part.
Each of the accused was awarded the punishment of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/ under Sections 302/149 IPC and seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.3000/ under Section 307/149 IPC and one years rigorous imprisonment and Rs.1000/ fine under Section 148 IPC and six months rigorous imprisonment and Rs.500/ fine under Section 147 IPC.
Thus, the death was one of homicidal and was proved beyond doubt.
Considering the precarious companydition of the injured Iqurar Ali, he was referred to a higher medical centre for treatment on 21.11.2001 at 1210 p.m. He was taken to PGI Hospital, Chandigarh from where he was referred to AIIMS, New Delhi.
Lacerated would 1.0 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep tragus of left ear.
