LAWS(SC)-1970-8-6

MUNIR KHAN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Decided On August 17, 1970
MUNIR KHAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave. The appellant and two others were tried for various offenses before the learned Sessions Judge, Rampur. The appellant was convicted under Sections 304 (I) /149, 307/149 and 323/149, I. P. C. We are not concerned with the convictions of the other accused. The sentences imposed on various counts were ordered to run concurrently. The maximum sentence imposed on the appellant is 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 (I) . In appeal the appellant was acquitted under Section 304 (I) , I. P. C. The sentence imposed on him under Ss. 307/149 was reduced from five years to two years rigorous imprisonment. His conviction under Section 323 was maintained for which a sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment had been awarded by the trial Court.

(2.) The incident giving rise to this prosecution took place on May 7, 1964 at about 10 p. m. The complainant as well as the appellant were having cycle stands near the exhibition ground, Rampur. The appellant and another had taken a cycle stand on contract from the municipal council. They were permitted to charge for each cycle 12 N. P. whereas the complainant was having a private cycle stand. It is said that he was charging only 5 N. P. per cycle. As a result of this, the prosecution case is that there was a trade rivalry between the appellant and his men on the one side and the complainant and his men on the other. It was further stated that on the date of the occurrence the appellant and several others went and attacked the complainant's party as a result of which several persons sustained injuries and one Anwarul Hasan died.

(3.) The defence admitted that there was trade rivalry between the appellant's party and the complainant's party. Their case was that it was the complainant's party who came suddenly and attacked the appellant's party as a result of which there was marpit in which both sides sustained injuries. The appellant's party pleaded self-defence. The trial Court after carefully examining the evidence came to the following conclusions: