LAWS(SC)-1999-4-97

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. LAEEQ

Decided On April 22, 1999
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Appellant
V/S
LAEEQ Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has filed this appeal as respondent Laeeq, who was convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 304, IPC, has been acquitted by the High Court.

(2.) Laeeq was tried along with three others for committing murder of Ashfaq Hussain and causing injuries to Mohd. Yaseen, Ayub, Chhotey and Nathu. The trial Court did not believe the evidence of the eye-witnesses as regards the genesis of the incident and gave benefit of doubt to accused Mohd. Noor, Qayum Abdul Qayum and Arshad and acquitted them. The role played by the respondent-Laeeq was believed but giving him benefit of exception (4) to Section 300, IPC, convicted him under Section 304, I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the other three accused, State filed an appeal before the High Court and aggrieved by the order of his conviction, Laeeq also filed an appeal before the High Court. Both the appeals were heard together. The High Court dismissed State's appeal against acquittal and allowed the appeal of the respondent Laeeq. The State, therefore, filed two special leave petitions in this Court, but, leave was granted only against acquittal of Laeeq and the special leave petition against the other three accused was dismissed. Thus, Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1989 really stood dismissed because no leave was granted in that case. Only Criminal Appeal No. 357-A survives for consideration.

(3.) The High Court after reappreciating the evidence has held that "The possibility of Laeeq Ahmed accused having given a knife blow to the deceased and the injuries found on the person of Mohammad Yasin (P.W. 1), Chhotey (P.W. 2) and Ayub having been received after the accused had been assaulted with dandas by him, Nathu, Chhotey (P.W. 2) and Ashfaq Hussain deceased cannot be excluded." Thus, believing the defence version that the respondent had caused the said injury in exercise of right of private defence, the High Court acquitted the respondent.