MOHD MUSSABIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment would dispose of two appeals, by which, the complainants/informant claim to be aggrieved by the conviction of the second respondent (hereafter called Jamil Ahmed) as well as the direction that he ought to be given the benefit of probation. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment dated 19.02.2011 held Jamil Ahmed guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 323/34 IPC and directed him to be released on probation subject to his furnishing a bond in the sum of ' 5000/- with the surety of the same amount.

(2.) The prosecution alleged that PW-4 and PW-8 were Jamil Ahmed s neighbours and he used to harass them as well as their family members claiming that he owned land on which the building containing the flat (where they reside) was situated. Jamil Ahmed also apparently claimed that the building had to be demolished. It was stated that on 09.03.2006 at 4:00 PM, PW-4 went down to fetch milk; at that time Jamil Ahmed was standing down stairs; he again allegedly asked the witness when he would move out of the flat. PW-4 did not respond; at this, Jamil Ahmed caught hold of his hand and pulled him inside his house. The prosecution alleged that at this point, Danish, Jamil Ahmed s son, the juvenile who was referred for proceeding before the Juvenile Justice Board came down armed with an iron rod and threatened that no-one could save him (i.e. PW-4) that day. The witness stated that Danish inflicted an iron rod injury on his (Mohd. Mussabir s) head. PW-8, Mohd. Muzammil, Mussabir s elder brother intervened and tried to save him; he too was beaten by a rod and bricks. PW-4 lost consciousness and subsequently regained it in the Holy Family Hospital. The FIR in this case was registered on 12.03.2006, when PW-4 s statement Ex.PW-4/A was recorded. On these allegations, the Trial Court framed charges. The accused, second respondent, denied them and claimed trial.

(3.) After considering the depositions of 11 Prosecution Witnesses and 4 Defence Witnesses as well as the materials placed on record, the Trial Court concluded that the offences punishable under Section 323/34 IPC were established.