STATE Vs. NAUSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), the State seeks leave to file an appeal against the judgment and the order on sentence dated 24.05.2013 and 28.05.2013 respectively whereby respondents No. 1 to 3 were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 304 (Part I) read with Section 34 and Section 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). For the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part I) IPC, respondents Naushad @ Sonu and Dilshad Khan were sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 8 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/ - each or in default of payment of fine they were sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years each whereas for the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part I)/34 respondent Hameed Khan was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 40,000/ -. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo RI for 1 1/2 years. Similarly, for the offence punishable under Section 308/34 IPC, respondents Dilshad Khan and Naushad were sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 6 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/ - each, or in default of payment of fine they were sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years each. Respondent Hameed Khan, on the other hand, was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/ - or in default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo RI for 1 1/2 years for the offence punishable under Section 308/34 IPC.

(2.) THE State's grievance is that the assault being premeditated and there being intention to inflict the injury which ultimately caused deceased's Rajiv death and the injuries on the person of Babar Khan (PW1) being dangerous, the respondents ought to have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 and Section 307/34 IPC. It has also been averred that even if the respondents were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304/34 IPC and Section 308/34 IPC, the quantum of sentence awarded was insufficient and inadequate.

(3.) THE manner of the incident can be summed up from the Court's testimony of Babar Khan (PW1) on whose statement Ex. PW1/A, FIR Ex. PW10/A was registered. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment is extracted as under: