MOHD ISLAM Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal admissibility of the conviction of appellant Mohd. Islam for the offence of Section 307 IPC is under challenge. The Sessions Trial No. 265/2001, State v. Abdul Hameed and Mohd. Islam was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge for the offence of Section 307 IPC and the learned Judge could arrive at a conclusion that Abdul Hameed was not guilty for the charge levelled, but he convicted Mohd. Islam for the offence as stated above. He has appropriately been sentenced. The sessions trial pertains to Crime No. 273/90, PS Sitarganj.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the background facts as emerging out from the First Information Report lodged just after three hours of the incident are that on 16.8.1990 at 7 PM, injured PW1 Maqsood got down from the bus while coming from Pilibhit to Sitarganj in order to see his sister in village Sarkara. He was going from the main road to the village Sarkara on foot. He changed his mind deboarding from the bus to ahead for Sarkara because in the bus he got information from one lady (a distant relative) that his sister was ailing. While so proceeding to Sarkara, he was confronted all of a sudden by three accused persons, namely, Abdul Hameed, Mohd. Islam, both residents of village Madhopur, District Pilibhit, and one unknown person. All the three, with intention to kill, pounced over him. Mohd. Islam opened fire from a country made pistol and one pellet of that cartridge entered in the region close to his left nipple on the chest. With the intervention of PW2 Sageer Ahmad and PW3 Abdul Kareem (both residents of village Sarkars), who were present nearby in their agricultural field, accused persons escaped from the spot. Injured Maqsood soon lodged the FIR in the nearby Police Station Sitarganj, from where a constable was sent with him to the Primary Health Centre, Sitarganj (Nainital). He was examined at 10.30 PM of the same day.

(3.) AFTER investigation, final report was submitted, but on the protest petition having been filed, the two accused persons were summoned by the learned Magistrate for the offence of Section 307 IPC and after committal of the matter it was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.