SAHID Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE First Information Report, in the instant case, was lodged by Islam (PW1). According to the First Information Report, five persons named in the First Information Report came with intention to kill the victim, a brother of PW1; sensing the same, PW1 entered his residence; one of those five persons, namely, Mustaqeem fired and killed the victim. This First Information Report led to filing of a charge -sheet against all the five appellants before us for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. In course of investigation, firearms were recovered from Mustaqeem, Tahir and Afzal. Separately, therefore, charge -sheets were filed against them for offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Both the charge -sheets were consolidated and one trial was held. After conclusion of the trial, each of the appellants has been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for life together with fine. They have also been convicted for one year imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 147; two years imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 148; and three years imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, together with fine. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. In addition to that, appellants Mustaqeem, Tahir and Afzal have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act and have been sentenced for two years imprisonment, together with fine.

(2.) LEARNED Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the appeals preferred by appellants Mustaqeem, Tahir and Afzal, being Criminal Appeal Nos. 219 of 2012, 207 of 2012 and 210 of 2012 respectively, relating to conviction for offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, are not being pressed, inasmuch as, appellants have already undergone imprisonment for more than two years, as has been awarded against them. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that her clients will pay the fine amount within a period of six months and such time is granted.

(3.) APPELLANTS have been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code principally on the basis of oral evidence tendered by PW1 and Zakir (PW3). It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that, having regard to the nature of the case, it will not be safe for the court to convict any of the appellants solely relying upon the evidence tendered by PW1 and PW3 in the background of the case as made out by the prosecution and brought before this Court through Dhirendra Singh Rawat (PW12), who happened to be the Investigating Officer in the instant case.