WASEEM Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Waseem was charged under Section 307, I.P.C. but on trial was convicted under Sec. 324, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 15 months with a fine of Rs. 500.00. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further six months rigorous imprisonment. Out of the amount of fine of Rs. 500.00 half was directed to be paid to injured Bholu. The judgment was pronounced by Sri G.K. Gupta, the then XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur in Sessions Trial No. 255 of 1981. Aggrieved, he preferred this appeal.

(2.) The facts lie in a short compass. The injured Bholu PW 1 and his brother Nurul Haq PW 3 resided in house No. 89/140, Ram Chandi Ka Akhara, Anwarganj, Kanpur. Their aunt Mst. Shamsun was living on the upper floor. The appellant used to come to meet the said lady and cut jokes with her. Bholu, injured of the present case used to raise objection on his behaviour, which annoyed him. The incident took place on 23-12-1979 at about 5.30 P.M. The accused appellant came to the house of the complainant and injured and called Smt. Shamsun. On being objected to, he started altercating and assaulting Bholu injured by means of a knife causing injuries on his chest. On the alarm being raised by him, the complainant Nurul Haq PW 3 and other witnesses Hasim and Musarraf came to the spot, on whose challenge the accused appellant ran away. The report was made by Nurul Haq PW 3 the same day at 6 P.M. P.W. 5 Dr. Omar medically examined the injured on 23-12-1979 at 6.50 P.M. and found the following injuries having been sustained by him :

(3.) Though the F.I.R. was taken out under Section 324 I.P.C., but the Magistrate concerned committed the accused appellant to the Court of Session to face trial under Section 307 I.P.C. At the trial, the injured Bholu PW 1 and his brother Nurul Haq PW 3 supported the prosecution case, though Musharraf PW 2 turned hostile. The accused appellant claimed false implication. According to him, Smt. Shamsun was issueless and had adopted him as her son. She wanted him to be her legal heir after her death. When Bholu and Nurul Haq came to know about it, they started raising objection and threatened him with dire consequences, such as either they would kill him or get him imprisoned for the entire life. They allegedly falsely implicated him. However, the Court found the case to be proved against the accused appellant to have committed offence under Section 324 I.P.C. The trial Court observed that though injuries of the injured were kept under observation and X-ray of injury No. 1 was also advised but no X-ray report or supplementary report was filed or proved to indicate the gravity of the injury. The depth of both the injuries had also not been proved. It was on such reasoning that instead of Section 307 I.P.C. he found the offence committed by the accused appellant to be under Section 324 I.P.C.