YUSUF Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) YUSUF has appealed against the order of the learned Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge. Bulandshahr, convicting and sentencing him to imprisonment for life under Section 302, I. P. C, and to nine months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/34, IPC Kalua has preferred' a separate appeal against his conviction and sentence of nine months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 323. IPC Nasib Ullah and Babu. two other co-accused, were also awarded a sentence of nine months' rigorous imprisonment, the former under Section 323/34, IPC and the latter under Section 323, IPC but they appear to have submitted to the order.

(2.) NASIB Ullah and Babu accused were brothers, Yusuf and Kalua were cousins. They all lived near an open piece of land known as Penth Ka Maidan within the town of Sikandarabad Nasib Ullah carried on the vocation of welding and plating and in the course of his business he got acquainted with Mohan, a resident of Mohalla Rampura. Four or five days prior to the occurrence Mohan had given the Farshi of his Hukka to Nasib Ullah for repairs. In the morning of 8th May 1968 Mohan went to Nasib Ullah to get his Farshi, if it had been repaired. At that time the other three accused were also present there. They were asking Nasib Ullah to restore Yusuf's son to him who was missing for the preceding three or four days. Yusuf suspected that Nasib Ullah was responsible for the disappearance of his son. Nasib Ullah declined to disclose the whereabouts of the missing child unless Yusuf was prepared to restore to Nasib Ullah the latter's son. Yusuf was said to be a pick pocket and one of the sons of Nasib Ullah was alleged to be ardently attached to Yusuf accused. In the midst of the wrangle going on between Nasib Ullah on the one hand and the other three accused on the other, Nasib Ullah took Mohan aside and demanded a sum of Rs. 200/- from him so that he could get rid of the three accused by paying off that amount to them. Mohan expressed his inability to advance the amount which annoyed Nasib Ullah. He immediately shouted that the lost child of Yusuf was with Mohan and he should be made to restore the child. At that time Akhtar and Dasi happened to arrive there. Mohan continued to assert that he had nothing to do with the lost child and was wholly ignorant as to his whereabouts. Akhtar tried to intervene in the dispute, but ,as he was in a hurry to proceed to Bulandshahr, he asked the parties to wait till the evening when he would return from Bulandshahr and try to resolve their differences. At that stage Mohan left the place.

(3.) AT about 8. 00 or 8. 30 P. M. accused Yusuf and Kalua went to Mohan and persuaded him to accompany them to Nasib Ullah's place. Puran. one of the sons of Mohan, also accompanied his father. Akhtar was also summoned there and once again the earlier accusation and counter accusation started. Mohan insisted that he had nothing to do with the disappearance of the son of the Yusuf. Nasib Ullah suggested to the other accused that Mohan was probably afraid of some legal action against him by the police and that he might be persuaded to restore the lost child in case some assurance in writing was given to him that no action would be taken against him. A writing to that effect was drawn up which was signed by Yusuf and handed over to Mohan. Even after receiving the writing Mohan persisted in maintaining that he knew nothing about the lost child or his whereabouts. Realising that the parties were in no mood to come to any settlement, Akhtar left the place at about 11-30 P. M. The accused, however still kept on pressing Mohan to restore the missing child, but Mohan maintained his earlier stand that he was not aware of the whereabouts of the child.