DULHEY KHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Five accused persons were put on trial by being charged with commission of offence under Sections 147 and 307 /149, I.P.C. The judgment in the relevant Sessions Trial bearing No. 87/1980, was rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Badaun on 21.11.1981, by which he found all the five accused persons guilty of committing the offences, they had been charged with. The convicted accused persons were heard on sentence on 23.11.1981 and while accused Nanhey Khan was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years for the offence under Sections 307 /149, I.P.C. and 1 year for the offence under Section 147, I.P.C., remaining four accused persons were awarded different terms of sentence for their respective convictions. Accused Dulhey Khan and Sakrullah Khan @ Vedyar Khan were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and 6 months respectively for committing offences under Sections 307 /147 and 149, I.P.C., while appellant Saddiq Khan was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and 2 years respectively for his individual conviction under the above two counts. All the five convicted persons preferred the appeal jointly. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant No. 1 Dulhey Khan, appellant No. 2 Nanhey Khan and appellants No. 4 and 5 Saddiq Khan and Sakrullah Khan @ Vedyar Khan died, as a result of which the appeal as against them stood abated, leaving the appeal surviving only on behalf of appellant Phundan Khan. We further find that informant-P.W. 1 Ronak All, the revisionist of Crl. Revision No. 143/1982, has also died. There was no application filed by any of his heirs or persons interested within the stipulated time, seeking permission of the Court to continue the revision. Thus, what we find is that, the connected revision petition to this appeal, has also died its own death, on account of which the revision stood abated.

(2.) The short facts leading to the present appeal, was that when the informant-P.W. 1 Ronak Ali was going from his house and when he had reached at a particular place, accused Dulhey Khan remonstrated the other accused persons to kill him, upon which all the accused persons started firing at him. He raised an alarm, as a result of which his son P.W. 2 Shamshul Hasan Khan and his daughter Alla Nooran (not examined) rushed to the scene of occurrence and accused Nanhey Khan and appellant Phundan Khan fired at the two, as a result of which all of them were injured.

(3.) The reason for commission of the offence, was that there was some litigation with nature of a proceeding under Sections 107 /117, Cr. P.C., was pending in the Executive Court and the accused persons were entertaining vengeance in their mind and, as such, they committed the offence.