STATE OF U P Vs. PARVEZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. D. Dube, J. The State of U. P. has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 22-11-1979 passed by the first Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur, acquitting the respondents from the charges under Section 302 and 324,1. P. C.

(2.) IT was stated in the first information report lodged at 11. 10 a. m. on 12-1-1977 by Sajjad that Parvez had taken a shop situate in Machhli Bazar, Mohalla Sarai Gate, Police-station Kotwali City, Rampur, on a tenancy of Rs. 11 per month. He was running a cycle repairing business in the shop. Usman, brother of Sajjad, was asking parvez to vacate the shop since last several days. On the previous evening, Usman had against asked Parvez to vacate the shop. Parvez had informed that the will reply on the next day. IT is alleged the about 10. 45 a. m. on 12-1-1977, Parvez came to the house of Usman. When Usman came down on the road, Nabi Ahmad and Hafiz Sajjed caught-hold of Usman and Parvez inflicted knife blows. He gave some knife blows to Sajjad also. Usman fell down. On the alarm of Sajjad, Yasin Khan, Abdul Ghaffar, Sattar Khan and several others arrived and saw this occurrence. The accused ran away towards Topkhana. Usman was seated on a rickshaw and Sajjad came to Police-station Kotwali and lodged the report. The case was registered originally under Sections 307 and 324, I. P. C.

(3.) THE respondent Parvez had admitted in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. that he was tenant in the shop owned by Usman. He stated that Usman had asked him to vacate the shop, but he had refused to do so. According to him, Usman, Sajjad and two unknown persons came on the shop on 12-1- 1977 and started throwing out his belongings kept in the shop, When Parvez, objected, Usman gave a knife blow. Sajjad had a Danda in his hand. He wielded his Danda which hit his head. Parvez alleged that he had inflicted knife blows on Sajjad and Usman in his self defence. He stated that he went to the police-station to lodge a report, but was detained and arrested. He also alleged that he was medically examined. THE other two respondents had denied their participation in the crime.