ABDUL GAFFAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Six accused appellants were tried before V Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in S.T. No. 430 of 1983. They were 1. Abdul Gaffar, 2. Abdul Jabbar, 3. Abdul Rub 4. Abdul Wahab, 5. Aas Mohdammad and 6. Mohd. Iliyas is their Bahnoi and Aas Mohd. is the son of Mohd Iliyas. They came to be convicted under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. with the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 I.P.C., one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 I.P.C. and life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. with the direction of running of all the sentences concurrently.

(2.) Broad features of the case as surfacing during trial may be noted for appreciation of the succeeding discussion. The incident took place on 9.6.1983 at about 3.45 P.M. at Hapur bus stand inside bus No. UHD 238. One Satpal was murdered in the incident. He was real brother of the informant and eye-witness Vijai Pal Singh PW 1 who lodged the F.I.R. the same day at 4.15 P.M. The distance of the Police Station from the scene was about tow furlongs. Abdul Gaffar, Abdul Jabbar, Abdul Rub and Mohd. Iliyas were allegedly armed with knives. Remaining two accused appellants Abdul Wahab and Aas Mohd. were armed with knives and hockeys. The deceased was conductor on the above bus which belonged to one Chaudhary Latafat and at the fateful time, the bus was at Hapur bus stand Meerut waiting for its turn. Vijai Pal Singh PW 1 and the deceased Satpal were sitting inside the bus stand Meerut waiting for its turn. Vijai Pal Singh PW 1 and the deceased Satpal were sitting inside the bus and were taking about their household affairs. The accused-appellants named above entered the said bus through the front side door with weapons as detailed earlier. Abdul Gaffar shouted abusing Satpal that he posed to be a big don (Bara Dada) and he would be taught a lesson for demanding expenses of litigation. Satpal retorted back that litigation was contested for both the sides and instead of bearing the expenses of litigation himself, he would realize his (Abdul Gaffar's) share from him.

(3.) The previous background was that about a month before the incident, a quarrel had taken place between Satpal on the one hand and accused Abdul Gaffar on the other on the question of sharing expenses of a criminal case.