MOBEEN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mobeen, Shahid,Qamruddin, Naseer Ahmad, Sharfuddin, Zahid, Mukhtar Ahmad, Jabbar, Jaqeel Ahmad and Shakeel Ahmad were charged under Sec. 147/307 read with Sec. 149; Sec. 325 read with Sec. 149; Sec. 324 read with Sec. 149; and Sec. 323 read with Sec. 149 Indian Penal Code. They were tried and convicted under the aforesaid sections by the learned trial court vide its order of conviction dated 21.4.79. After hearing them on the question of quantum of sentence,he vide his order of the same date, sentenced each one of them to undergo R.I. for two years under Sec. 325 read with Sec. 149 Indian Penal Code; 11/2 years R.I. under Sec. 324 read with Sec. 149 Indian Penal Code one years R.I. each under Sections 323 read with Sec. 147 Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. It is the judgement of conviction and order of sentence both dated 21.4.79 which has been appealed against by the appellants in this appeal and which requires my scrutiny of its sustainability. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined Ainul Haq, P.W.1, Riyazul Haq, P.W.2, Dr. K.B. Lal, P.W.3, Sunder Lal Srivastava, P.W.4, Maqbool Ahmad, P.W.5, Mohd. Islam, P.W.6,Ali Ahmad, P.W.7, Gauri Shankar Singh, P.W.8, Jai Prakash, P.W.9 and Dr. R.N. Bhargava, P.W.10 and proved on record Report Ext. Ka.1, copy of the F.I.R. Ka-7, injury reports of Riyaz Ahmad, Maqbool Ahmad, Ainul Haq and Abdul Jabbar, Exts. Ka-2,3,4 and 7 respectively. After the close of prosecution evidence the statements of accused under Sec. 313, Criminal Procedure Code were recorded. When asked to enter upon their defence they proved on record F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1. The learned trial court believing the ocular account given by the prosecution witnesses supported by medical evidence, convicted the accused as mentioned above. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that Riyaz Ahmad and Maqbool Ahmad, the injured complainants, have compromised the offence outside the court and an application to the effect supported by affidavits of these two injured persons was filed in this court on 6.12.94. It was sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur for verification who had sent a report dated 20.1.95. He has certified the compromise deed on 11.1.95. Under the circumstances I grant permission to compound the offence with which they are charged qua Maqbool Ahmad and Riyaz Ahmad, consequently I acquit them of the charge under Sections 323/149, 324/149 and 325/149, Indian Penal Code with regard to the injuries caused by them on the persons of Riyaz Ahmad and Maqbool Ahmad. Now on to the offence under Sections 323/149, 324/149 and 325/149 with regard to the injuries which the appellant had caused on the person of Ainul Haq. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that he does not challenge the judgement of conviction but in view of the fact that the offence had been committed as back as on 25.9.79 where-after the appellants have faced protracted trial and suffered much and that it will not be in the interest of justice to send them to jail again as they are on bail. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants on the question of quantum of sentence which are as under: