RASHID Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri K.N. Bajpai and Sri Sher Singh learned AGA and perused the record.

(2.) THE criminal appeal has been preferred against the impugned conviction order dated 13.4.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. 4), Firo-zabad. By the order impugned passed in Sessions Trial No. 537 of 2003; State v. Rashid under section 307/326 IPC, P.S.-Matsena, District-Firozabad arising out of case crime No. 265 of 2002, the appellant was convicted under section 307 IPC for rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, failing which he was to undergo two months additional imprisonment. The appellant was further convicted under section 326 IPC also for the imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 5,OOC/- failing which he was to undergo two months additional imprisonment. All the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. The ground of challenge by the appellant is that the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner, without application of judicial mind and is against the weight of the evidence on record. The validity and correctness of the impugned order is also challenged on the ground that the Court below has failed to consider that all the prosecution witnesses were biased and interested and as such the testimony of interested witnesses which were contradictory could not have been considered for the purpose of conviction. In as much as, the medical evidence revealed that it was a case of simple injury and there were major discrepancies in preparation of the inquiry report and that sentence was too severe. Last ground of challenge taken in the appeal is that admittedly there was enmity between the parties and as such there was a chance of false implication of the appellant. As such, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of conviction and sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C. No. 4), Firozabad is not tenable in the eye of law.

(3.) THE investigation was taken up by S.I. Ishwar Singh who prepared the recovery memo dated 24.9.2002 of burnt clothes, chappal and plastic kainy or katty (Exhibit-Ka-2). Injury report dated 23.9.2002 (Ext. Ka-3) shows that acid had burnt the face, left shoulder and left leg superficially and the victim was referred for plastic surgery. Charge was framed by Additional District Judge/F.T.C. on 19.1.2004 to which the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.