SHAFAQAT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 5968 of 2006, Shafaqat and Jabir v. State of U. P., CRIMINAL Appeal No. 5608 of 2006, Ishtekhar v. State of U. P., CRIMINAL Appeal No. 5443 of 2006, Jan Mohd and Kadir v. State of U. P. and CRIMINAL Appeal No. 5445 of 2006, Dilshad v. State of U. P. are all connected appeals arising out of common judgment passed by the Additional Session Judge. Prevention of Corruption Act, Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 940 of 1996 and Sessions Trial No. 1157 of 1996. All the appellants have been convicted and sentenced under Section 302/149, I.P.C. to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000 each. In the event of default, a further imprisonment of 4 months. They have also been convicted under Section 307/149, I.P.C. and sentenced to 7 years R. I. and fine of Rs. 2,000 each. In the event of' default, a further imprisonment of one month. They are further convicted under Section 148, I.P.C. and sentenced two years R.I. and under Section 450, I.P.C., five years R.I. and also fine of Rs. 2,000 each. In case of default in making payment of fine they shall further undergo 1-1 month's simple imprisonment.

(2.) THE occurrence is alleged to have taken place in the intervening night of 15/16.7.1995 at 3.00 a.m. in village Nagla Sahu, Police Station Bhawanpur, district Meerut. THE first information was got registered by Niyaz Mohammad at Police Station Bhawanpur at 4.00 a.m. on 16.7.1995. THE distance of the police station from the place of occurrence is said to be 4 kilometres east.

(3.) SRI Dilip Kumar has further emphasized while placing cross-examination of P.W.-1 that Niyaz Mohd. had contested the election of Pradhan against Khan Shree and lost. He has further admitted that he was at the place of occurrence for almost 45 minutes to one hour and thereafter the police had taken him to the doctor to get his injuries examined The villagers who had arrived at the scene of occurrence had bandaged his injuries and at the time when the scribe of the report Jamil Ahmad was writing, out the first information report, a number of people were present around him, He further admitted that he had not specified as to which accused fired at which of the inmates of the house. He further admits that darogaji had recorded his statement after 22-23 days since he was not in a position to give statement, whereas the Investigating Officer has specifically stated while contradicting the statement of Yasin P.W.-1 that he had not recorded any statement of Yasin at any point of time during investigation. P.W.-2 Hasrat is witness who has clearly stated that he arrived at the scene of occurrence when the assailants were fleeing. He also belongs to the same family of the deceased and further admits that Niyaz Mohd. is his own Tau. Hasrat has admitted enmity with the accused Ishtekhar, Dilshad and Jabir and also that his uncle Akhtar was murdered six months prior to the present incident and Hasrat was also injured. He further states that the accused are inimical on account of election of pradhan. Hasrat further admits that his house is at the back of the house of the deceased and there is open space in between the two houses. Both the houses are situated at about 150 paces. He got up after hearing the shots and after hearing hue and cry made by other nearby residents. He also admits that when he reached the house of the deceased, Iliyas was lying dead on his cot and no other accused were present there. It was Yasin who informed P.W.-2 that his father was shot at by Jabir and Shafaqat and also that Ishtekhar opened fire at Yasin.