MAHMOOD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE this judgment, the above mentioned appeals will be disposed of as these have arisen out of a common incident/ judgment.

(2.) PROSECUTION case was set in motion on the basis of the statement of Jom Khan before Sub Inspector Raghubir Parshad on 22.3.1999 at about 11.30 a.m. The complainant stated that he was resident of village Pehchanka and was doing agricultural work. The land of Jafru, Jamshed and others adjoined their land. Jafru and others had harvested their mustard crop and their land was lying vacant. On 22.03.199 at about 8.30 a.m. complainant along with Faruk, Janu @ Jan Mohd. and Altaf Hussain were harvesting wheat crop in their fields. Jafru and others had installed a thresher for their mustard crop. The mouth of the thresher emitting dust was made to face towards the complainant party. As a result of this the dust fell on the complainant party. The complainant party told the other party that the mouth of the thresher be made to face in the other direction as the dust was falling on them. However, Jafru and others took ill of the said fact and left for their village after closing the thresher. After about half an hour, Jafru, Jamshed, Pappu, Dulli and Sahid armed with a gun and lathis reached their fields after conspiring with each other and started the thresher. The complainant party again went and objected to this but the other party started abusing them and attacked them. Jafru gave a lathi blow on the left foot of Farukh. Dulli exhorted Sahid to fire from his gun. Sahid fired at Altaf Hussain on his chest and as a result of this he died at the spot. On hearing the gun shot, the villagers who were harvesting their crop came to the spot. The assailants left the spot along with their respective weapons.

(3.) AFTER completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the accused. Vide order dated 12.7.1999, charge was framed against the accused under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC and under Section 25 of the Act. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined 10 witnesses.