SHAMIM AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2012-9-105
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on September 12,2012

Shamim And Anr. Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J. - (1.) A complaint was written by informant Amzad Kazmi on 06.01.2005 to Police Station Manglaur, District Haridwar stating therein that on 06.01.2005 itself, at about 12:00 noon, he along with his brother Junaid alias Guddu went to the ration shop of the locality to get ration. Since the shop was closed, therefore, the informant along with his brother (victim) were waiting for the shop to open. They were sitting in the vacant plot of Doctor Jamil. Suddenly, Shamim alias Bhura and Saleem, both sons of Sitabi, residents of Quila came. They were armed with pistols. Kaleem son of Saleem and two others also came. They were carrying swords in their hands. Shamim alias Bhura and Saleem fired upon Junaid. Junaid fell down. Kaleem and two others gave blows of swords on victim. The incident was seen by informant and by Mursaleen son of Shaheed, Gulbashar son of Hanif and Junaid son of Baru, all residents of Sikri, who came on the spot on hearing the sound of firing. Injured Junaid was brought to Government Hospital, where he died. Accused persons had previous enmity with Junaid.
(2.) CHIK FIR was registered on 06.01.2005 at 01:30 p.m. in PS Manglaur, Roorkee, Haridwar. There was no delay in lodging FIR. After investigation of the case, charge -sheet against the appellants Shamim, Saleem and Kaleem was fled for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC. Another charge -sheet was submitted against Saleem as regards possession of (prohibited) country -made pistol and a live cartridge, for the offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act. Third charge -sheet was filed against accused Kaleem under Section 25/4 Arms Act in relation to recovery of prohibited sword. When the trial began, charges were framed against the aforesaid accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPS, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As many as 10 prosecution witnesses, viz., PW 1 Amzad Kazmi, PW 2 Gulbashar, PW 3 H.C.P. Rohtas Singh, PW 4 Dr. Anjum Anwar, PW 5 Jawahar Singh Rathor, PW 6 S.S. Bisht, PW 7 Manish Dutt, PW 8 Con. Kunwar Singh, PW 9 SI Ram Pal Singh and PW 10 Om Pal Singh were examined on behalf of the prosecution. After evidence, statements of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were taken, in which they said that prosecution witnesses were telling a lie. They did not commit any crime and nothing was recovered from them. No evidence was given in defence. After conclusion of the trial, accused Shamim alias Bhura, Saleem and Kaleem were convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. Accused Kaleem was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 25/4 Arms Act. All were sentenced appropriately. Accused Shamim alias Bhura, Saleem and Kaleem were exonerated of the charge punishable under Section 147 IPC. Accused Saleem was also exonerated of the offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act. Accused persons preferred criminal appeal in respect of charges in which they were convicted.
(3.) PW 1 Amzad Kazmi, informant, was the real brother of victim Junaid alias Guddu and eyewitness of the present case. PW 2 Gulbashar was the eyewitness. PW 3 HC Rohtas Singh was the witness of recovery of sword. PW 4 Doctor Anzum Anwar and PW 5 SI Jawahar Singh Rathor were the witnesses of inquest report. PW 6 S.S. Bisht, SO was the IO of the case registered in respect of offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. PW 7 Manish Dutt conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased. PW 8 Constable Kunwar Singh along with PW 10 Head Constable Ompal Singh were the formal witnesses and PW 9 SI Rampal Singh was the Investigating Officer of the case registered under the Arms Act.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.