Abdul Jabbar and Others vs State of U.P. (Now State of Uttarakhand)

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.04.1997, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Nainital, in criminal appeal No. 11 of 1996, whereby said court has dismissed the appeal of the revisionists on the point of conviction in respect of offences punishable u/s 147, 323, and 452 of I.P.C. The said court has further affirmed the sentence of the revisionist No. 1 Abdul Jabbar, revisionist No. 2 Shamsher, revisionist No. 3 Gaffar, revisionist No. 4 Intjar, revisionist No. 5 Eakruddin and revisionist No. 6 Shamshuddin. Only in respect of revisionist No. 2 Shamsher, the sentence was modified by the appellate court, and only fine was imposed in all the counts.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant Abdul Hameed, filed a criminal complaint which was registered as criminal case No. 124 of 1990 against the revisionists stating that on 21.1.1990, at about 8.00 P.M., after making an unlawful assembly, the revisionists armed with �lathies� and �dandas�, entered in the house of complainant and they had beaten Abdul Lateef, Saeed Ahmad and Adbul Azeez. After recording the statement of the complainant u/s 200 of Cr.P.C., and that of the witnesses u/s 202 of Cr.P.C. the Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, summoned six revisionists to face the trial in respect of offences punishable u/s 147, 323 and 452 of I.P.C. After recording the evidence u/s 244 of Cr.P.C. the charge of offences punishable u/s 147, 323 and 452 of I.P.C. was framed against six revisionists namely Abdul Jabbar, Shamsher, Gaffar, Intjar, Eakruddin and Shamshuddin. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the prosecutions got further examined P.W.1 Abdul Hameed(complainant), P.W.2 Saeed Ahmad (injured), P.W.3 Asgar Hussain and P.W.4 Dr. Ashok Agarwal. The evidence was put to the accused, in reply to which they alleged the same to be false. In defence accused got examined by D.W.1 Chaniram Arya, Naib Tehsildar, to bring the fact on record that the revisionist No. 2 Shamsher was with the said officer on the date of incident. The trial court after hearing the parties and examining the evidence found all the six accused guilty of charge of offences punishable u/s 147, 323 and 452 of I.P.C. After hearing them on sentence each of the accused revisionists was sentenced by the trial court to imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay fine of Rs. 300/- u/s 147 of I.P.C., simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay fine of Rs. 300/-under Section 323 of I.P.C., and imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 452 of I.P.C. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 03.04.1996, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur in criminal case No. 124 of 1990, criminal appeal No. 11 of 1996, was filed before the Sessions Judge, Nainital. (Earlier, Police Station Jaspur and Kashipur were part of District Nainital.). The said appeal was heard and disposed of by learned Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge vide his impugned order dated 10.04.1997, affirming the conviction of the accused revisionists and sentence of the six except Samsher who was directed to pay fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 147, Rs. 500 u/s 323 of I.P.C. and Rs. 100/- u/s 452 of I.P.C. Hence, this revision was filed before Allahabad High Court on 21.04.1997, where it was admitted on 22.04.1997. The revision is received, by this Court u/s 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000(Central Act, 29 of 2000), for its disposal.

Learned Counsel for the revisionists submitted that the criminal case has been filed by the complainant due to the land dispute between the complainant and the revisionists. It is further pleaded that the courts below have erred in law in holding the revisionists guilty of the charge of offences punishable u/s 147, 323 and 452 of I.P.C. Having gone through the lower court record, this Court finds that on behalf of the complainant the medical officer P.W.5 Ashok Agarwal has corroborated the injuries suffered by the injured in the incident. P.W.2 Saeed Ahmad is himself an injured witness who has corroborated the prosecution story. This Court in its revisional jurisdiction is not inclined to reassess the evidence on the record. What this Court has to see is whether the courts below have erred in law in appreciating the evidence on record, or not. After going through the impugned order passed by the courts below, this Court does not find any error of law committed by them in appreciating the evidence. However, considering the facts and circumstances and the period gone since the incident taken place, this Court finds it just and proper to reduce the sentence of the revisionist No. 1 Abdul Jabbar, revisionist No. 2 Shamsher, revisionist No. 3 Gaffar, revisionist No. 4 Intjar, revisionist No. 5 Eakruddin and revisionist No. 6 Shamshuddin to the period already undergone by them during the period of revision after their conviction was affirmed by the appellate court. It has come on record that they had been in jail for some twelve days. However, the sentence of fine, recorded against the revisionists is not interfered.

With this modification, the revision stands disposed of.