Initially, accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 were tried in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1999 arising from FIR No 10 dated 09.01.1999 of Police Station Nuh, Haryana in which they were convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 while acquitting them of the charge under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Jamil and Ghasita challenging their conviction by the Trial Court whereas criminal revision was preferred by the complainant-Deenu challenging the judgment of acquittal passed in favour of accused-Akhtar Hussain.
Yunus (A1) stands convicted only under Section 323 of the IPC, Ghasita (A3) has died, and Akhtar Hussain (A4) is acquitted by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court against which there is no further appeal. Akhtar Hussain (A4) gave another blow whereas Jamil (A2) also inflicted injuries by Kulhari on the head of the deceased.
When the deceased fell down Yunus (A1) gave lathi blows on the legs of the deceased and Ghasita (A3) gave another Pharsa blow over his head. (2) Incised wound 4cm x 2mm x bone deep placed over the frontal region of the scalp profused bleeding placed just paralled and behind the injury no.1 (3) Incised wound 1cm x 2cm placed over the frontal region of the scalp just lateral to injury no.
Incised wound 2cm x 1cm bone deep placed over the frontal region of the scalp just behind the injury no.3 anteroposteriorly.” PW-3 opined that the injuries are caused within six hours by using sharp edged weapons.
One incised wound parallel to injury No.(a) size 2.1cm x 1.4 cm x bone deep, both margins clean cut except at the place of stitches. Ranga (PW-3), Constable Sarwan Kumar (PW-4), Head Constable Sunil Dutt (PW-5), Constable Raj Kumar (PW-6), Dr.
In the present Criminal Appeal No.1308 of 2012, we are required to consider the legality and validity of conviction imposed upon Jamil (A2) whereas in the Criminal Revision, the State has called in question Yunus (A1) acquittal under Section 302 IPC. Jamil (A2) that the FIR is ante-timed and delayed; the conviction is based on the testimony of interested witnesses who are closely related to the deceased and the prosecution has failed to examine the independent witnesses namely, Harun and Deenu s/o Kalu. Yunus (A1) for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC (in Criminal Appeal No.1307/2012), learned counsel for the State of Haryana argued that the same set of evidence, which holds good for convicting Mohd. Comparing the statement of the Deenu (PW-7) with the statement of Ahmad (PW-8), the Trial Court found major contradictions and disbelieved the statement of Deenu (PW-7) while acquitting Akhtar Hussain(A4) of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Jamil (A2) & Ghasita (A3)) and secondly, in the trial against Akhtar Hussain (A4), the fact remains that both the star witnesses of the prosecution namely Deenu (PW-7) and Ahmad (PW-8) are disbelieved in the second trial by clearly stating that their statements are contradictory, the facts are twisted and improvements are made.
The Trial Court found that the recovery of Pharsa from Ghasita (A3) is fully proved. Jamil (A2) is allowed in part setting aside his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and, at the same time, maintaining his conviction and sentence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC.
Jamil (A2) has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Yunus (A1) under Section 302 read with section 34 IPC stands dismissed.
Case Title: STATE OF HARYANA Vs. MOHD.YUNUS . (2024 INSC 34)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001307-001307 / 2012
