State v. Sohrab Khan, Case Crime No. 2
Case Details
Court No. - 46 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2833 of 2022 Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Sohrab Khan S/O Saeed Khan And Another Counsel for Appellant :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J. Heard the learned A.G.A. on the admission of the present appeal who seeks to set aside the judgment and order of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bareilly dated 10.11.2021 in S.T. No. 194 of 2001, State Vs. Sohrab Khan, Case Crime No. 289 of 1998, Section 302/34, 307/34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, police station Bhojipura, District Bareilly.
Legal Reasoning
It is argued by the learned A.G.A. that the impugned judgment and order is against the principles laid down by the Apex Court. The trial court has not valued the prosecution evidence in its proper prospective. There is ample evidence on record to bring home the guilt of appellant Sohrab Khan. Minor discrepancies among the statements of witnesses cannot be given much importance, hence, the judgment and order of the trial court deserve to be set aside. We have gone through the judgment impugned whereby the accused Sohrab Khan has been acquitted of the charges under sections 302/34 and 307/34 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2)(5) of SC/ST Act. As per the facts of the case, the first information report of the incident was lodged by Dhakkan Lal, the nephew of the injured, later on deceased, on 3.9.1998 at 3.30 a.m. with the version that in the mid-night of 2/3.9.1998 Ramlal, the uncle of the first informant, was sleeping on a cot covered with mosquito net, in front of the flour-mill (Atta Chakki) of his another uncle Rameshwar. At about 1.45 a.m. hearing a sudden noise, he reached at the spot and found his uncle Ramlal lying unconscious on the cot with stabbed injuries on abdomen and other parts of the body. He had come to the police station with his injured uncle in a Tanga. The name of the accused would be disclosed by his uncle, after gaining his conscious, or otherwise, the family members of his uncle would disclose the names of the accused persons. Thus, the first information report was registered against unknown on 3.9.1998 and on 26.10.1998, for the first time, in the additional statement of the first informant Dhakkan Lal, the names of the present accused persons came into light. After the additional statement of the first informant the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of other witnesses namely, Chandrasen, Ved Ram, Mohan Lal, Amar Singh and Kailash Chandra etc. who disclosed that at the time of incident when they came near the brick kiln, they saw and recognized Sohrab Khan and Chhotey Lal in the light of torch. These accused persons were fleeing from the village and were chased by Kishan Pal, Amar Singh and Mohan Lal. Amar Singh disclosed that both Sohrab Khan and Chhotey Lal fled away from the spot after inflicting stab injuries to Ram Lal. Mohan Lal had not supported the prosecution case and had been declared hostile. Kishan Singh and Amar Singh both sons of the deceased were not shown as eye witnesses in the first information report. The first informant Dhakkan Lal has mentioned in the first information report and also stated in his statement that when he reached at the spot no one was there near the cot of his uncle. His uncle was in the semi- conscious state. He along with other persons reached at the spot and carried his uncle in a Tanga to the police station and submitted his report therein. Admittedly, it was a dark night. Though Kishan Singh and Amar Singh in the court stated that when Chhotey Lal was stabbing his father with knife, Sohrab Khan was looking at him, standing over there. On the hue and cry of their father, they reached at the spot carrying torches in their hands and challenged the accused persons. They saw and recognized the accused persons, they chased them but they made good their escape. Looking at the serious condition of their father, they took him to the police station and then to the hospital. The report was lodged by their cousin Dhakkan Lal and as they were very much distressed due to the incident they could not name the accused persons in the report. The motive indicated by the sons of the deceased is that the deceased Ram Lal had purchased 12 bighas of land from Sohrab Khan but the possession of the land was not handed over for want of mutation and because of the enmity this incident took place. In our opinion, if after purchase of the land, the possession was not given to the injured, then this cannot be said to be a motive for the accused persons to commit the offence rather this can be a ground to implicate the accused persons falsely. The facts clearly show that had both the sons of deceased Ram Lal accompanied the first informant Dhakkhan Lal to the police station and seen the accused persons committing the crime, they must have disclosed this fact to Dhakkan Lal and the first information report ought to have been lodged naming the accused persons. Even after lodging the first information report on 3.9.1998 till 18.9.1998 when Section 302 I.P.C. was added to the FIR. the names of the accused persons were not disclosed by the sons of the deceased and for the first time, in the additional statement of the first informant on 26.10.1998 the names of the present accused persons came into light which falsifies the version of the witnesses that the accused persons stabbing the injured were seen and recognized by them. Thus, we are of the opinion that it was a case of apriori suspicion as a result of which the respondent was subsequently arrayed as accused in the case. The learned trial court has read and identify the circumstances very well. We find that the judgment rendered by the trial court does not suffer from any perversity. No infirmity could be found. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission. Order Date :- 7.5.2022 Gss Digitally signed by GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA Date: 2022.05.12 15:32:33 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad