S/o Mohd. Ali v. State of U.P. and another) bearing Case Crime No

Heard Sri Deepak Kaushik, learned counsel for the revisionist; learned A.G.A for State and perused the material on record.

2. The present criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 08.11.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge POSCO Act, Juvenile Court, Hapur in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2024("N" S/o Mohd. Ali Vs. State of U.P. and another) bearing Case Crime No. 229 of 2005 in Case No. 278 of 2016, under section 302/34 I.P.C. P.S. Hapur Nagar, District Hapur as well as judgment and order dated 02.09.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Hapur bearing Case Crime No. 229 of 2005 in Case No. 278 of 2016, ("N" S/o Mohd. Ali Vs. State of U.P. and another) under section- 302/34 I.P.C., P.S. Hapur Nagar, District- Hapur.

3. Prosecution case is that Salim, the son of the informant, Noor Mohammad alias Khilloo, was working in butchery at Hapur and doing the work of butchering buffaloes. On 23.05.2005 his sons, Salim and Nadeem, were butchering buffaloes in butchery where the juvenile, son of Mohammad Ali, was also doing the same work. The brother of Juvenile, Dillu, was also present there. The juvenile had butchering knife in his hand. As soon as, his son Salim entered with the butchering buffalo in the butchery, the juvenile and his brother, Dillu, told his son Salim that they will butcher that buffaloe. When his son refused to let the juvenile and his brother butcher buffaloes brought by him, the 2 CRLR No. 6643 of 2024 juvenile slit the neck of his son, Salim, by the knife in his hand and thereafter they vanished. His son was taken to the Doctor in injured condition where he was declared dead by the Doctor.

4. The revisionist was charge sheeted under Sections- 302, 34 I.P.C. He denied the charges and sought trial.

5. The prosecution examined P.W.-1, father of the deceased and informant, Noor Mohammad alias Khillu; P.W.-2, Nadeem, brother of the deceased; P.W.-3, Aas Mohammad; P.W.-4, Irfan; P.W.-5, Haji Naieem; P.W.-6, Bharat Singh Solanki, Investigating Officer; P.W.-7, Dr. Virendra Nath and P.W.-8, Vinod Kumar.

6. The defence produced D.W.-1, Khalil Ahmad and statement of juvenile was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. He claimed false implication in this case and denied the prosecution case.

7. P.W.-1, proved the prosecution case as stated in the F.I.R. He claimed himself to be eye witness of the incident along with Naieem, Arif, Aas Mohammad and his son Nadeem, P.W.-2. P.W.-1 could not be cross examined because of his death during trial.

8. P.W.-2, proved before the Board that the incident of murder of his brother took place before him on 23.05.2005. He could not tell the direction of the butchery before the Court. He stated that the inquest and post mortem of the deceased were not conducted in his presence. He also could not tell the name of the owner of the butchery. In his cross examination he stated that the deceased was his younger brother. He was at the distance of 5-10 steps when the juvenile attacked his brother by knife. After causing the incident, he ran away. He could not give any explanation why he F.I.R. was lodged on 24.05.2005 when the incident took place on 23.05.2005. He stated that his father lodged the F.I.R. and he does not knows reason of delay in lodging of the same.

9. P.W.-3 and P.W.-5 proved that the incident took place before them, they could not apprehend the juvenile since he was having knife in his hand and he ran away in front of them waiving the knife.

10. P.W.-4, proved that he reached the Khan Nursing Home, where Salim was declared dead. His dead body was sealed before him and he was made to sign the papers. 3 CRLR No. 6643 of 2024

11. P.W.-6, proved ;the record of investigation of the case conducted by him.

12. P.W.-7, proved that he conducted post mortem of the dead body of the deceased, Salim and found one anti-mortem injury of 10cm.x 4cm on trachea.

13. P.W.-8, proved the registration of the case at the Police Station and recovery of the knife used in the incident by the juvenile. He also stated the name of the witnesses of recovery of knife.

14. D.W.-1 proved that he knows the juvenile and on 23.05.2005 from 03.00 P.M. to 08.00 p.m., he had accompanied him to village- Sautha P.S. Gulavathi for enjoying Qauwali.

15. The Board found that the ocular evidence in this case was cogent, credible and trust worthy and relying on the same held the revisionist guilty. It further held that the burden of establishing the plea of alibi was on the defence which was not proved and accordingly directed protective custody of the revisionist for 3 years in Government Special Home, Ghazipur after adjusting the period of detention of 11 months and 27 days by its judgment and order dated 02.09.2024.

16. The appellate court has affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Board by its Judgment and Order dated 18.11.2024 and hence this revision.

17. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties this court finds that the findings recorded by the Board and affirmed by the Appellate Court do not appear to be based on any extraneous material nor the findings are based on misreading or misconstruction of the evidence on record. They have not been demonstrated to be perverse. Therefore, this court is not inclined to interfere with the judgments and orders impugned.

18. However, this court finds that it is a case of single blow inflicted by the accused juvenile on the neck of the deceased. There was no repeated assault made by revisionist on the person of the deceased. The dispute regarding the butchering of the buffaloe brought by the deceased to butchering took place all of a sudden. There was no premeditation. Incident took place in a sudden fight and under the heat of passion and the revisionist did not took any undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the 4 CRLR No. 6643 of 2024 revisionist under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. was unwarranted. The case is covered under Section 300, Exception 4 IPC.

19. The conviction of the appellant is modified to conviction under Section 304, Part-II of I.P.C. The revisionist is on bail in view of the order passed by this Court on 07.08.2025. Before conviction, he had undergone actual protective custody of 11 months and 27 days as on 02.09.2024. Thereafter, he remained in custody from 03.09.2024 to the period he was released on bail in pursuance of the bail order dated 07.08.2025 passed by this Court. Therefore, the revisionist has undergone actual protective custody of about 23 months out of the period of 03 years of sentence directed by the Board and affirmed by the appellate court.

20. The conviction of the revisionist under Section-304, Part-II I.P.C. is affirmed, however his sentence is reduced to period already undergone. Revisionist will deposit a fine of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the legal heirs of the informant within period of 2 months from the date of this judgment and order.

21. The personal bond and sureties furnished for the purpose of bail shall be discharged by the Board on deposit of fine of Rs.25,000/- by the revisionist. In case of failure to deposit the fine within 2 months, the revisionist shall be taken into custody and he shall undergo further detention in custody for a period of 6 months.

22. The Criminal Revision is partly allowed.

23. Office is directed to return the trial court record and notify this judgment and order to the trial court within 10 days. October 29, 2025 Rohit (Siddharth,J.)

Heard Sri Deepak Kaushik, learned counsel for the revisionist; learned A.G.A for State and perused the material on record.

2. The present criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 08.11.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge POSCO Act, Juvenile Court, Hapur in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2024("N" S/o Mohd. Ali Vs. State of U.P. and another) bearing Case Crime No. 229 of 2005 in Case No. 278 of 2016, under section 302/34 I.P.C. P.S. Hapur Nagar, District Hapur as well as judgment and order dated 02.09.2024 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Hapur bearing Case Crime No. 229 of 2005 in Case No. 278 of 2016, ("N" S/o Mohd. Ali Vs. State of U.P. and another) under section- 302/34 I.P.C., P.S. Hapur Nagar, District- Hapur.

3. Prosecution case is that Salim, the son of the informant, Noor Mohammad alias Khilloo, was working in butchery at Hapur and doing the work of butchering buffaloes. On 23.05.2005 his sons, Salim and Nadeem, were butchering buffaloes in butchery where the juvenile, son of Mohammad Ali, was also doing the same work. The brother of Juvenile, Dillu, was also present there. The juvenile had butchering knife in his hand. As soon as, his son Salim entered with the butchering buffalo in the butchery, the juvenile and his brother, Dillu, told his son Salim that they will butcher that buffaloe. When his son refused to let the juvenile and his brother butcher buffaloes brought by him, the 2 CRLR No. 6643 of 2024 juvenile slit the neck of his son, Salim, by the knife in his hand and thereafter they vanished. His son was taken to the Doctor in injured condition where he was declared dead by the Doctor.

4. The revisionist was charge sheeted under Sections- 302, 34 I.P.C. He denied the charges and sought trial.

5. The prosecution examined P.W.-1, father of the deceased and informant, Noor Mohammad alias Khillu; P.W.-2, Nadeem, brother of the deceased; P.W.-3, Aas Mohammad; P.W.-4, Irfan; P.W.-5, Haji Naieem; P.W.-6, Bharat Singh Solanki, Investigating Officer; P.W.-7, Dr. Virendra Nath and P.W.-8, Vinod Kumar.

6. The defence produced D.W.-1, Khalil Ahmad and statement of juvenile was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. He claimed false implication in this case and denied the prosecution case.

7. P.W.-1, proved the prosecution case as stated in the F.I.R. He claimed himself to be eye witness of the incident along with Naieem, Arif, Aas Mohammad and his son Nadeem, P.W.-2. P.W.-1 could not be cross examined because of his death during trial.

8. P.W.-2, proved before the Board that the incident of murder of his brother took place before him on 23.05.2005. He could not tell the direction of the butchery before the Court. He stated that the inquest and post mortem of the deceased were not conducted in his presence. He also could not tell the name of the owner of the butchery. In his cross examination he stated that the deceased was his younger brother. He was at the distance of 5-10 steps when the juvenile attacked his brother by knife. After causing the incident, he ran away. He could not give any explanation why he F.I.R. was lodged on 24.05.2005 when the incident took place on 23.05.2005. He stated that his father lodged the F.I.R. and he does not knows reason of delay in lodging of the same.

9. P.W.-3 and P.W.-5 proved that the incident took place before them, they could not apprehend the juvenile since he was having knife in his hand and he ran away in front of them waiving the knife.

10. P.W.-4, proved that he reached the Khan Nursing Home, where Salim was declared dead. His dead body was sealed before him and he was made to sign the papers. 3 CRLR No. 6643 of 2024

11. P.W.-6, proved ;the record of investigation of the case conducted by him.

12. P.W.-7, proved that he conducted post mortem of the dead body of the deceased, Salim and found one anti-mortem injury of 10cm.x 4cm on trachea.

13. P.W.-8, proved the registration of the case at the Police Station and recovery of the knife used in the incident by the juvenile. He also stated the name of the witnesses of recovery of knife.

14. D.W.-1 proved that he knows the juvenile and on 23.05.2005 from 03.00 P.M. to 08.00 p.m., he had accompanied him to village- Sautha P.S. Gulavathi for enjoying Qauwali.

15. The Board found that the ocular evidence in this case was cogent, credible and trust worthy and relying on the same held the revisionist guilty. It further held that the burden of establishing the plea of alibi was on the defence which was not proved and accordingly directed protective custody of the revisionist for 3 years in Government Special Home, Ghazipur after adjusting the period of detention of 11 months and 27 days by its judgment and order dated 02.09.2024.

16. The appellate court has affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Board by its Judgment and Order dated 18.11.2024 and hence this revision.

17. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties this court finds that the findings recorded by the Board and affirmed by the Appellate Court do not appear to be based on any extraneous material nor the findings are based on misreading or misconstruction of the evidence on record. They have not been demonstrated to be perverse. Therefore, this court is not inclined to interfere with the judgments and orders impugned.

18. However, this court finds that it is a case of single blow inflicted by the accused juvenile on the neck of the deceased. There was no repeated assault made by revisionist on the person of the deceased. The dispute regarding the butchering of the buffaloe brought by the deceased to butchering took place all of a sudden. There was no premeditation. Incident took place in a sudden fight and under the heat of passion and the revisionist did not took any undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the 4 CRLR No. 6643 of 2024 revisionist under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. was unwarranted. The case is covered under Section 300, Exception 4 IPC.

19. The conviction of the appellant is modified to conviction under Section 304, Part-II of I.P.C. The revisionist is on bail in view of the order passed by this Court on 07.08.2025. Before conviction, he had undergone actual protective custody of 11 months and 27 days as on 02.09.2024. Thereafter, he remained in custody from 03.09.2024 to the period he was released on bail in pursuance of the bail order dated 07.08.2025 passed by this Court. Therefore, the revisionist has undergone actual protective custody of about 23 months out of the period of 03 years of sentence directed by the Board and affirmed by the appellate court.

20. The conviction of the revisionist under Section-304, Part-II I.P.C. is affirmed, however his sentence is reduced to period already undergone. Revisionist will deposit a fine of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the legal heirs of the informant within period of 2 months from the date of this judgment and order.

21. The personal bond and sureties furnished for the purpose of bail shall be discharged by the Board on deposit of fine of Rs.25,000/- by the revisionist. In case of failure to deposit the fine within 2 months, the revisionist shall be taken into custody and he shall undergo further detention in custody for a period of 6 months.

22. The Criminal Revision is partly allowed.

23. Office is directed to return the trial court record and notify this judgment and order to the trial court within 10 days. October 29, 2025 Rohit (Siddharth,J.)