Law Insider India

Legal News, Current Trends and Legal Insight | Supreme Court of India and High Courts

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Smt. Aqeela And Ors.

6 min read

Citations: The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Smt. Aqeela And Ors. 1999 (1) Crimes 323

Date of Judgement:  27/08/1998

Equivalent Citation: 1999 CriLJ 2754

Case No.: Criminal Appeal no. 2953 of 1979

Case Type: Criminal Appeal

Petitioner/ Appellant:

  • Aqeela and Iqbal with Criminal Appeal No. 2953 of 1979
  • Razi with Criminal Appeal No. 2952 of 79

Defendant/Respondent:

  • Khalil with Criminal Revision No. 1917 of 1979
  • State Criminal Appeal No. 199 of 80.

Bench: Hon’ble Justice G Malviya and Hon’ble Justice N Gupta

Court: High Court of Allahabad

Statues Referred:

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 34, 302, 304, 324
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 107/116

Facts:

  • On a date, 08/11/1978 Khalil and Abdul Rajaq (deceased) were on the same bicycle and another bicycle Sahid Hussain and Wazid were going from Moradabad to their village Pandit Nagala about 5 p.m., in the meantime the three accused came in front of them from the culvert there were hiding on.
  • Smt. Aqeela was holding some sulphuric acid in a Dibba. She discarded something similar upon Abdul Rajaq. The corrosive sprinkled over Khalil and Shahid and made wounds them. Razi and Iqbal attacked Rajaq with a knife.
  • Surrendering bicycle in transit Abdul Rajaq attempted to run yet was caught by Razi and Iqbal, who attacked him with a knife and killed him.
  • Hearing dries, Safdar (Kalua) came to the spot and later on villagers came to the spot. At the point when different residents came at the spot, Khalil left the dead body of the expired and Smt. Aqeela went to police headquarters and stopped an oral report about this event.
  • The examination concerning the matter was taken up by S.I. Attar Singh P.W. 8 quickly alluded Khalil and Shahid for clinical assessment to District Hospital Moradabad.
  • S.I. Attar Singh alongside other police authorities surged at the location of the event and came there at around 7 p.m. He captured the charged litigant Smt. Aqeela. Smt. Aqeela was wearing Salwar and Kurta at the hour of the occurrence, which were stained with blood.
  • S.I. Attar Singh from that point investigated the dead body of the perished and after setting up the examination report sent the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem to the morgue at Moradabad.

Issues Involved:

  • Lawfull validity of punishment under Section 304(2)/324/34, as the deceased was died because of shock and haemorrhage.

The contention of Petitioner/Appellant:

Counsel: Sri Gopal Chaturvedi for Razi and Sri Ari Gaur for Aqeela and Iqbal

The counsel for the petitioner contended that:

  • Sri Chaturvedi learned counsel for the appellants has eagerly contended that Smt. Aqeela was currently an elderly person who matured around 65 years her job in the event being referred to was just of tossing the corrosive, which also didn’t make injury expire, rather it made straightforward injury Khalil and Shahid, it was contended that based on the obvious demonstration of Smt. Aqeela it can’t be reasoned that Smt. Aqeela had a blameworthy expectation of submitting the homicide of the expired.
  • The deceased family has enmity with Iqbal that’s why they were blaming him.
  • The council said that Razi resided at Idgah and was having his workshop there. The witnesses did not know him since before the incident. He pleaded that one Kul Bhushan was a member of the party of Khalil P.W. 2 who bore enmity with him. He was, therefore, falsely implicated in this case because of his enmity with Kul Bhushan.

The contention of Defendant/Respondent:

Counsel: Sri Jagdish Tiwari for Khalil

The counsel for Defendant presented the witness:

  • Khalil and Shahid have injured eyewitnesses of the occurrence, who had sustained injuries using sulphuric acid, which was thrown by the accused-appellant Smt. Aqeela on them.
  • Khalil expressed that corrosive was contained in a Dibba container. Smt. Aqeela was holding the said Dibba. He didn’t see concerning whether some corrosive had fallen on the fingers of the denounced. At the point when interrogated on the mark of garments. He expressed that Smt. Aqeela got to hold the left hand of the expired. He expressed that corrosive was contained in a Dibba like pail. Smt. Aqeela was holding the said Dibba. He didn’t see with regards to whether some corrosive had fallen on the fingers of the denounced. At the point when interrogated on the mark of garments. Smt. Aqeela was wearing at the hour of the episode, he expressed that Smt. Aqueela was wearing Phooldar Salwar and Kurta and was having a Dupatta.
  • Shahid, who too is an injured eye witness of the occurrence has fully corroborated the statement of the complainant Khalil and has given an eye witness account of the occurrence.
  • Safdar while giving an onlooker record of the occurrence being referred to explicitly expressed that Smt. Aqeela sprinkled sulphuric acid and, in this way, made wounds on Khalil and Shahid. He was an occupant of town Pandit Nagla and kept up with that when the blamed Appellants Razi and Iqbal fled Smt. Aqueela was caught.

Judgement:

The Appeal of State was Allowed.

  • The view was taken by the learned Sessions Judge that the act of the accused-appellants constituted only an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304(2) of Indian Penal Code.
  • As the result, they allowed the appeal of the State and modify the conviction of the accused-appellants from Section304(2) of Indian Penal Code, to one punishable under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code. The conviction and sentence inflicted by the Court below under Section 324/34 of Indian Penal Code is sustained.
  • Coming on the place of the sentence the court observed that the current case was not one of the most uncommon of the uncommon cases, hence, the sentence of life detainment under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code also, the sentence of one year’ R.I. under Section 324/34 of Indian Penal Code seems appropriate. They convicted and sentenced the denounced appellants, Smt. Aqeela, Iqbal and Razi.

Ratio Decidendi:

  • Genuine hatred of the expired was with Smt. Aqeela. She was a solid woman having enough properties in the town and holding the title of Mukhiyani of the town. It is, along these lines, clear that Smt. Aqeela was not a normal woman. She was a solid and heavy woman equipped for delivering her retribution and that she rendered retribution of her complaints as against the perished Abdul Rajaq by getting him killed. We are, in this manner, of the assessment that Smt. Aqeela merits no mercy.
  • As respects Razi and Iqbal, the explicit job of attacking the perished through blade blows which wounds demonstrated lethal to the expired, has been allocated by all the observers of truth. It is, along these lines, clear that the charged appellants were answerable for making such substantial wounds the perished which were adequate in the customary course of nature to cause passing, and because of which the expired had, indeed kicked the bucket before long supporting the wounds

Conclusion:

In the said case, the honourable Bench of Allahabad High Court obeyed the direction of the Apex Court and gave it a fresh consideration. While giving it a fresh consideration, the Bench observed that Smt. Aqeela already had enmity with all the deceased and injured and she was fighting a Case under Sections 107/116 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

After further consideration, the High Court also observed that all three Accused-Appellants had a common intention for committing the murder of the deceased and keeping this point the High Court convicted three Accused-Appellants, which was a correct decision of the Court. This decision of the Honourable Court also saved a lot of time for Judiciary and the correct accused were convicted.

Drafted by: Aditi Bharti, Shankarrao Chavan Law College

Edited by: Aashima Kakkar, Associate Editor, Law Insider

Published On: November 22, 2021 at 19:50 IST