-s^ -!<I<IM<<, ^Tflwi<i. RiCTi'My sw^ ira^ iTPIOT^qiSR""""""""""""""""""""^. 200 ' (S|<i<isi""""'" 311^51 qn Iqiieb W^ti ?o^l4t ^l^a K'-3F '^^ ' VSi \W\ %If i;"ii [,M^i •^y aiA^i^aiWTSitei CRIMINAL At ApueUant Ajlmuddin Qureshi @ Ajju Son of Ri^azuddin Qureshi about 22 years, Re|sident of - Kalinagar Pandari Near G4utam Kirana Shop P.S. Civil Line R^ipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C<3) VdRSUS •c»espondent St^te of Chhattisgarh, Thjrough District Magistrate, Raipur, Di ^.pseUants ,, 3. *l<lf<-i'ifl-l tii*ii"if'fffels> <Ri«;i< ^ sri^w.an^T 'PEAL N0. 90 of 2006 tt. Raipur (CG) A»(d CRIMINAL AIfrEAL N0. 153 of2007 Mohd. Ful @ Javed S/o. Mohd. Naim, Aged about - 23 years, R/o. Motijhil, Kachchi Saraf Chakjasu, P.S. Mithunpara, Distt. Muzaffarpur, Bihar. Mohd. Raju @ Kalainuddin, S/o. Mohd. Shahabuddin @ Hani Painter, aged about 22 years, R/o. near Amar Talkies, Chakjasu, P.S. Mithunpara, Distt. Muzaffarpur, Bihar. Mohd. Ubed @ Kali, S/o. Mohd. Anwar, age 32 year, R/o. Rambagh, Kanhaulidih, P.S. Mithunpara, Distt. Muzaffarpur, Bihar. -.^^.^__ XI-HC-22 -^sg •3(pii?ra, •siftws. (°ini«y sn^T^i fqii'=16 3N^?T y^W ^f?a sn^r TR^? IIICTI a>*(i<*>' KT^ 200 'ftrc^T""""" 'afl^l^'^tiyT flt^f 4. VElRSUS Resppndent St^te of Chhattisgarh, Thj-ough Dista-ict Magistrate, Raipur 'resent: Shri Sunil Sahu, Ad 90/06. Shri C.R. Sahu, 153/07; Shri Arun Sao, GA fo (14aS^ DItirendra Mishra. J Cr.A.No. 90/06 pijef Qureshi @ Ajju & Cr.A.N{). Mohd. Ful@ Javed, Mohd. KaU 85 Mohd. Farukh are judgment as both these] judgment dated 30th Janu^ry 'vhereby leamed III Addit( convicted all the appellant^ 'bl^-'ft'l J4W<vt{'^ fsl<1 <Rii^R ^;3lf:OT 311^1 Mohd. Farulsh, S/o. Mohd Kayyum, age 24 years, R/o Kanhaulidih, P.S. Mithunpara, Distt. Muzaffarpur, Bihar. (rocate for the appellant in Cr.A.No. Adv{)cate for fhe appellants in Cr.A.No. the State. ORAt JUDGMENT ptember 2007) jeferred by appellant Aiimuddin >. 153/07 preferred by ap^ ;llanfs p?aju @ Kalamuddin, Mohd. Ubed @ paeing disposed of by this common appeals arise of the impugned 2006 passed in S.T.No. 149/05 (onal Sessions Judge, Raipur has i under Sections 402 of the Indian XI-HC-22 an^rqa' ft-li'b 3II^( ?hHi?t> •afrfl ^;<;??OF<i8 '!S! W la' ^^: ISPUR. \ -sy -^ipiRpi. •s^ms. ('o'ii'fti'. 31T^?T '(R@? WHctl W<t«> 'WI. 200 fN^ET' 311^1 TOTOTfltel Penal Code and sentenced years, pay a fine of Rs.2,00p/ to undergo additional R.I. fij 2. Charge sheet was Sections 399, 402 of the IP( the allegatioii that, on 25.| received a secret informatidn in the house of appellan) commit dacoity, whereuporl with Head Constable and appellant Ajimuddin. talks of the inhabitants commit dacoity in the surroundingthe house, the| snd on interrogation they Bihar to Raipur to coinm| pistol with magazine havinj were seized from possessicjn under Ex.P/4, one coun(Ty cartridges from accused t| under Ex.P/5, one countiy|mE from accused Mohd. Umed •*Wf<-l4lH ><W<-iT'if'fe^<Rl«4K i?3TpgIi aii^i :ach of them to undergo R.I. for five - and in default of payinent of fine r one year. fted against the appellants under C and Section 25 of the ArmS Act on P.2005 the crime squad of Raipur tbat five persons have assembled Azamuddin and are planning to the A.S.I. Amol Singh (PW-8) along Constables left for the house of •jreaching his house, they overheard leamt that they were planning ,to of any big businessman. After |accused persons were apprehended ^dniitted that they have come frora ]t dacoity. During investigation a iive live cartridges and one empty of appellant Mohd. Ful @ Javed made revolver with two live pohd. Raju @ Mohd. Kalamuddin pistol with two live cartridges |@ Kali under Ex.P/6, one buttoned other Afterlreachin! an|i hoilse tiy [made XI-HC-22 •^g-!<i<<M<<,»Ti1w]<».(qcii^y 3ff^?T IR^? sn^i'w h-H^i 3^V Sh+IW ^(f^tt •^^ llldl ^,(^[^,—•—•————•—" "-g^ 200 Rf<><yiT"" kn;fe from accused Moy swordsdck was seized froid stateineilts ations After investigation cl accused/appellants under ] ': ight witnesses were exami) oersons in theife~^\ Cr.P.C. deiiied tfie allegat^i prosecution case and pleai) However, leamed trial Coil under Sections 399 ofIPC under Section 402 of thel above. Leamed counsel for ' io evidence available sccused/appellants were ond none of the witnesses accused persons planning implicated in the said offen. weapqns, however, the hostile and they have no therefore, the leamed trial ofcharges under Section 3C Act. The appellarits have 4ll<lf<'l''i1-l IWrtf ^^S (FaltiK ^sif^nan^i . Parukh under Ex.P/7 and one accused Ajimuddin under Ex.P/8. large sheet was filed against stS. the |the aforesaid sections. Duii-inE )ned by the prosecution. The recorded under Section 313 of appearing against them in the ^ed innocence and false implication. ^rt while acquitting them of charge |and 25 of Arms Act, convicted them IPC and sentenced as inentioned |the appellants submit that there is lon record to show that the it'1 fact planning t6 conin-iit dacoity |has stated that they overhej to commit dacoity. Thfl^" were ^ :e on the basis ofalleged recovery of wit^iesses of recovery have also turned >|l supported the prosecution case, (pourt acquitted the accused persons (9 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Ijieen convicted solely on the^round IN::il:;'T i|l "i ^ViiBte^ -<'-" ^ ..'''• ^' XI-HC-22 311^1 ?!I ft-fi* 31^HI ^hH\^ ^ll^fl -s^ -'ii<ii<>i<i,'^ite'te.'^iray 3TI^?T 'q^a? ;*«*<CTI a>*ii'*i " «i, 200 "" Ri*<{y—--•---••---- <Hl^fl ^tfliq< ^(f??T 5~ frdm that they were arreSted on 25.1.2005, they could they had come from Bihar| adduced by Ajimuddin family and they re'ached basis of abpws, therleamed| prosecution ••wltnestees persons assemBled at the commit dacoity as they wi convicted them under the house of appellanf Ajiinuddin (lot explain as to in whose marriage to Raipur and no evidence could be t4at there was any marriage in his tf'iere as their guests. Thus, on the trial Court held that evidence of the st4nds unrebutted that the accused |house of Ajimuddin for planning to ;re five in nuniber and accordingly, 402oftheIPC. Section 5. Learned counsel for judgmeht in the matter ofBi&ar reported in AIR 1^79 SC 1412 6. On the other State/respondent support' Couft. 7. I have heard leamed1 the material available or judgment. 'tiWld'il-l IIHfif '9 fest <I»1«;K '^aipOTsn^l |the appeUant placed reliance on the ofChaturi Yadav and others Vs. State hbnd leamed counsel for the [d iinpugned judgment of the trial |counsel for the parties and perused } record including the impugned ^f- XI-HC-22 '3^';aiFn?TiI. OTiltt'i's. hinroy 3TI^?T TR@T SII^t^I Is-lif flli<l WRWHfCT 'ttrtwgwCT""""""'"""" w^ 200 1^^I"""""""""""""" 1^1 <3fl<^i"?^<(ra< ^f^d In fhe matter ofCha|turi Yadav fsupra) the HonTileApex Court while reversing U-t Sections 399 and 402 ofIP( hab "4. The evidence ; shows that ei| school preniise^ ^gunS^some 'The Aere fact 1 A.M. does appellants ha4 committing da< to accoinplish |led by the prosecution m< i^ht persons were found in i. Some of them were armed with cartridges and other ran away. (liat these persons were found at not by itself, prove that the assembled for the purpose of ;oity or for inaking preparations Ijhat object." appella^its 9. In the instant casq appellants were five m house of one of the by the police party plannuj; pistols, cartridges and ihey could not give any exp( ailegedly adiriitted before However, there is not an| planning to cominit dac< •("itnesses overheard them trial Court merely on the to prove the purpose for Bihar and assembled in thd inference that they had in <*i<iii'i41-i 'wraf'? ft^t <I»it$i< ^SlPW 311^1 ' ; judgment of conviction under in paragraph 4 has held thus:k ?Tdy nUinber, nulK swdrdstick also the allegation is that the -, they had assembled in the Ajimuddin, they were overheard to commit dacoity, country made were recovered from them, lanation for their assembly and had ^.he police the crime in qugstion. iota of evidence thaf th( ^ity as none of the prosecution |>lanning to commit dacoity and the that the appellants have failed they had come to Raipur from house ofAjimuddin, has drawn an fact assembled to rnake a plan for gr(3und which -ii--nn- ^¥IUifcUffiiHu»liCld(^yHh(?tfifi^^^Si(rttl ^»rtliutl^aw^d»fcAi«^ T-^^r"ffS*"" ".'. •lL^<&t=-^"^-3==~.^n:^'-""-'^ XI-HC-22 sn^iqii r<-iisb sniSi WEiNr'd^r •'/'.''s' ••" l.'fS',1' . o / " •:;.' ^?^i'-v' '..^ . ~'h- ^&ASF^S -s^ '^iraRra. d^yli6. r««?ii«i'>. !Ti^?r 'q^g? tllHCTI g^g;'——•—-—••-—•••—••—g^ ^00 •^^y---------- sn^i'ronwafer ^ committing dacoity, whict] cannot be sustained. aplpeals 10. In the resiilt, the appellants under Section thereon, are set aside. Th< They be set at liberty forjliwith case. are allowed. Conviction of the f02 of the IPC and sentence passed ^y are acquitted of the above charge. if not required in any other sd/- DhirendraMishra *l-')i<-f41-f t|l*)dl" ^ fe1ca) <r"i«i< ^siPOTsn^w is a perverse finding and as such,