# Peeru & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 733
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-17
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 939 of 1985
- **Bench:** Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/peeru-ors-v-state-of-u-p-45726
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal CodeSections 147, 148, 149 and 326 - Appeal
against conviction.

The statements of these two witnesses were
found to be in corroboration with the statement
of doctors PW2 and PW4. The genuineness of
the medical examination report of the two
injured have been admitted from the side of
the
accused
and
therefore
no
detailed
examination-in-chief has been recorded of this
witness. (Para 19)

The injury memos which have been proved by
doctor, show that injured person had suffered
as many as 14 injuries on his person which
were caused to him by acid. Another injured
person was also injured in this case, has
suffered as many as nine acid injuries. The
other doctor which has been examined from
734 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the side of the prosecution is Dr. T.P. Agarwal,
who has stated in examination-in- chief as PW6
that he had examined the injured and had
found that the skin over and below the right
eye was burnt. Vision of the right eye had
absolutely gone as he was not able to count
fingers and has proved medical examination
report prepared by him. This witness has
proved that vision of right eye had been totally
destroyed by this assault. (Para 20)

His testimony does not cast any doubt on the
truthfulness of his statement. His evidence is
absolutely believable with regard to three
accused. (Para 22)

After having scanned entire fact of the case as
well as evidence on record, the prosecution has
been able to prove the case against the
accused who were directly responsible for
causing acid burn injuries but so far as the
appellant, co-accused are concerned, it appears
that they have been falsely implicated because
of enmity as there is no role assigned to them
except that of instigating the main accused.
(Para 24)

Criminal Appeal partly allowed. (E-2)

## Text

2 All. Peeru & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
733
Heera Lal P.W.1 is not trustworthy and his
testimony is inconsistent with his natural
conduct after the occurrence had taken
place. Here we can safely observe that
Heera Lal P.W.1 appears to be an
interested
witness
and
under
these
circumstances, we are of the considered
opinion that the argument extended by the
learned counsel for the appellant carries
substance and the same is worth its
credence.

(28) On aforesaid vital aspects and
particularly
the
withholding
of
the
independent witness and more so in the
event
of
non-corroboration
of
the
testimony of P.W.1 Heera Lal in the
prevailing facts and circumstances of the
case, the trial court misjudged the situation
and wrongly appraised the facts, vis-a-vis,
circumstances of the case and arrived at
wrong conclusion by convicting the
accused for charge under Section 302/34
IPC, which finding of conviction and
sentence cannot be sustained for the
specific reasons aforesaid and the same is
liable to be set aside.

(29) Consequently, the judgment
and order of conviction dated dated
13.05.1992 passed by IV Additional
Sessions Judge, Bareilly, in Sessions
Trial No.276 of 1991 (State Vs. Chet
Ram and others), arising out of case
crime
no.258/1990,
under
Sections
302/34 IPC, Police Station- Subhash
Nagar, District- Bareilly is hereby set
aside
and
the
appeal
is
allowed.
Accused-appellants are acquitted of all
charges as above.

(30) In this case, the accusedappellants are on bail. They need not
surrender in this case. Their bail bonds
are
cancelled
and
sureties
are
discharged. However, they shall furnish
surety bonds in compliance with Section
437-A Cr.P.C.

(31) Let a copy of this order be
certified to the concerned trial court for its
intimation and follow up action.
----------
(2020)02ILR A733

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 939 of 1985

Peeru & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri S.A. Gulani, Sri Abhishek Ahuja, Sri
M.J. Akhtar

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal CodeSections 147, 148, 149 and 326 - Appeal
against conviction.

The statements of these two witnesses were
found to be in corroboration with the statement
of doctors PW2 and PW4. The genuineness of
the medical examination report of the two
injured have been admitted from the side of
the
accused
and
therefore
no
detailed
examination-in-chief has been recorded of this
witness. (Para 19)

The injury memos which have been proved by
doctor, show that injured person had suffered
as many as 14 injuries on his person which
were caused to him by acid. Another injured
person was also injured in this case, has
suffered as many as nine acid injuries. The
other doctor which has been examined from
734 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the side of the prosecution is Dr. T.P. Agarwal,
who has stated in examination-in- chief as PW6
that he had examined the injured and had
found that the skin over and below the right
eye was burnt. Vision of the right eye had
absolutely gone as he was not able to count
fingers and has proved medical examination
report prepared by him. This witness has
proved that vision of right eye had been totally
destroyed by this assault. (Para 20)

His testimony does not cast any doubt on the
truthfulness of his statement. His evidence is
absolutely believable with regard to three
accused. (Para 22)

After having scanned entire fact of the case as
well as evidence on record, the prosecution has
been able to prove the case against the
accused who were directly responsible for
causing acid burn injuries but so far as the
appellant, co-accused are concerned, it appears
that they have been falsely implicated because
of enmity as there is no role assigned to them
except that of instigating the main accused.
(Para 24)

Criminal Appeal partly allowed. (E-2)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh-I, J.)

1. Heard Sri M.J. Akhtar, learned
counsel for the appellant no.4, Sri G.P.
Singh, learned A.G.A. and perused the
record

2. This appeal has been preferred
against the judgment and order dated
04.04.1985 passed by 5th Additional and
Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in S.T. No. 413
of 1983 (State vs. Jabbar and others)
whereby the accused Peeru, Jabbar,
Shabban have been found guilty under
section 148 and 326 IPC and they have
been convicted. The accused Gaffar and
Nanva have been found guilty under
section 147 and 326 IPC read with section
149 IPC and they have been convicted.
The accused Peeru, Jabbar and Shabban
have been sentenced under section 148
IPC with one year R.I. each; under section
326 IPC five years R.I. each, Accused
Gaffar, Nanva have been sentenced one
year R.I. each under section 147 IPC and
three years R.I. each under section 326
read with 149 IPC. All the sentences are
directed to run concurrently.

3. Out of the above accusedappellants, accused-appellant no.1, Peeru,
accused-appellant no.2 Jabbar, accusedappellant no.3 Shabban and accused
appellant no. 5 Nanva have died and their
appeals have been abated vide order dated
11.07.2019. Therefore, the appeal of
accused-appellant no.4 Gaffar remains for
consideration of this Court.

4. The prosecution case as per FIR is
that on 20.9.1983 at about 2.30 P.M. when
informant Abdul Waheed had gone to see
cinema in Jaina Talkies Hapur with
Shahabuddin @ Sabu (PW1) and was
sitting in the class chargeable with
Rs.4.00, beside them other persons were
also sitting. The news reel was going on.
Light was also on. All of a sudden, the
accused-appellants, who belonged to the
Mohalla of Shahabuddin @ Sabu, out of
whom appellants, Peeru, Jabbar and
Shabban were having container in their
hands, rest of them were empty handed.
Nanva and Gaffar instructed "Tejab Dalo
Sabu aur Waheed Par". Throw acid on
Sabu and Waheed. They should not be left
alive. On this instigation, all the three coaccused Peeru, Jabbar and Shabban had
thrown acid from the container upon the
informant and Shahabuddin @ Sabu with
an intention to kill them. The said acid
also fell upon Mohd. Yunus, Munshi of an
Advocate Devendra Kumar Tyagi, who
was sitting by the side of Shahabuddin @
2 All. Peeru & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
735
Sabu. By this episode, stampede followed
and one of the containers fell on the spot.
Jabbar and others fled from hall. The said
occurrence was seen by informant, Abdul
Waheed (PW3), Shahabuddin @ Sabu
(PW1) (injured), Mohd. Yunus, Pavva son
of Ishaq Haneef and many other persons,
who were sitting in the hall. By falling of
the said acid, Shahabuddin @ Sabu and
Mohd. Yunus became seriously injured
and the condition of Shahabuddin @ Sabu
became critical. The accused Jabbar
wanted to marry forcibly with the sister of
Shahabuddin @ Sabu regarding which a
complaint was also given by him (Sabu) at
the police station. About 4-5 months prior
to this occurrence, the informant and
Shahabuddin @ Sabu were also beaten by
accused
Jabbar,
Gaffar
and
Peeru
regarding which report was lodged by the
informant
at
police
station
Hapur.
Thereafter about 2 1⁄2 months ago,
Shahabuddin @ Sabu was also beaten by
Shabban, Nanva, Jabbar and Gaffar in
Ghaziabad
also.
Regarding
which,
Shahabuddin @ Sabu had lodged report at
police station Sihani Gate. Because of this
enmity, Jabbar and others had given effect
to the present occurrence. From the place
of incident, empty container was collected
and after taking it, Shahabuddin @ Sabu,
Mohd. Yunus and informant went to the
police station to lodge FIR.

5. On the written report (Exhibit Ka3), chik FIR (Exhibit Ka-9) was prepared
at police station, Hapur on 20.9.1983 at
3.35 P.M. After registering, the case crime
no.515 of 1983 under sections 147, 148,
307 and 326 IPC against the accusedapplicants, entry of which was made in
G.D. on the same date, which is Exhibit
Ka-10, the investigation was handed over
to S.I. Mulayam Singh (PW5), who
conducted investigation in this case and
prepared site plan at the instance of the
informant, which is Exhibit Ka-6 and
submitted charge-sheet (Exhibit Ka-7)
against the accused applicants.

6. On the basis of evidence on
record, charge was framed against the
accused-appellants Gaffar and Nanva on
15.2.1984 under sections 147, 307 read
with 149, 326 read with 149 IPC and on
the same day charge under sections 148,
307 read with 149 and 326 read with 149
IPC were framed against the accused
Peeru, Jabbar and Shabban to which all the
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried.

7. Thereafter from the side of the
prosecution injured Shahabuddin @ Sabu
as PW-1, Dr. R.D. Gupta as PW-2, Abdul
Waheed as PW-3, Dr. N.K. Sharma, as
PW-4, S.I. Mulayam Singh as PW-5, Dr.
D.P. Agarwal as PW-6, Constable Mahipal
as PW-7 and Mohd. Yunus as CW-1 have
been examined. Thereafter, the evidence
of prosecution was closed and the
statements of accused were recorded under
section 313 Cr.P.C. in which plea of false
implication has been taken and in defence
Jai Bhagwan Sharma as DW1 has been
examined.

8. The court below after having
considered the entire evidence on record
has convicted the accused-appellants and
awarded punishment as mentioned above.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant
no. 4 has argued that the appellant no. 4
had no direct role in giving effect to the
occurrence because he has been assigned
the role of only instigation, actually main
role has been assigned to co-accused
namely, Jabbar, Peeru and Shabban, who
were carrying container full of acid which
736 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is said to have been thrown at the
instigation of co-accused Jabbar and coaccused Nanva. The said allegation of
even instigation is false as no such
instigation was ever given nor there is any
evidence on record and yet Gaffar has
been convicted under the abovementioned
sections, therefore, he should be acquitted.

10. In order to appreciate the
argument of both the parties, the evidence
of witnesses, which have been adduced
from the side of prosecution need to be
scrutinized.

11. Shahabuddin @ Sabu who is
injured in this case has stated in
examination in chief that about 11 months
ago, he had gone to Jaina Talkies, Hapur
with Abdul Waheed (PW3) at about 2.30
p.m. and was sitting in the hall. Amar
Akbar Anthony film was going on. At
about 2.30 to 3.00 p.m. accused Jabbar,
Peeru, Shabban were having containers
full with acid while Nanva and Gaffar
(appellant no.4) were empty handed.
Gaffar and Nanva instructed the accused
Jabbar, Peeru and Shabban that they
should throw acid upon Abdul Waheed
and Shahabuddin @ Sabu. They should
not be left alive and then Jabbar, Peeru,
Shabban had thrown acid upon PW1 and
Abdul Waheed (PW3). Thereafter, the
informant after making him sit on a
Rikshaw, had taken him to police station
and there Abdul Waheed had lodged report
and thereafter PW1 was referred to Hapur
Medical College and from there doctor had
referred him to Meerut Medical College.
He was not given any treatment at Hapur.
He very well recognized all the accusedappellants from before. This offence was
committed because accused Jabbar wanted
to marry his sister for which PW1 had
declined. This led to the annoyance of the
accused. He had lost his eye sight
absolutely.

12. In cross examination this witness
has stated that Nanva and Shabban are real
brothers. He does know whether accused
Peeru had lodged any report prior to this
occurrence against PW1 in respect of an
occurrence given effect to by knife. But
further he has stated that at his complaint,
he had got himself bailed out and Shabban
and Nanva were witness in that report.
Jabbar, Gaffar (appellant) and Peeru are
three real brothers, who lived in his
Mohalla. On the date of occurrence, first
show started at 11.30 p.m. and it used to
finish at about 2.00 to 2.30 p.m. They had
entered the hall before 4-5 minutes of this
occurrence. Abdul Waheed (PW3) was
sitting to the left of him. He had heard
after reaching the hospital that acid was
also thrown upon a Munshi of an advocate.
His name was Yunus and he came to know
about his name subsequently. About 2-3
minutes after the acid was thrown upon
him, he went to the police station. The
whole body was burning although he had
not fainted. He stayed at police station for
about 10 minutes. He did not go inside the
police station after alighting from Rikshaw
rather remained stayed on the gate of the
police station. Abdul Waheed has lodged
the report from outside the gate of the
police station in his presence. He came to
know at the police station that the
constable had come out because he was
not in a position to see them and due to
this reason, he could not tell as to who had
written the report. No one had interrogated
him. After lodging the report, he was taken
to Hapur hospital where he was not given
treatment and had stayed there hardly 2-4
minutes. His father had taken him to
Merrut and with him some police
personnel were also there and had reached
2 All. Peeru & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
737
there at about 4.00 p.m. When he reached
inside the cinema hall, advertisements
were going on and when the accused came
very close, then he saw them. The accused
had come to the seats, which was ahead of
the seat of PW1 and after coming there,
Jabbar and Nanva had thrown the acid
upon him. His statement was recorded by
the Investigating Officer about 8-10 days
after the occurrence, to whom he had
stated that accused were sitting in the next
row and when he saw them, immediately
the accused had stood up. He had not seen
them coming but he had not told the
Investigating Officer that right then all of a
sudden Peeru, Nanva, Jabbar, Gaffar,
appellant and Shabban of his Mohalla
came to cinema hall and entered in the
same class, in the next row of which the
PW1 was sitting. He had not told him that
they were having containers in their hands.
Further he has stated that all the accused
had come in the row of seats which was in
front and all of them had stood in a line.
Gaffar, Appellant and Nanva were sitting
to the left of him and rest of the three were
to the right of him in standing position.
When he had seen all the accused sitting in
front row, he did not feel that he was
having any fear but when they stood up,
then he felt that there was some danger.
He could not defend himself before the
acid was thrown upon him. When acid fell
upon him, he was sitting on the seat but
cannot tell whether the acid had fallen on
the seat or not. The constable remains on
duty in picture hall, he does not know.
There was also one gate keeper on the gate
in the hall. It is wrong to say that picture
was going on and somebody else had
thrown acid upon him and he could not
recognize them and was making false
statement. His clothes were also taken at
the police station. There were people
sitting behind his row also. He did not pay
attention to the people coming inside the
hall. As soon as he sat inside the hall
advertisement and news reel had started.
First of all Jabbar had thrown acid upon
his face and the said acid also fell in front
row as well as upon him and soon
thereafter he stood up. Thereafter, who had
thrown acid, he could not know but the
acid was thrown by the rest of the two
accused but he could not see because his
vision has gone. When the people in the
hall started raising alarm ''Pakro Pakro" all
people stood up and stampede followed,
this commotion started by the persons
sitting about 5-7 feet away from him.

13. The statement of this witness
have very emphatically come on record to
the effect that it was Jabbar, who was the
main culprit who had thrown acid upon
him and rest of the two accused Peeru and
Shabban are also stated to have thrown
acid upon him and Abdul Waheed but he
has rightly stated that he could not see the
other two accused by then his vision has
gone due to acid falling upon him,
therefore, the statement of this witness is
truthful in regard to throwing acid by
Jabbar. The statement of this witness that
the said occurrence was given effect to at
the instance of Nanva and Gaffar,
appellant is found to be correct since all
the accused were close to each other.
Nanva and Jabbar are said to be brother
while Gaffar and Peeru are also said to be
brother of each other, it could be possible
that the name of Gaffar, appellant and
Peeru would have been taken in order to
implicate all of them but the occurrence
was committed only by Jabbar as per this
witness.

14. The other injured witness of this
case is Abdul Waheed who has been
examined as PW3. The said witness has
738 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
stated in examination-in-chief that he had
accompanied Shahabuddin @ Sabu to
cinema hall where news reel was going on,
soon after five persons came to the place
where they were sitting to the front first
row namely, Gaffar, appellant, Peeru,
Jabbar and Shabban, who are present in
Court. Nanva and Gaffar, appellant were
empty hands while Jabbar, Peeru and
Shabban were having containers in their
hands. Gaffar, appellant and Nanva told
the other three accused, pointing towards
Waheed and Sabu that they were sitting
and that acid be thrown upon them. They
should
not
be
allowed
to
escape.
Thereafter, Peeru, Jabbar and Shabban had
thrown acid from their containers which
fell upon Shahabuddin @ Sabu and PW3.
Beside PW3, one Munshi of an Advocate
namely, Yunus was sitting and acid also
fell on him. At that time, lights were on of
the hall but there were curtains on the gate.
Accused person who had thrown acid upon
them had fled from there. Thereafter, PW3
and his companion Shahabuddin @ Sabu
also came out and went to police station.
When they reached outside the gate of
Tehsil, there was huge crowd assembled.
He asked one gentleman to scribe report
who had written the report and the same
was thereafter signed by him, which is
Exhibit Ka-3. He has gone to police station
to lodge the report. Tehsil and police
station are located in the same boundary,
thereafter police personnel had taken them
to hospital where he was medically
examined while Shahabuddin @ Sabu was
referred to Hapur forthwith and from there
to Meerut.

15.
In
cross-examination,
this
witness has stated that Peeru had lodged a
report against him regarding assaulting
upon him with knife, which occurrence
took place about 4-5 months ago. He does
not know whether Nanva was a witness
against him and whether hearing in this
case had begun in the Court. This
occurrence had taken place after 5-6
minutes of their entering the hall. They
had sat on the opposite side from where
they had entered the hall and were sitting
on the second row. They were sitting
almost in the middle of the hall. The door
of the side from where people were
entering after purchasing the ticket was
open while the door on the other side was
closed. Till the time this occurrence took
place, people were still coming inside the
hall. In the hall, one gate keeper was there.
First of all, when he saw the accused, then
they had said to throw acid. When they
said to throw acid then they were standing
in the next row ahead in bent condition.
He was sitting after leaving two seats from
gallery. Shahabuddin @ Sabu was sitting
to the right side of him and Mian Munad
was sitting on the left side but he does not
recollect whether Mian Munad was sitting
there from before or had sat there after his
coming in the hall. In the front row ahead
of the row in which he was sitting, the
accused
Jabbar,
thereafter
Shabban,
thereafter Peeru were sitting. They were
sitting to his left side and Peeru, thereafter
Nanva and thereafter Gaffar and appellants
were sitting and all of them had thrown
together acid upon them.

16. In front of PW3 was Shabban.
Acid fell upon his face, legs and neck,
thereafter accused fled towards the curtain
but he could not see from which gate, they
fled. The accused had aluminum container
in which amul milk for children is kept.
Soon after having thrown the acid, he and
Shahabuddin @ Sabu came to the rear gate
of the hall together holding hands of each
other and from there they went to police
station on a rickshaw. After throwing acid
2 All. Peeru & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
739
upon him till reaching the police station,
he did not tell about this occurrence to
anyone.
After
purchasing
ticket
till
entering the hall, he had not seen any of
the accused and after having sat there for
6-7 minutes, he saw the accused person.
All the three accused had thrown acid
simultaneously. Acid certainly must have
fallen on the seat but he could not see it.
Soon after throwing of acid, he had raised
alarm which led to stampede, since the
PW3 was not in full control of his sense.

17. It is right to say that Peeru had
lodged a case against him under section
107/16 Cr.P.C. in which action was taken.

18. The said statement of the witness
clearly indicates that main emphasis is that
there were three accused who had together
thrown acid upon him and Shahabuddin @
Sabu by which they had suffered injuries
though
this
witness
has
tried
to
communicate that the other two accused
Nanva and Gaffar also were accompanied
by the other three accused namely, Jabbar,
Peeru and Shabban who are said to have
thrown acid together from the container
taken in their hands but I find that his
testimony is not very confidence inspiring
with respect to Nanva and Gaffar,
appellant. He has admitted about enmity
between two sides and including enmity of
his own with one of the accused Peeru as
one case was lodged by Peeru against him
for assaulting him by knife, therefore, it
could be possible that due to said enmity
the name of Gaffar and other appellants
would also have been taken by this witness
so that all the accused were implicated in
this case. The evidence appears to be on
record only against three accused namely,
Jabbar, Peeru and Shabban who had
actually thrown acid upon him and coinjured Shahab Uddin.

19. The statements of these two
witnesses
were
found
to
be
in
corroboration with the statement of Dr.
R.D. Gupta, PW2 and Dr. N.K. Gupta,
PW4. The genuineness of the medical
examination report of the two injured
namely, Shahabuddin @ Sabu and Abdul
Waheed have been admitted from the side
of the accused which are Exhibit Ka-1 and
Exhibit Ka-2 and therefore no detailed
examination-in-chief has been recorded of
this witness. This witness has stated that
the injuries which have been received by
them could be caused on 20.09.1983 at
2.30 p.m.

20. In cross-examination, this
witness has stated that the acid was of
the kind which could cause burn injury.
The burns suffered by the injured were
deep burn. This witness has been cross
examined at length by the defence but
nothing such has been said by this
witness which would make it possible to
disbelieve
his
statement
given
in
examination-in -chief. The injury memos
which have been proved by this doctor,
show that Abdul Waheed had suffered as
many as 14 injuries on his person which
were caused to him by acid (Exhibit Ka2). Mohd. Yunus who also was injured
in this case, has suffered as many as nine
acid injuries (Exhibit Ka-1). The other
doctor which has been examined from
the side of the prosecution is Dr. T.P.
Agarwal, who has stated in examinationin- chief as PW6 that he had examined
the injured Shahabuddin @ Sabu on
27.9.1983 and had found that the skin
over and below the right eye was burnt.
Vision of the right eye had absolutely
gone as he was not able to count fingers
and has proved medical examination
report Exhibit Ka-8 prepared by him.
This witness has proved that vision of
740 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
right eye had been totally destroyed by this
assault.

21. In view of the statement of
these two witnesses i.e. PW-2 and PW6 have proved beyond doubt that it was
the injuries caused by Jabbar, Peeru
and Shabban but these injuries were
caused by throwing acid upon them,
which has resulted in serious injuries
so-much-so that vision of Shahabuddin
@ Sabu has absolutely gone, therefore,
prosecution has succeeded in proving
the case against the main accused
Jabbar and Shabban.

22. Investigating Officer, S.I.
Mulayam Singh PW-4 has proved the
site plan as well as charge sheet,
clothes and other things of the injured
which were taken in possession in
pursuance
to
the
occurrence.
His
testimony does not cast any doubt on
the truthfulness of his statement. His
evidence is absolutely believable with
regard to three accused namely, Jabbar,
Peeru and Shabban.

23. PW-7 Constable Mahipal is
formal
witness
who
has
simply
prepared chik and G.D. and has proved
them, therefore, no detailed analysis is
required of his statement.

24. After having scanned entire
fact of the case as well as evidence on
record, I am of the opinion that the
prosecution has been able to prove the
case against the accused Jabbar, Peeru
and Shabban only who were directly
responsible for causing acid burn
injuries to Shahabuddin @ Sabu PW-1,
Abdul Waheed, PW3 and one Munshi
of an Advocate Yunus but so far as the
appellant Gaffar, co-accused Nanva are
concerned, it appears that they have
been falsely implicated because of
enmity as there is no role assigned to
them except that of instigating the
main accused named-above to throw
acid upon the injured.

25. In view of analysis, I find that
the
co-accused
Gaffar,
appellant,
whose case is being considered by this
Court as he is the only accused alive,
whereas all of them have already died,
is not found guilty of charges under
sections 147 and 326 IPC read with
section 149 IPC, P.S. Hapur, District
Hapur, accordingly, he stands acquitted
of the said charges.

26. Appeal stands allowed.

27. Let a copy of this judgment be
transmitted to the trial court along with lower
court
record
promptly
for
immediate
compliance.
----------
(2020)02ILR A740

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE NAHEED ARA MOONIS, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1445 of 2015

Noor Mohammad ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri
Santosh
Tripathi,
Sri
Ajay
Kr.
Srivastava, Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Sri
Sanjay
Kumar
Srivastava,
Sri
Syed
Shahnawaz Shah

Counsel
for
the
Opposite
Party: