Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Uttarakhand High Court

CRJA/32/2017 on 28 December, 2021

Author: S.K. Mishra

Bench: S.K. Mishra

                    Office Notes,
                   reports, orders
                   or proceedings
SL.
         Date       or directions                 COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
                   and Registrar's
                      order with
                     Signatures
      28.12.2021                     CRMA Bail Application No. 2122 of 2017
                                     In
                                     CRJA No. 32 of 2017
                                     CRMA Bail Application No. 578 of 2019
                                     In
                                     CRLA No. 342 of 2017
                                     CRMA Bail Application No. 579 of 2019
                                     In
                                     CRLA NO. 343 of 2017
                                     Shri S.K. Mishra, A.C.J.
                                     Shri N.S. Dhanik, J.

Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Prem Kaushal, learned counsel for the appellant in CRJA No. 32 of 2017.

Ms. Manisha Bhandari, learned counsel for Rafi (appellant No. 2 in CRLA No. 342 of 2017) and Hafij Mustkeem (appellant in CRLA No. 343 of 2017).

Mr. Manoj Joshi, learned proxy counsel for Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, learned counsel for Azam @ Azeem @ Ikrar (appellant No. 1 in CRLA No. 342 of 2017).

These are applications (CRMA Nos. 2122 of 2017, 578 of 2019 and 579 of 2019) under Sections of 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by Imam Raza Naqvi in Criminal Jail Appeal No. 32 of 2017, Azam @ Azeem @ Ikrar and Mohd. Rai @ Rafiyq @ Guddu in Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 2017, and one Hafij Mustkeem in Criminal Appeal No. 343 of 2017.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants argued at length, and contended that the circumstantial evidences available in this case do not form complete chain of circumstances unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. It is also submitted that the evidence of Mahesh Chandra (P.W.8) is not believable.

Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand, submits that the applications should be rejected as the materials on record show that there are enough evidences available on record to come to the conclusion that in the ultimate analysis, the conviction of the appellants shall be upheld by this Court.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record, this Court finds the following circumstances to be appearing in this Case:-

1) The death of both the deceased, i.e. Noor Jahan and her son, namely Abdul Rahman was found to be homicidal in nature by the Doctors conducting the post-mortem examination, and they opined that the death was caused by strangulation.
2) The Driver Mahesh Chandra (P.W.8), who drove the vehicle with four accused persons and two deceased persons, travelled from Delhi to Piran Kaliyer Sharif, Roorkee. His evidence further revealed that all the four accused returned from that place, but the deceased did not return with them. After two days, on 09.08.2009, the dead-bodies of the deceased were found from the cremation ground of Piran Kaliyer Sharif.
3) The parking place at Piran Kaliyer Sharif issued a receipt bearing No. 1078 for a Maruti Van bearing No. DL-8C-0464, which was driven by Mahesh Chandra (P.W. 8).

The vehicle i.e. Maruti Van was registered in the name of the father of Mahesh Chandra, namely Shri Bhanwar Singh.

4) The accused Hafiz Mustakeem gave the discovery statement that led to recovery of the bag, wherein the Identity Card of deceased Noor Jahan was found.

5) On 22.08.2009, the appellant, Imam Raza Naqvi, withdrew through cheques certain amount of money from the Bank Account of deceased Noor Jahan.

All these materials available on record show that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered these materials available on record, and has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

At the stage of considering the applications for suspension of sentences, this Court is not inclined to hold that in the ultimate analysis, the appellants shall be acquitted of the offenses, and this Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the applications filed under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. All the applications are, therefore, dismissed.

Let an urgent copy of this order be supplied to the parties on a proper application during the course of the day. (N.S.Dhanik, J.) (S.K. Mishra, A.C.J.) 28.12.2021 28.12.2021 Rathour