ABDUL WAHEED versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [2015] 9 S.C.R. 741 · Decided: 01-09-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 9 S.C.R. 741 
ABDUL WAHEED 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No.1166 .of 2005) 
SEPTEMBER 01, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 - Murder- Previous enmity-
Appellant armed with gun and other accused armed with lathis C 
and dandas- Gun shot by appellant resulting in death of two 
persons - Other accused inflicting injuries on complainant 
party with lathis and dandas - Convir;;tion by courts below-
Held: In case of gun shot, person who fires the gun is 
presumed to have knowledge and intention that he is inflicting D 
an injury which in the ordinary course of nature is sufficient 
to cause death and the offence is clearly murder - Courts 
below recorded concurrent findings offact that the evidence 
of PWs 1, 3 and 4 remained unshaken and inspite of lengthy 
cross-examination of these witnesses, the accused were not E 
able to bring any point shaking their credibility -
No 
interference with the order of conviction called for. 
Sentence/Sentencing: Magnitude of crime -
Proportionality of punishment - Held: It is the duty of every F 
court to award proper sentence having regard to the manner 
in which the offence was committed. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The appellant and the accused party were G 
having enmity against the deceased on account of civil 
suit and filing of contempt petition. The appellant and 
the accused party went to chabutra of the deceased 
741 
H 
742 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 9 S.C.R. 
A armed with pistol, guns and /athis which shows the 
intention of the appellant to commit the murder. An 
ordinary person is not presumed to know the precise 
location of the arteries in the human limbs. Therefore, if 
a stab with a knife or dagger, aimed at an arm or a leg, 
B severs an artery and the injured man dies as a result, it 
may be reasonable to argue that the offence is not one 
of culpable homicide and that the assailant can only be 
presumed to have intended to cause hurt or grievous 
hurt with a dangerous weapon. The case in hand is quite 
C different. When gun is used and the person who fires 
the gun must be presumed to have knowledge and 
intention that he is inflicting an injury which in the 
ordinary course of nature is sufficient to cause death 
0 
and the offence is clearly murder. Having regard to the 
enmity and the weapon used, the courts below rightly 
held that the appellant-accused was guilty of committing 
the murder of the deceased. [Para 14] [750-F-H; 751-A-. 
B] 
E 
2. 
In the occurrence when two persons died and 
number of others were injured, age of the accused is of 
no relevance. Undue sympathy would do more harm to 
the Criminal Justice System undermining the public 
confidence in the efficacy of the system. It is therefore 
F the duty of every court to award proper sentence having 
regard to the manner in which the offence was 
committed. The trial court and the High Court have 
recorded concurrent findings and the findings are based 
upon evidence warranting no interference in exercise 
G of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of 
India. [Para 15] [751-0-F] 
H 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal 
Appeal No. 1166 of 2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.12.2004 of the 
ABDUL WAHEED v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
743 
High Court of Judicature atAllahabad in Criminal Appeal No. A 
796of1981. 
Salman Khurshid, lmtiaz Ahmed, Naghma lmtiaz (for 
Equity Lex Associates) for the Appellant. 
Ratnakar Dash, Harsh Vardhan Jha, Adarsh Upadhyay B 
forthe Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against c 
the judgment dated 17 .12.2004 passed by the Allahabad High 
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 796 of 1981 whereby the High 
Court affirmed the conviction of the appellantAbdul Waheed 
under Sections 302, 148 and 323 IPC rea~ with Section 149 
IPC and sentence of life imprisonment and one year rigorous D 
imprisonment respectively awarded to him. The High Court 
partly allowed the appeal qua accused Babu Khan, Mukhtiyar, 
Javed Khan and Mohd. Hafeez Khan. The appeal before the 
High Court abated qua accused Vakil Khan, Abdul Hai and 
E 
Shafiq Khan. 
2. Case of the prosecution is that complainant-Razzaq 
Khan's brother Abbas and Shabbir instituted a suit in the court 
of Munsif, Farrukhabad and an injunction order was issued by 
the court. Despite the court order, appellant Abdul Waheed 
F 
did not stop construction and continued the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.