Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4347 of 2018 Appellant :- Abdul Moeid Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Prabhakar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vijay Prakash Chaturvedi,Vijay Prakash Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the appellant and counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the respondent no.2 today in the Court, are taken on record.
The appeal has been filed under sections 14-A(1) of S.C./S.T. Act against the impugned order dated 10.7.2018 passed by Additional Sessions/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act Siddharth Nagar in Criminal Case No.25 of 2016.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent no.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant Abdul Moeid has been falsely implicated; that as per F.I.R., two persons chased the first informant's motorcycle on another bike and fired at him with an intention to cause his death and since the appellant was having inimical terms, he believes that attempt has been made on his life by him, through hired shooters; that in the F.I.R. except the appellant, two unknown persons have been named, but inspite of investigation upto now, their names have not come to light and none of them has been arrested; that the appellant has no concern and has been falsely implicated due to enmity on account of property dispute as well as due to election rivalry with Dinesh, who lost election of village Pradhan against the respondent no.2; that since the appellant was supporter of Dinesh and opposed respondent no.2 in election, he has been falsely implicated; that there is no incriminating evidence on record against the appellant; that appellant had no reason to hire shooters for making attempt on the life of respondent no.2; that the learned trial court has acted wrongly and illegally in rejecting his application for discharge and framing charges against him for the offences under sections 307, 504, 506, 120-B IPC and 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and learned AGA supported the impugned order and contended that the appellant is named in the promptly lodged F.I.R.; that though no role of shooting has been assigned to appellant but he has been made accused by way of provisions of section 120-B IPC for entering into criminal conspiracy with shooters for committing the incident in question wherein attempt was made on the life of respondent no.2; that the enmity due to property dispute and election rivalry is not disputed and it is wrong to say that due to above enmity, the appellant has been falsely implicated, rather the real fact is that due to above enmity, he made an attempt on the life of respondent no.2 through sharp shooters; that due to fire arm injuries caused to respondent no.2, he was treated at District Hospital Siddharth Nagar from where he was referred to B.R.D. Medical College, Gorrakhpur and due to his critical condition was again referred to King George Medical College/University, Lucknow and undergone long treatment; that the appeal has been filed just to delay the trial and is liable to be dismissed.
Upon hearing parties counsel and perusal of record, I find that the enmity between appellant and respondent no.2 is not disputed. The enmity is double edged weapon, which can be used either way. The appellant has been implicated in view of criminal conspirary for hiring sharp shooters for causing death of respondent no.2 and he has not been assigned with any role of shooting. The fact that whether the appellant actually entered into criminal conspiracy with sharp shooters or not, is a matter to be decided upon evidence during trial and at this stage in view of prima facie evidence for framing charges against the appellant, it may not be presumed that he may not have entered into criminal conspiracy.
In view of discussions made above, I find that learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show any illegality, irregularity or incorrectness in the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018 Tamang