Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tarik @ Tarif Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 April, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1 CRA-7931-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 7931 of 2023
(TARIK @ TARIF KHAN AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 21-04-2025
Shri Awadhesh Pratap Singh Sisodiya- Advocate for appellants
through Video Conferencing.
Shri Vijay Sundaram - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Shri Pawan Devnani- Advocate for complainant.
IA No.18786/2024, an application under Section 338(2) of BNSS,
moved on behalf of complainant seeking permission of this Court to assist
the prosecution in the matter is taken up, considered and is allowed for the
reasons mentioned therein.
Shri Pawan Devnani, Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant
and his Associates are permitted to assist the prosecution in the matter.
I.A.No.13828/2023, which is first application under Section 389 (1) of
Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf of
appellants - Tarik @ Tarif Khan & Gufran Khan.
Appellants have been convicted under Section 147 of the IPC and
sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year; under section 148 of IPC to undergo RI
for 2 years; under section 302/149 of the IPC (on six counts) to undergo life
imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- on each count; under section 326/149 of
IPC (on two counts) to undergo RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.1000/- on each
count; under section 324/149 of IPC (on three counts) to undergo RI for 1
year with fine of Rs.500/- on each count and under section 323/149 of the
2 CRA-7931-2023
IPC (on six counts) to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/- on each
count with corresponding default stipulations, v i d e judgment dated
27/05/2023 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda, District-
Vidisha in S.T. No. 100038/2012.
As per case of prosecution, complainant, Murad Khan, informed SHO
of Shamshabad stating that there is an enmity over Sarpanch election by
which a case is pending in Tehsil Court. On the morning of 03.02.11 around
9:30 AM, he heard sounds of fighting and commotion near the house of his
relative Kallu Bukhala. When he, along with his sons Aziz Khan, Arman
Khan, Arif Khan, Rizwan Khan and daughter Mehro Bi rushed there, they
saw that Sarpanch Gufran along- with his father Kale Khan, brothers Shakil
Khan, Guddu Khan, Akil Khan, Chand Babu, Lallu Khan, Akhtar Khan,
Kamruddin Khan, Hanif Khan, Imtiyaz Khan, Tantu Khan, Tarun, Babbu
Khan, Rizwan Khan, Rehan Khan, Anish Khan, Lallu Khan S/o Mashuk Ali
Raysen, Guddu Khan S/o Banne Khan, all of them were standing armed with
firearms and started gunshot fires at the house of his relative and his sons
Shahabuddin and Rahees Khan, as a result of which, Shahabuddin and
Rahees Khan sustained bullet injuries and fell towards courtyard and died on
spot. It was further alleged that Gufran Khan (appellant No.2) and Chand
Babu fired on complainant and his son Akil Khan by means of 12 bore gun
as a result of which, Akil Khan died near drain. When Jalal Khan, his son
Basruddin Khan and wife came to intervene, former Sarpanch Kale Khan and
his sons Shakil, Guddu Khan, Arif Khan, Kamruddin Khan, Ispak Khan,
Tantu Khan, Harun Khan, Babbu Khan, Rizwan Khan, Rehan Khan, Anish
3 CRA-7931-2023
Khan and Guddu Khan S/o Banne Khan, all started gunshot fires from their
firearms. Jalal Khan and his son Basruddin Khan sustained gunshot injuries
caused by Kallu Khan due to which, they died. Gun Pellets of Gufran,
Rijwajan, Guddu Khan, Akil Khan and cartridges of the shooter ran out,
therefore, wife of Sarpanch Kale Khan and Sarvati Bi came in a Bolero
vehicle. Thereafter, they took out the cartridges and weapons from Bolero
vehicles and gave them to their husbands, sons and others (accused). All of
them fired gunshots on Asif Khan as a result of which, Asif Khan died. Dead
body of all five deceased were lying near houses of Rahees Khan and
Shahabuddin under the culvert near drain. Irfan Khan, Arif, Shahid Khan,
Munnu Khan, Bada Pappu, Chhota Pappu, Phool Babu, Naseem Khan,
Pappu Khan, Shafiq Khan, Jaheed Khan, Imran Khan, Aameer Khan, Bunne
Khan, Nanhe Khan, Faiyaz Khan, Jalal Khan, Indresh Khan, Ishtiaq Khan,
Gufuran Khan, Afriz Khan, Shahabuddin Khan s/o Kamal Khan, Nasruddin
Khan, Shamshuddin Khan, Lallu Shah, Mustakim Bada Kheda, Banne Khan
s/o Chand Khan, Azim Khan and Sohrab Khan were all caused injuries to
the deceased by means of bullets, swords, and sticks. It is further alleged that
injured Rizwan, Arman Khan, Farida Bi, Afsari Bi, Mausam Khan, Babu
Khan, Jalal Khan, Mehro Bi and Asif Khan were also sustained injuries of
country-made pistols, pellets, axes, sticks, and swords in the incident. Five
men were shot dead on spot. On the basis of information given by Murad
Khan, a dehati merg intimation was recorded under Section 174 of CrPC.
FIR was lodged and the statements of witnesses were recorded. Relevant
seizures were made. On completion of investigation and other formalities,
4 CRA-7931-2023
charge sheet was filed before the Competent Court. After conclusion of trial,
the trial Court convicted and sentenced the present appellants for the alleged
offence, as mentioned above.
Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that according to
prosecution version, PW-5 Farida Bi stated that appellant No.1 Tarik alias
Tarif Khan along- with Kamruddin and Irfan took injured Mustkim from her
house. So far as Mustkim who died in incident is concerned, a cross-case was
registered against complainant side. The trial Court discussed evidence of
Famida Bi wife of deceased Shahabuddin (PW-15) from para 211 to 266 of
its judgment and observed that in the evidence of this witness Famida Bi,
there is no relevant facts came on record, therefore, on the basis of her
statement, it could not be presumed that she did not see accused persons,
their presence at the place of incident is doubtful. Hence, merely on the basis
of testimony of PW-15 Famida Bi that appellant No.1 took Mustkim is not
sufficient for proving guilt of alleged crime. Under these circumstances,
appellant cannot be convicted with help of Section 149 of IPC.Learned
Counsel further submitted that there are only omnibus allegations against
appellant No.1 Tarik alias Tarif Khan. Appellant No.1 Tarik alias Tarif Khan
is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the case. He was on bail
during trial and did not misuse the liberty so granted to him.
So far as appellant No.2 Gufran Khan is concerned, learned Counsel
submitted that he is innocent and he has falsely been implicated. There are
two Gufran, one Gufran son of Kale Khan and another Gufran son of Ruaab
Khan. From prosecution evidence as well as statements of witnesses, it is
5 CRA-7931-2023
apparent that Gufran Khan son of Kale Khan was the previous Sarpanch of
Village Babichiya and the incident happened on account of election of
Sarpanch. According to prosecution case, Gufran, son of Kale Khan was the
former Sarpanch and was the root cause for quarrel, on account of which the
incident happened on 03-02-2011 around 09.30 in the morning.
Learned Counsel further submitted that in the FIR lodged by
complainant Murad Khan, there is no mention of names of appellants. The
trial Court did not properly examine individual act of Gufran, son of Kale
Khan and Gufran son of Ruaab Khan. Present appellant No.2 Gufran Khan
did not cause any injury either to any of deceased or injured. There are so
many contradictions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
Learned Counsel also submitted that PW15 Famida Bi did not disclose the
name of present appellant No.2 Gufran Khan. In fact, appellant No.2 Gufran
Khan did not use any firearms whereas the police had recovered a lathi from
possession of appellant No.2 Gufran Khan. Another witness PW-23 Afsari
Bi in her evidence admitted that she had never seen appellant No.2 Gufran.
Appellant No.2 Gufran Khan remained in custody from 18-03-2011 till 25-
06-2016 and from the date of impugned judgment. He has suffered more than
six years of incarceration. Hence, prayed for suspension of jail sentence of
both the appellants.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State assisted by learned
Counsel for complainant opposed the contentions of appellants and
submitted that on the basis of dehati merg intimation (Ex.P5) given by
complainant Murad Khan (PW-9), a named FIR was lodged against 54
6 CRA-7931-2023
persons and due to enmity of Sarpanch election, present appellant along with
other co-accused near about 52 persons came on spot with firearms
including other deadly weapons like sharp-edged weapon, lathi, etc. Six
persons were died and other persons also got injuries in the incident. It is
further submitted that when gun pellets of Gufran, Rijwajan, Guddu Khan,
Akil Khan and cartridges of the shooter were ran out, wife of Sarpanch Kale
Khan and Sarvati Bi came in a Bolero vehicle and thereafter, they took out
cartridges and weapons from the Bolero car and gave them to the accused
persons. Considering the nature of of crime, no case is made out for
suspension of jail sentence. Hence, prayed for rejection of application.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.
On perusal of evidence of witness Afsana Bi (PW-3) and Famida Bi
(PW-15), it was found that they identified accused persons and it was also
found that a named FIR was lodged against appellants- Tarik alias Tarif
Khan and Gufran Khan son of Ruaab Khan. Their involvement in the
commission of murder of six persons in the alleged incident was found
proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and it was also found that
the incident in which 11 persons got injured out of which, two persons were
sustained grievous injuries, three persons were sustained simple injuries by
sharp edged weapons and six persons sustained simple injuries by hard and
blunt object.
Looking to the gravity and nature of crime as well as the allegation
levelled against the present appellants, this Court does not think it
appropriate to extend the benefit of suspension of jail sentence to the
7 CRA-7931-2023
appellants because of the fact that if appellants are released on bail, they
may cause societal threat, danger, hamper public peace and tranquility as
well as they shall be the source of embarrassment or harassment to either of
the parties. No ground is made out to suspend the jail sentence of appellants.
Resultantly, application (IA No. 13828 of 2023) fails and is hereby
rejected.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
MKB
