{"id":209996,"date":"2008-08-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aizaz-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-12-august-2008"},"modified":"2015-06-19T17:45:24","modified_gmt":"2015-06-19T12:15:24","slug":"aizaz-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-12-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aizaz-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-12-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Aizaz & Ors vs State Of U.P on 12 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Aizaz & Ors vs State Of U.P on 12 August, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Mukundakam Sharma<\/div>\n
                                                                REPORTABLE\n\n\n\n                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 193 OF 2005\n\n\n\nAizaz & Ors.                                   ...Appellants\n\n                                Versus\n\nState of U.P.                                       ...Respondent\n\n\n\n                        JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.   Appellants call in question legality of the judgment<\/p>\n
rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court<\/p>\n
upholding   the    conviction    of   the   appellants   for offence<\/p>\n
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code, 1860<\/p>\n
(in short the `IPC’).   So far as the appellant Aizaz- A1 is
\nconcerned, the High Court also upheld his conviction for<\/p>\n
offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34<\/p>\n
IPC.    The two other appellants were found guilty of offence<\/p>\n
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and<\/p>\n
Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. It is to be noted that<\/p>\n
four persons faced trial though the learned VIIth    Additional<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge, Meerut found A-1 to A-3 guilty.       The High<\/p>\n
Court directed acquittal of Imlak (A-4).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.     Background facts as projected by prosecution in a<\/p>\n
nutshell are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       All the four accused are inter related and they lived in<\/p>\n
village Ikla Rasoolpur, police station Parichhatgarh, district<\/p>\n
Meerut. Informant of the case Bashir Mohammed (P.W.1) as<\/p>\n
well as Ismail (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased’) also<\/p>\n
lived in the same village. About 2= years earlier to the date of<\/p>\n
occurrence i.e. 4.11.1979 one Riazu disappeared from the<\/p>\n
village and could not be traced out. A case was registered at<\/p>\n
the police station against appellant Aizaz and others in which<\/p>\n
                              2<\/span>
\nthe deceased was doing pairvi. The appellants had asked the<\/p>\n
deceased several times not to appear as a witness in that case<\/p>\n
or to do pairvi of the case. Ismail did not agree to it due to<\/p>\n
which the appellants bore enmity with him.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      In Ikla Rasoolpur, there is a school, namely, Deni Islami<\/p>\n
Madarsa. A committee consisting of villagers of Ikla Rasoolpur<\/p>\n
and village Khanpur used to manage the affairs of the school.<\/p>\n
The deceased and the informant were members of the<\/p>\n
committee. There was some dispute regarding the post of<\/p>\n
Treasurer. Therefore, a meeting was to take place on<\/p>\n
4.11.1979 in village Siyal. The appellants as well as the<\/p>\n
villagers of Ikla Rasoolpur knew about the said meeting. On<\/p>\n
the date of occurrence, i.e. 4.11.1979 the deceased Ismail and<\/p>\n
informant   Bashir   Mohammad     started    from   village   Ikla<\/p>\n
Rasoolpur for attending the meeting on a motor cycle. The<\/p>\n
deceased was driving the motor cycle while the informant was<\/p>\n
a pillion rider. At about 12 noon when they reached near the<\/p>\n
field of Prakash Khazoori there was a turning of the road. The<\/p>\n
deceased slowed down the speed of the motor cycle. At that<\/p>\n
                             3<\/span>
\nvery time, all the four accused persons emerged from the field<\/p>\n
of Prakash.   Appellants Aizaz, Ahmad Hasan and Jan Alam<\/p>\n
who were armed with country made pistols fired towards the<\/p>\n
informant and the deceased on exhortation of Imlak. Imlak<\/p>\n
was armed with spear. The gun shot did not hit either the<\/p>\n
deceased or the informant. However, the deceased became<\/p>\n
panicky and motor cycle fell down on the road. The deceased<\/p>\n
left the motor cycle and his chappal and ran from the field of<\/p>\n
Khairati towards the village. All the four accused persons<\/p>\n
chased him. Informant, Bashir Mohammad also ran towards<\/p>\n
them raising cry for help. After pursuing the deceased for<\/p>\n
about 100 yards, the accused persons caught hold of the<\/p>\n
deceased and pushed him to the ground. The three appellants<\/p>\n
pushed him to the ground, while appellant Aizaz fired at the<\/p>\n
deceased on the neck. Yakoob (P.W.2), Ian Mohammad (P.W.3)<\/p>\n
and one Hafizuddin alias Fauju and Sahimuddin came over<\/p>\n
there. The accused persons thereafter went away in the<\/p>\n
southern direction. Ismail died instantaneously and blood had<\/p>\n
also fallen at the place. Bashir Mohammad prepared a written<\/p>\n
report at the place of occurrence. He went to the police station<\/p>\n
                              4<\/span>
\non cycle and lodged it at the police station Parichhatgarh on<\/p>\n
4.11.1979 at 1.00 P.M. The distance of the police station from<\/p>\n
the place of occurrence is three kilometers. FIR was registered<\/p>\n
and investigation was undertaken.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     After completion of the investigation charge sheet was<\/p>\n
filed and since accused persons pleaded innocence, they were<\/p>\n
put on trial. Before trial Court the primary stand of accused<\/p>\n
was that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the<\/p>\n
occurrence. The evidence of PWs 1, 2 & 3 according to them<\/p>\n
did not inspire confidence.   In any event, it was submitted<\/p>\n
that Section 34 has no application so far as the A2 and A4 are<\/p>\n
concerned. The trial Court did not accept these contentions<\/p>\n
and recorded conviction. Before the High Court in appeal the<\/p>\n
stands were reiterated.    The High Court found that the<\/p>\n
evidence was inadequate so far as A4 is concerned, but<\/p>\n
confirmed the conviction so far as the appellants are<\/p>\n
concerned.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.   In support of the appeal, it is submitted that the<\/p>\n
occurrence essentially took part in two stages. Even if there<\/p>\n
                              5<\/span>
\nwas any animosity between A1 and the deceased, A2 and A3<\/p>\n
had nothing to do with him. Additionally in the second part<\/p>\n
also there was no use of any weapons by appellants Nos. 2 &<\/p>\n
3.   The only allegation against them is that they held the<\/p>\n
deceased and fell him on the ground.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.   Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other<\/p>\n
hand supported the judgment of the trial court and the High<\/p>\n
Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.   The evidence of PWs. 1, 2 & 3 is clear and cogent. The<\/p>\n
trial court and the High Court have analysed the evidence in<\/p>\n
great detail and have come to hold that the same has credence<\/p>\n
and appear to be truthful.   Nothing infirm could be pointed<\/p>\n
out to warrant rejection of the evidence.   Therefore the trial<\/p>\n
Court and High Court were justified in placing reliance on the<\/p>\n
evidence of PWs. 1, 2 & 3.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.   Coming to the plea relating to Section 34 the Section<\/p>\n
really means that if two or more persons intentionally do a<\/p>\n
                             6<\/span>
\ncommon thing jointly, it is just the same as if each of them<\/p>\n
had done it individually. It is a well recognized canon of<\/p>\n
criminal jurisprudence that the Courts cannot distinguish<\/p>\n
between co-conspirators, nor can they inquire, even if it were<\/p>\n
possible as to the part taken by each in the crime. Where<\/p>\n
parties go with a common purpose to execute a common<\/p>\n
object each and every person becomes responsible for the act<\/p>\n
of each and every other in execution and furtherance of their<\/p>\n
common purpose; as the purpose is common, so must be the<\/p>\n
responsibility. All are guilty of the principal offence, not of<\/p>\n
abetment only. In a combination of this kind a mortal stroke,<\/p>\n
though given by one of the parties, is deemed in the eye of law<\/p>\n
to have been given by every individual present and abetting.<\/p>\n
But a party not cognizant of the intention of his companion to<\/p>\n
commit murder is not liable, though he has joined his<\/p>\n
companion to do an unlawful act. Leading feature of this<\/p>\n
Section is the element of participation in action. The essence<\/p>\n
of liability under this Section is the existence of a common<\/p>\n
intention animating the offenders and the participation in a<\/p>\n
criminal act in furtherance of the common intention. The<\/p>\n
                             7<\/span>
\nessence is simultaneous consensus of the minds of persons<\/p>\n
participating in the criminal action to bring about a particular<\/p>\n
result (See Ramaswami Ayyanagar and Ors. v. State of Tamil<\/p>\n
Nadu (AIR<\/a> 1976 SC 2027). The participation need not in all<\/p>\n
cases be by physical presence. In offences involving physical<\/p>\n
violence, normally presence at the scene of offence may be<\/p>\n
necessary, but such is not the case in respect of other offences<\/p>\n
when the offence consists of diverse acts which may be done<\/p>\n
at different times and places. The physical presence at the<\/p>\n
scene of offence of the offender sought to be rendered liable<\/p>\n
under this Section is not one of the conditions of its<\/p>\n
applicability in every case. Before a man can be held liable for<\/p>\n
acts done by another, under the provisions of this Section, it<\/p>\n
must be established that (i) there was common intention in<\/p>\n
the sense of a pre-arranged plan between the two, and (ii) the<\/p>\n
person sought to be so held liable had participated in some<\/p>\n
manner in the act constituting the offence. Unless common<\/p>\n
intention and participation are both present, this Section<\/p>\n
cannot apply.\n<\/p>\n
                              8<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
7.   `Common intention’ implies pre-arranged plan and acting<\/p>\n
in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged plan. Under this<\/p>\n
Section a pre-concert in the sense of a distinct previous plan<\/p>\n
is not necessary to be proved. The common intention to bring<\/p>\n
about a particular result may well develop on the spot as<\/p>\n
between a number of persons, with reference to the facts of<\/p>\n
the case and circumstances of the situation. Though common<\/p>\n
intention may develop on the spot, it must, however, be<\/p>\n
anterior in point of time to the commission of offence showing<\/p>\n
a pre-arranged plan and prior concert. (See Krishna Govind<\/p>\n
Patil v. State of Maharashtra (AIR<\/a> 1963 SC 1413). In Amrit<\/p>\n
Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab (1972 Crl.L.J. 465 SC) it has<\/p>\n
been held that common intention pre-supposes prior concert.<\/p>\n
Care must be taken not to confuse same or similar intention<\/p>\n
with common intention; the partition which divides their<\/p>\n
bonds is often very thin, nevertheless the distinction is real<\/p>\n
and substantial, and if overlooked will result in miscarriage of<\/p>\n
justice. To constitute common intention, it is necessary that<\/p>\n
intention of each one of them be known to the rest of them<\/p>\n
and shared by them. Undoubtedly, it is a difficult thing to<\/p>\n
                              9<\/span>
\nprove even the intention of an individual and, therefore, it is<\/p>\n
all the more difficult to show the common intention of a group<\/p>\n
of persons. But however difficult may be the task, the<\/p>\n
prosecution must lead evidence of facts, circumstances and<\/p>\n
conduct of the accused from which their common intention<\/p>\n
can be safely gathered. In Magsogdan and Ors. v. State of U.P.<\/p>\n
(AIR 1988 SC 126) it was observed that prosecution must lead<\/p>\n
evidence from which the common intention of the accused can<\/p>\n
be safely gathered. In most cases it has to be inferred from the<\/p>\n
act, conduct or other relevant circumstances of the case in<\/p>\n
hand. The totality of the circumstances must be taken into<\/p>\n
consideration in arriving at a conclusion whether the accused<\/p>\n
had a common intention to commit offence for which they can<\/p>\n
be convicted. The facts and circumstances of cases vary and<\/p>\n
each case has to be decided keeping in view of the facts<\/p>\n
involved. Whether an act is in furtherance of the common<\/p>\n
intention is an incident of fact and not of law. In Bhaba Nanda<\/p>\n
Barma and Ors. v. The State of Assam (AIR<\/a> 1977 SC 2252) it<\/p>\n
was observed that prosecution must prove facts to justify an<\/p>\n
inference that all participants of the acts had shared a<\/p>\n
                              10<\/span>
\n common intention to commit the criminal act which was<\/p>\n
 finally committed by one or more of the participants. Mere<\/p>\n
 presence of a person at the time of commission of an offence<\/p>\n
 by his confederates is not, in itself sufficient to bring his case<\/p>\n
 within the purview of Section 34, unless community of designs<\/p>\n
 is proved against him (See Malkhan and Anr. v. State of Uttar<\/p>\n
 Pradesh (AIR 1975 SC 12). In the Oxford English Dictionary,<\/p>\n
 the word “furtherance” is defined as `action of helping<\/p>\n
 forward’. Adopting this definition, Russel says that “it<\/p>\n
 indicates some kind of aid or assistance producing an effect in<\/p>\n
 future” and adds that any act may be regarded as done in<\/p>\n
 furtherance of the ultimate felony if it is a step intentionally<\/p>\n
 taken, for the purpose of effecting that felony. (Russel on<\/p>\n
 Crime 12th Edn. Vol.I pp.487 and 488). In Shankarlal<\/p>\n
 Kacharabhai and Ors. v. The State of Gujarat (AIR 1965 SC<\/p>\n
 1260) this Court has interpreted the word “furtherance” as<\/p>\n
 `advancement or promotion’.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.    When the factual scenario is analysed in the backdrop of<\/p>\n
 the principles of law set out above, the inevitable conclusion is<\/p>\n
                                11<\/span>
\nthat the appeal is sans merit, deserves dismissal, which we<\/p>\n
direct.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                    ……………………………….
\n….J.\n<\/p>\n
                             (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)<\/p>\n
                             …………………………………….J.
\n                             (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)
\nNew Delhi,
\nAugust 12, 2008<\/p>\n
                            12<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Aizaz & Ors vs State Of U.P on 12 August, 2008 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Mukundakam Sharma REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 193 OF 2005 Aizaz & Ors. …Appellants Versus State of U.P. …Respondent JUDGMENT Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-209996","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAizaz & Ors vs State Of U.P on 12 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aizaz-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-12-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Aizaz & Ors vs State Of U.P on 12 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aizaz-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-12-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-19T12:15:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aizaz-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-12-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aizaz-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-12-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Aizaz & Ors vs State Of U.P on 12 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-19T12:15:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aizaz-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-12-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1982,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aizaz-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-12-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aizaz-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-12-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aizaz-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-12-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Aizaz & Ors vs State Of U.P on 12 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-19T12:15:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aizaz-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-12-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aizaz-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-12-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aizaz-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-12-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Aizaz & Ors vs State Of U.P on 12 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Aizaz & Ors vs State Of U.P on 12 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aizaz-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-12-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Aizaz & Ors vs State Of U.P on 12 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aizaz-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-12-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-19T12:15:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aizaz-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-12-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aizaz-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-12-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Aizaz & Ors vs State Of U.P on 12 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-19T12:15:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aizaz-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-12-august-2008"},"wordCount":1982,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aizaz-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-12-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aizaz-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-12-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aizaz-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-12-august-2008","name":"Aizaz & Ors vs State Of U.P on 12 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-19T12:15:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aizaz-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-12-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aizaz-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-12-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aizaz-ors-vs-state-of-u-p-on-12-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Aizaz & Ors vs State Of U.P on 12 August, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/209996","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=209996"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/209996\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=209996"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=209996"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=209996"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}