MUKHTYAR JABBAR TADVI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment dated 18.11.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No. 509 of 2007 is called in question in this appeal. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has confirmed the judgment dated 18.09.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case No. 150 of 2006 convicting the appellant herein for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is that the deceased Munir and his wife Madina (PW8) were residing on the backside of the house of the informant Qutuboddin Sandu Tadvi (PW7); the informant is none other than the father of the deceased; the informant and his wife Shahnoorbi, another son Nawab and Nawab's wife Afsana were staying jointly in one house, which was in front of the house of the accused. Both houses are near each other. On 16.12005, the informant and his wife Shahnoorbi were in the house. His son Nawab and his wife Afsana were not present. Deceased Munir came to the house of the informant in the evening and informed him that he was going to see a movie. At about 11:00 or 11:15 p.m., the informant heard shouts from his son Munir, saying "Oh mother, save me Mukhtyar had assaulted me by knife in my stomach". On hearing the shouts of Munir, the informant and his wife woke up and opened the door of the house. Immediately, the injured Munir entered the house of the informant, at which point of time the accused Mukhtyar was standing behind Munir, holding a bloodstained knife in his hand. Madina, the wife of Munir also reached the spot, by which time Munir fell down with bleeding injuries on his stomach. His intestines had come out of the abdomen. The injured became unconscious. Accused Mukhtyar ran away from the spot. In his haste, he left his chappal near the door of the house of the informant. The informant went to Dr. Shantilal Teli and requested him to come to the spot of the incident and examine the victim, who accordingly came and after examination declared him dead. Immediately thereafter, the first information came to be lodged by the father of the deceased.

(3.) The defence does not dispute that it is a case of homicidal death. However, it is argued on behalf of the accused that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not proved and hence the accused may be given the benefit of doubt.