IMTIAZ AHAMED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned n Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore, against the appellant in S. C. No. 78 of 1995, holding him guilty of murdering his father-in-law and attempt on the life of his mother-in-law and wife, punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: p. W. 1-Sayeeda Begum is the wife of the deceased and P. W. 2-Jahanara is the daughter of the deceased and also the wife of the accused. P. W. 2 was married to the accused about ten years back and two children were born out of the said wedlock. P. W. 2 stayed with her husband along with the children at Bademakhane area and her parents are residing in Rahamania Mohalla. The accused was habituated to drinks. He used to ill-treat his wife. Initially he was doing coolie work, but later on, started doing mutton business by opening a mutton stall. But, the said business did not prosper on account of his bad habits. He was in jail for three months as he was involved in a murder case, during which time p. W. 2 went to stay with her parents. He was released on bail. Thereafter, he approached the deceased to send his wife back to his house and promised his parents-in-law that she would be looked after well. Hence, p. W. 2 was sent to the house of accused. But, the accused continued his bad habits. He used to go home damn drunk and used to assault his wife. A day prior to the date of incident, which occurred on 12-2-1995, the accused attempted to throttle the neck of P. W. 2 in his house, when she sat for Namaaz, She escaped from his clutches and ran to her father's house. After her father came to know of this incident, he went and scolded the accused and there was verbal quarrel between them. The deceased informed the elder brother of the accused and pleaded with him to advise his brother, namely the accused, to give Talaq to P. W. 2. The elder brother of the accused and the sister-in-law of the accused visited the house of the deceased on the same evening and promised them that they would advise the accused. The accused, who came to know that his father-in-law wanted him to give Talaq to his wife, became enraged. Therefore, it is stated that on the next day, i. e. , on 12-2-1995, at about 9. 00 A. M. , accused went to the house of deceased in a drunken condition holding a Choori and stabbed the deceased repeatedly on his abdomen and lower parts of the body. P. Ws. 1 and 2 were taking their breakfast at that time. They came to the rescue of the deceased. Accused assaulted both P. Ws. 1 and 2 with the same Choori and caused bleeding injuries. It appears that people gathered near the house of the deceased and someone informed the Police, who promptly visited the place. Neighbours shifted P. Ws. 1 and 2 and the deceased to the Hospital, where the deceased was declared dead. The Station House Officer of the jurisdictional Police, who visited the place of incident, found the accused lying near the house of the deceased in an unconscious condition with injuries all over the body. He was also shifted to the K. R. Hospital for treatment. Upon the statement made by P. W. 1, the Police registered a criminal case against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 307 of the IPC, investigated and laid the charge-sheet against the accused.

(3.) THE prosecution has relied on the evidence of 19 witnesses, 18 documents and 18 material objects, in proof of the charges framed against the accused-appellant. P. Ws. 1, 2 and 4 are the eye-witnesses, while P. W. 8 is a circumstantial witness, The prosecution has relied upon the presence of the accused at the place of the incident and also the medical evidence, which supports the eye-witnesses' account.