SHAMSUDDIN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal and the revision petition are being disposed of by this common judgment since they both arise out of one trial and one judgment delivered by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge, NDPS), Raipur on 7/4/1999 in Sessions Trial No.14 of 1998 whereby he convicted the Appellant for having committed an offence under Sec. 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000.00, in default of payment of fine amount, he would have to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and two of the co-accused namely Sirajuddin alias Johny and Razia Begum, father and mother of the Appellant have been acquitted.

(2.) There is hardly any dispute as far as the factual aspects of the case is concerned. The prosecution story is that on 23/7/1997, the deceased Mehfooj @ Kaju was standing at Chandni Chowk, Raipur along with PW-9 Mohd. Hayat @ Bablu, PW10 Naeem @ Nammu and PW5 Shakeel Ahmed. It is also the case of the prosecution that just near the place of occurrence, the informant PW8 Jamir Ahmed, son of the deceased was shutting down his Thela from where he used to sell Pan. Shamsuddin came towards Chandai Chowk alongwith PW14 Wasim Ahmed, brother of PW10 Naeem @ Nammu. Naeem @ Nammu asked his younger brother Wasim Ahmed where he was going. The younger brother replied that he alongwith Shamsuddin were going towards Baijnathpara. Naeem @ Nammu told his younger brother that he had already gone to Baijnathpara earlier also and he need not go with him again to Baijnathpara. Thereupon, Shamsuddin remarked " tkus nks u ;kj] vady". This basically meant that Shamsuddin took it in a very causal way and asked Naeem @ Nammu not to take this very seriously. It is alleged that the deceased Mehfooj @ Kaju remarked that Shamshuddin being the friend of his younger brother should not talk to his elder brother in such a manner. Therefore, Naeem @ Nammu got angry being addressed in such a casual fashion by Shamsuddin and slapped him. Thereupon, Shamsuddin told Naeem @ Nammu "you wait here and I will come back and teach you a lesson". He then went home and returned armed with a knife. The prosecution story is that by the time Shamsuddin returned, PW-9 Mohd. Hayat @ Bablu, PW10 Naeem @ Nammu had gone to the side to urinate and only Mehfooj @ Kaju was there. When Shamsuddin returned to the place of occurrence, he was accompanied with his parents i.e. Sirajuddin @ Johny and Razia Begum (father and mother). Razia Begum was instigating Shamsuddin that he should kill Naeem @ Nammu or Mehfooj @ Kaju or whoever is there. Thereupon, he gave one blow of the knife on the abdomen of Mehfooj @ Kaju and thereafter two blows on his thigh. The injured was immediately taken to the hospital by his son, PW8 ,Jamir Ahmed but soon after being admitted in the hospital, he died.

(3.) Accused Shamsuddin stepped into the witness box and the defence is not one of denial. He has accepted the fact that he gave three blows to the deceased. However, according to him, his parents had no role in the occurrence and his only defence is that when he came back and asked Mehfooj @ Kaju where Naeem @ Nammu was, then Mehfooj @ Kaju who was in a drunken condition abused him and therefore he got enraged and due to this grave and sudden provocation, gave the blows. The Learned Trial Court acquitted the parents of the Appellant. It however convicted the Appellant for having committed murder and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence this appeal.