NOOR ALAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. After evidence was led the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and to questions No.2, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 28 and 40 he answered; the questions and the answers are noted as under:-

(2.) The appellant claimed not to be residing with his father. The appellant admitted that mobile No.9350872436 was in the name of Mukesh Sharma who had handed over the same to the mother of the appellant Mst.Rabina but claimed that his mother had handed over the mobile set to him 5/6 days prior to when she died. He admitted that on 19.3.2008 Mukesh made calls from the landline No.27183897 and from the STD Booth No.99992974 to the mobile No.9350872436. Appellant admitted having brought Rabina to BJRM Hospital at 1:00 AM in the intervening night of 19/20.3.2008 but claimed that even Mukesh was with him. Appellant admitted that his mother was declared dead but denied having fled from the hospital and claimed that he remained present in the hospital with Mukesh. The appellant admitted that the mobile phone Ex.P-2 given by Mukesh to Rabina was recovered from him when he was arrested.

(3.) It may be noted at the outset that having admitted to have removed his mother to the hospital but denied residing at jhuggi No.K-209, the appellant has rendered no explanation as to wherefrom he learnt that his mother was injured in the jhuggi. It is obvious that by denying his being at jhuggi No.K-209 the appellant wants to get over his requiring it to be explained as to how his mother suffered the injuries and thus much would turn upon proof of the fact that the appellant not only resided at jhuggi No.K-209 along with his father who is a proclaimed offender but additionally was at the jhuggi on 29.3.2008.