MOHD FARUKH Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide impugned judgment and order dated 12.10.2009, the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant for the offence of having murdered his father Ali Sher.

(2.) The witnesses who have deposed against the appellant were his brothers Mohd.Iqbal PW-2 and Jakir PW-4 as also his brother-in-law Aas Mohammad PW-5. Besides the deposition of the said three witness, the learned trial judge has relied upon the testimony of Ct.Ramvilas PW-9 who had apprehended the appellant soon after the crime was committed, having notice blood on the clothes of the appellant as also blood stained dagger in his hand when the appellant was fleeing from the place where the crime was committed. Corroboration has been found to the testimony of Ct.Ramvilas through the testimony of SI A.K.Singh PW-16, ASI Fazruddin PW-19 and Ct.Radhey Shyam PW-3. Though not specifically referred to by the learned trial judge, as per the report Ex.PX of the serologist, human blood of the same group as that of the deceased was detected on the clothes of the appellant which were seized on the appellant being apprehended. We note that the learned trail judge has relied upon the fact that the clothes of the appellant which were seized by the Investigation Office after the appellant was apprehended were stained with blood.

(3.) Mohd.Iqbal PW-2, the brother of the appellant simply deposed that on 27.10.2006 he was at his house along with Aas Mohammad and at about 2:00 PM went upstairs to change clothes for Namaj. When he was changing clothes he heard noise on the ground floor and immediately came down. He saw his father in a pool of blood inside his shop. His brother-in-law also came there and both shifted their father to Holy Family Hospital in a TSR where the doctor declared him brought dead. He deposed that the appellant used to quarrel with the family and hence his father had got him separated. That his father had given the appellant a shop which appellant had rented out for a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month. That the appellant used to remain mentally depressed. That the appellant suspected that he would not be given his share in the family property.