ANISA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 01-08-1997, order on sentence dated 06-08-97 whereby the present appellants were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

(2.) The prosecution case was that on 15-02-1995 at about 02-30 A.M. in the early hours of the morning, PW-3 Prem and her husband, PW-4 Vijay went to the jhuggi of the appellant Anisa on hearing her voice. They saw the deceased, Vinod lying on the ground; the appellant Mohammed Tahir was sitting upon the deceased, holding a knife in his right hand. Anisa had muffled the mouth of Vinod with her palm. PW- 3 and her husband separated the accused from the deceased. Blood was oozing out from the deceased's stomach and his intestines had come out. Vinod, who was conscious and had not died by then, told them that Tahir and Anisa had stabbed him. The prosecution case is that information was given to the Police Control Room; Vinod was taken to the SDN hospital by the PCR van where he was declared brought dead. It was alleged that the statement of PW-3 Prem was recorded, and FIR 26/1995 was registered by the concerned police station. Tahir had fled the spot, but Anisa was at the crime scene, when the police went there; she was arrested. Later, Tahir was arrested. His disclosure statement led to the recovery of a knife, the weapon of offence. The prosecution had alleged that Anisa was Vinod s wife, and initially lived with him; she later left him, and started living with Tahir, but in the same jhuggi, after throwing out Vinod. The police alleged that Tahir and Anisa had threatened Vinod with dire consequences, when he went asking that his jhuggi be restored back to him. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet; the accused were arraigned for committing the offences mentioned previously; they denied guilt, and claimed trial.

(3.) The prosecution, to bring home guilt of the accused, had examined 17 witnesses, and also relied on several exhibits, such as the post mortem report, the recovery and seizure memos, FSL reports, and so on. After considering these, and the submissions of the parties counsel, the Trial Court held that the appellants guilt had been established beyond reasonable doubt. During the pendency of this appeal, the Court had suspended the sentence of the appellants. When the appeals were taken up for hearing, they were not present. Despite repeated adjournments, and attempts to serve them, the appellants defaulted in appearing before the court. Therefore, an amicus was appointed to assist the court, in the hearing of their appeals.