RAMESH BABU @ BHANDARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal challenges a judgment and order of a learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated 27-8-1996, in SC No. 81/1996. The impugned judgment convicted the Appellant for committing the offences punishable under Sections 302 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act. The Appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also a prison term for 3 years rigorous imprisonment; both sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution allegations were that on 19.09.1991, Police Station Seelampur received information ( DD 10A, marked as Ex. PW-11/A), at 11.02 AM, about a shooting incident at Gali No.5, Subhash Mohalla. SHO, PW-17 went to the spot with two constables and an ASI. He went to H.No. E-139, Gali No.5, Subhash Mohalla, Maujpur where one Munna produced a Katta, 3 live cartridges, he also handed over Ramesh Babu (the accused, who has appealed to this court). Munna's statement Ex. PW6/F was recorded, it formed the basis for registration of the FIR. The informant PW4 Munna @Samimul Rehman used to work in a factory; his younger brother Chottey Mian worked in the factory of Jameel. The Appellant too used to work in that factory about six months before the incident; he (the accused) used to tease his sister. PW-4 claimed that he had advised the accused several times not to so tease her, but he did not stop. As a result, Jameel had removed the accused from the employment. On the date of occurrence at about 10.30 A.M., the witness was at home with his friend Jaffar whilst his sister was working on a sewing machine. The accused went to their house armed with a desi katta (revolver); he sat near his sister. This was objected to by PW-4 and his friend Jaffar too supported him. At this, the accused fired at Jaffar with his revolver on the chest as a result of which Jaffar fell down and the accused started running. PW-4 chased the accused and tried to catch hold of him. With the help of Nissar Ahmed and Masloor Hussain, he apprehended the accused and snatched the revolver from him.

(3.) MS . Nandita Rao, learned amicus curae who assisted the court during the hearing, on behalf of the Appellant, urged that the motive urged by the prosecution in this case is weak and unbelievable. It was submitted that the Appellant's employment and the alleged incident of his teasing PW-4's sister (the latter deposed as PW-5 in the trial) occurred about 6 months prior to the incident. This was nowhere established because the employer, Jameel, who allegedly terminated the Appellant's employment was never examined during the trial. There was thus, no reason for the Appellant to even have gone to the house of PW-4, and picked up a quarrel, and shot the deceased, Jaffar, with whom, concededly he had no quarrel or against whom he bore no grudge.