IMRAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Imran has filed this appeal impugning judgment dated 25.05.2009, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, convicting him for murder of Ravi u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The appellant has also been convicted u/s 307/34 IPC for having attempted to cause murder of Jagdish who has appeared as PW-2. The appellant has been, by order of sentence dated 27.05.2009, sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence u/s 302 IPC with fine of Rs.30,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has to undergo S.I for a period of one year. For the offence u/s 307 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to R.I of ten years and fine of Rs.20,000/-. In default of payment of fine he has to undergo S.I for six months. The fine, if recovered, has to be paid as compensation to the dependents of deceased Ravi and injured Jagdish, in equal proportion.

(2.) We have heard Mr. S.B. Dandapani, Advocate who has appeared as amicus curiae in this appeal. He has submitted that the impugned judgment suffers from various infirmities. Firstly, injured Jagdish (PW-2) was not an eye witness as he did not see who actually gave the alleged fatal blow/injuries, to the deceased Ravi. Secondly, there is no evidence to establish common intention u/s 34 IPC. Thirdly, he argued that Jagdish (PW-2) and the deceased Ravi, both had consumed alcohol and probably this led to a sudden quarrel, causing injuries. Lastly, no motive has been established and the alleged motive, referred to in the impugned judgment, is weak for conviction.

(3.) At the outset, it is to be noticed that other two coaccused,namely, Abhishek and Niranjan are juveniles and are being tried before the Juvenile Justice Board, in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The appellant Imran alone was tried before the Additional Sessions Judge and has been convicted by the impugned decision.