ANEES Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Anees impugns the judgment and the order on sentence dated 28.07.1998 passed in Sessions Case No.176/ 1996 arising out of FIR No.728/ 1995 whereby he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) for committing murder of his wife Saira and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) FACTS leading to the registration of FIR No. 728/ 1995, Police Station Gokal Puri and appellant's trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC can be culled out from para 3 of the impugned judgment as under: -

(3.) SHAHEENA (PW -3) did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. The Trial Court opined that Shaheena (PW -3) was between the devil and the deep sea as she did not want to lose her father (the appellant) after having lost her mother in the gruesome incident of 29.12.1995 and thus, her non -supporting the prosecution case was explainable. The alleged recovery of the weapon of offence, i.e. dagger Ex. P -1 was held to be immaterial as the same was not connected to the offence because of absence of any blood thereon. The Trial Court rejected the appellant's explanation that deceased Saira suffered injuries at the hands of two unknown intruders and in the absence of any plausible explanation as to how the deceased suffered injuries and the appellant being the only person present with her (Shaheena being a small child of five years), held the appellant guilty for Saira's murder and convicted him. The Trial Court rejected the explanation given by the appellant on the ground, inter alia, that the appellant could not have escaped with some superficial injuries while his wife (the deceased) received 14 incised injuries, out of which three were fatal injuries, i.e. injuries No. 10, 11 and 12 which individually and collectively were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In para 25 of the impugned judgment, the Trial Court observed as under: -