ABDUL RASHEED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in these appeals is to the impugned judgment dated 24.11.1999 and the order on sentence dated 29.11.1999, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge thereby convicting these appellants for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life with imposition of fine of Rs.50,000/ - each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for five years each. The appellant Mohd. Yameen was also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years with imposition of fine of Rs. 20,000/ - and in default thereof to further undergo S.I. for two years. The case of the prosecution in brief can be summarized as under:

(2.) TO prove its case, the prosecution had examined 21 witnesses. Statements of all the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and in response to the incriminating evidence put to them they denied their involvement and claimed their false implication in the case. In reply to the last question calling upon them to state anything else in their defence, a common response was given which is reproduced as under:

(3.) REPRESENTING these appellants, Mr. Pramod Swarup, learned Senior Advocate strongly argued that so far as the appellants Abdul Rasheed and Abdul Hamid are concerned, the only evidence against them is that they along with the co -accused Yameen had grappled with the deceased and in the process he had fallen down. Except this limited role, no other role had been attributed to them as per the deposition of PW -5 and PW -3, the alleged eye witnesses of the incident. Counsel also submitted that it is also an admitted case of the prosecution that all the three accused persons were unarmed and they had no premeditated plan or design to carry out the murder of the deceased. Counsel also submitted that it is also an admitted case of the prosecution that it was Mohd. Yameen who brought a churri/ knife from his jhuggi and had inflicted a single blow on the person of the deceased. Learned counsel also submitted that so far the appellants - Abdul Rasheed and Abdul Hamid are concerned, they did not inflict any injury on the person of the deceased and therefore, they cannot be held liable for the unilateral act committed by the other co - accused Mohd. Yameen. Counsel also submitted that these two appellants cannot be said to have shared any common intention with Mohd. Yameen simply because they had not returned back to their jhuggis when Mohd. Yameen had gone to his jhuggi to fetch a knife and also because they never intervened to stop Mohd. Yameen from inflicting churri blow on the chest of the deceased which is the only reason given by the learned trial court to attribute these appellants having shared common intention in committing the said offence.