ALLAUDDIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present criminal appeal is to the impugned judgment dated 01.06.2011 and order on sentence dated 04.06.2011 whereby the Appellant­Allaudin was convicted for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with the payment of fine of Rs.1,000/ - and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

(2.) IN brief the case of the prosecution is as under: - On 10.04.2010, DD No. 58A was lodged regarding a person getting stabbed at Murga mandi at PS Kalyan Puri. PW -3, HC Rajesh Kumar reached at the spot. He met Ct. Javed (PW9) and Ct. Sudesh (PW4), beat constables of that area. Accused Allaudin was in their custody. They told him that injured Mohd. Vakil was sent to hospital through PCR. Leaving the accused Allaudin in the custody of PW -4, PW -3 went to LBS hospital. PW -3 then collected the MLC of Mohd. Vakil. Doctor handed over two pulandas containing clothes of the injured to him. Since injured was declared not fit for statement, PW -3 recorded statement of PW -4, prepared rukka and through PW -4, got the FIR registered. He later returned at the spot. Inspector Sudhir Sharma (PW -18) also reached at the spot and further investigation was conducted by him. IO, PW -18 arrested the accused. During the interrogation the accused made a disclosure statement and led the IO PW -18 to Murga Mandi. He got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. the knife, from the dry drain adjoining the boundary wall of Murga Mandi. IO seized the same in one pulanda. IO prepared a site plan and got the scene of crime photographed. Injured Mohd. Vakil died in the hospital. IO further collected the death summary and did inquest proceedings. After the post -mortem, he handed over the dead body to the relatives of the deceased . Charge u/s 302 was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) ADDRESSING arguments on behalf of the appellant, Ms. Anita Abraham, Advocate, submitted that the impugned judgment and order on sentence passed by the learned Trial Court are erroneous both on law and facts. Counsel further argued that the testimony of the alleged eye witness PW -1 is totally unbelievable because of inherent inconsistencies in his deposition before the court. Pointing out the inconsistencies, counsel submitted that PW -1 in his examination -in -chief stated that he saw that when Mohd. Vakil was putting the phone back on the box in the STD booth, accused Allauddin stabbed Mohd. Vakil, three times on his neck, once on his back and once in his abdomen but in his cross -examination he stated that he did not see the accused stabbing Mohd. Vakil. Counsel further submitted that in the first statement i.e. rukka nothing has been mentioned about the presence of PW -1 at the scene of crime. Further PW -1 was not able to state as to who all constituted the police party that was present at the time of recovery of the knife. Counsel further pointed out that PW -1 in his cross -examination stated that Beat Constable Sudesh and Constable Javed were not present at the time of recovery of the said knife and this statement given by this witness runs contrary to the version of the prosecution. Counsel also pointed out that the accused again stated that he accompanied police party in the recovery of knife and that they were three in number. The counsel for the appellant further submitted that such inconsistencies on the part of PW -1 clearly show that the entire testimony of PW -1 is based on concoction in order to falsely implicate the appellant and the same deserves outright rejection.