IRFAN BADSHAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 16.4.2014 and order on sentence dated 21.4.2014, by which appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/323/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC; and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ - each for the offence punishable under Sections 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and in default thereof further simple imprisonment for two months.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial court in its judgment dated 16.4.2014, is as under:

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellants submits that the appellants have been convicted by the trial court without there being any evidence against them; and they have been convicted only on the basis of conjectures and surmises, and without there being any material to support the conviction. Counsel for the appellants also submits that the names of the appellants do not find mention in the report of the crime team which would show that the appellants had not been named by the eye witnesses. It is contended that the prosecution in the present case has failed to establish the place of occurrence, the time of occurrence, the manner of occurrence, the identity of the accused and the recovery alleged to have been made at the instance of the appellants. It is the case of the appellants that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. It is strongly urged before this court that the prosecution case is based upon the statement of Mrs.Grace, wife of the deceased, whose statement was supposed to have been recorded on the date of the incident i.e. 12.5.2008 at the hospital. During crossexamination this witness (Mrs.Grace) has categorically admitted that when she was in the hospital she did not know the name of the accused and thus she could not have named the appellant no.1 in the hospital whereas surprisingly the name of the appellant no.1 figures in her statement, which was supposed to have been recorded at the hospital.