AMJAD KHAN Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No. 886 of 2001 challenges the order dated 17.10.2001 of the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 69/1999 whereby the learned Judge held the appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC and further vide his order dated 18.10.2001 sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for 3 months. The appellant was also given the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as have been noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, are as follows:- "On 2nd April, 1999 at about 11.20 a.m. Duty Constable Manoj Kumar posted at Hindu Rao Hospital informed P.S. Shalimar Bagh that one Ismail aged about 38 years, resident of 577, Haidarpur, Delhi had been 'brought dead' in the hospital by one Jenab W/o Shabbir Khan R/o 677, Haidarpur, Delhi. DD No. 16-A was recorded on this information and was entrusted to SI Inder Lal for investigation. SI Inder Lal along with Const. Rajbir Singh went to H.R.Hospital where he obtained MLC in respect of Ismail who had been declared 'brought dead' at 10.20 a.m. with the alleged history of fight. In the meantime Inspt. Joginder Kumar, Addl. SHO Shalimar Bagh had also reached H.R.Hospital. The MLC was handed over to him. One Israr met Inspt. Joginder Kumar and made a statement (Ex.PW 1/A) which when translated into English will inter alia read as under:-

(3.) The Prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 23 witnesses, of which PW-1, Israr Mohd., is the complainant while PW-2, Mohd. Yusuf, and PW-5, Naseem Ahmed, are the eye witness. Counsel for the appellant has not challenged the procedural aspect of the investigation but has chosen to rest his case by submitting that PW-2 and PW-5 are not the reliable witnesses. Their testimony contradicts each other in material aspects and, therefore, should not be made the basis of conviction. Counsel for the State has relied upon the testimony of PW-2 and PW-5 to state that these witnesses were present at the spot and they had seen the occurrence from a close distance. Minor contradictions cannot be allowed to the benefit of the accused. He contended that the judgment of the trial court is a well reasoned one and need not be interfered with.