LAWS(DLH)-1986-3-32

MATLOOB HASSAN Vs. STATE OF DELHI

Decided On March 04, 1986
MATLOOB HASSAN Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant together with one Mohinder Singh who has also preferred a connected appeal, Cr1. A. No. 242 of 1985, where charged by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, under section 302/34 I.P.C. and were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The conviction order was pronounced on 31st July, 1985 while the order sentencing them to life imprisonment was pronounced on 2nd August, 1985.

(2.) The victim in the case is one Vina Jam, wife of Padam Kumar Jam, resident of E-650, Jagjit Nagar. The date of the incident is the night intervening 20th and 21st November, 1982. The deceased is alleged to have gone on that night to witness Ram Lila show along with her children while her husband had stayed behind and had gone to sleep. Her husband Padam Kumar Jam woke up at about 2 a.m. and found that even though all his children had returned, his wife Vina Jam, deceased, had not come back. He awakened his daughter Neelam and on enquiry she told him that since they had felt sleepy, they had returned home leaving their mother behind. Padam Kumar Jam became apprehensive and went in search of the deceased. On reaching Pant Gali, Arvind Mohalla, he found a crowd and the police. He went there and saw his wife Vina Jam lying dead with three stab injuries. S.I. Har Sarup recorded his statement which forms the basis of F.I.R.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the material on which the conviction and sentence has been based, we find, that the controversy in fact falls within a short compass. The cause of death, the injuries sustained by the deceased and the weapon of offence used is not in dispute. It is, therefore, not at all necessary for us, to make reference to the evidence tendered by P.W. 11 Dr. L.T. Ramani. Mr. Khan has urged before us that the evidence adduced to in this case, is such, that no implicit faith can be placed on it and in any case no conviction could be based upon it.