LAWS(DLH)-2008-2-421

HASMUDDIN Vs. STATE OF DELHI

Decided On February 15, 2008
Hasmuddin Appellant
V/S
STATE OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 20.08.2004 and order of sentence dated 21.08.2004, by virtue of which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC for murder of a five year old girl and sentenced to undergo RI for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/ - and in default of payment of fine Simple Imprisonment for one year. The case pertains to a gruesome murder of a five year old innocent girl in the most horrendous and monstrous manner.

(2.) THE facts of the case in a nutshell are that Lagmani Devi, mother of the deceased was residing in the house of one Abdul Hamid for the past five years prior to the date of the incident as a tenant along with her husband and three children. On 22.11.2002 at about 6.00 pm she was working in her house and her children were playing outside. Suddenly the electricity supply was disrupted and she went outside to call her children and found her daughter Pooja missing. During search her brother -in -law (devar) Gopal came and informed her that he had seen Pooja along with Hasmuddin (appellant herein), son of the landlord Abdul Hamid. Lagmani Devi and her brothers -in -law Gopal and Kamal (devar) started searching for the girl in the nearby streets. After searching for about two and half hours or so, they came back to their house and met Hasmuddin who told them that he had left Pooja in the street itself. At this stage, the appellant Hasmuddin also joined them in the search for the girl and after sometime he suggested that the search of the girl be continued in the morning. On the next morning at 6 O' clock, they started the search of the girl and at about 8 O' clock, the complainant Lagmani Devi along with her brother -in -law Kamal reached the Police Station. The police had received an information that a dead body of a child was lying in the bushes near Nasirpur School. The complainant reached the spot and identified the dead body of her daughter.

(3.) THE complainant stated that she had strong suspicion on Hasmuddin. son of the landlord, who had enticed the child away and then killed her, although they had no enmity with any person except Hasmuddin. Hasmuddin was unemployed and a drunkard who had fought with the complainant on the previous night under the influence of liquor and had threatened the complainant that in case she did not vacate the house she would face dire consequences.