RIYAZUDDIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned judgment of 1st February, 2017 holds appellant guilty of the offence of murdering his wife by strangulation. Vide impugned order of 15th February, 2017, appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- with penalty clause. The facts as noted in the impugned judgment are as under:-

(2.) To prove its case, prosecution has relied upon evidence of 33 witnesses, out of whom the material evidence to which our attention has been drawn is of Arif (PW-4) and Nasim (PW-8), the witness of last seen, Mohd.Wakil (PW-23), brother of deceased regarding the motive, the postmortem report (Ex.PW-15/1), the viscera report (Ex.PW-32/E2), the medical evidence and the evidence of Investigating Officer Om Prakash (PW-32). Appellant in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. had stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case and that he was not present with his wife on the night intervening 18th and 19th October, 2014 as he had gone to Azad Pur Sabzi Mandi in the evening of 18th October, 2014 where he had stayed overnight and as there was a jagran in Sabzi Mandi and in that jagran, Yogesh, Mukesh and Allauddin were present with him and he had remained in Sabzi Mandi till 8:00 AM on the next day. Appellant had chosen not to lead any evidence in his defence. Trial Court has relied on prosecution evidence, discarded appellant's version and thus convicted and sentenced the appellant as noted hereinabove.

(3.) Learned counsel for appellant assails the impugned conviction on the ground that the prosecution version is not reliable. It is submitted that as per evidence of Nasim (PW-8) whenever appellant was not in his house, younger brother and deceased used to remain with the deceased in her room and there is no credible evidence regarding presence of appellant at the spot on the day and time of the incident. It is pointed that Arif (PW-4) and Imrana (PW-6) before whom appellant had purportedly confessed the commission of the crime have not supported the prosecution case. Regarding Mehboob (PW-10), it is submitted that this witness has also not supported the prosecution case of appellant coming out of his house at 5:00 AM on the next day of the incident i.e. 19th October, 2014. It is next submitted that Nasim (PW-8) has deposed that appellant used to go to Azad Pur Market for his work and used to return on the following morning. So, it is submitted that on the night intervening this incident, appellant was not at his house which falsifies the prosecution version of appellant murdering his wife on the night intervening 18th and 19th October, 2014.