MEHMOOD Vs. STATE DELHI ADMN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed against the judgement dated 7. 3. 1996 of the Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC for murder of Mohd. Afzal, the deceased and the order of sentence of even date whereby the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000. 00 and in case of default to pay fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of four months. The appellant has also been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (1) year.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is limited. The appellant and the deceased were neighbours residing in Gali No. 5, chauhan Bangar, Delhi. On the fateful day of 8. 1. 1988 at about 1:30 p. m. an altercation ensued between the deceased and Shrimati Anarkali, mother of the appellant. In the evening at about 9:30 p. m. when the deceased was returning towards his house the appellant accosted him as to why he had abused his mother on that day? This resulted in exchange of hot words between the appellant and the deceased. The appellant entered into his house and came out with a chhuri (kitchen knife) whereafter he started abusing the deceased. On being asked not to do so the appellant stabbed the deceased on the left side of his armpit and on his chin as a result of which the deceased received injuries which he pressed with a sheet/shawl and rushed towards his house where he fell in front of his house. The appellant fled from the spot. This occurrence was witnessed by the neighbours including PW-1, faqruddin, and PW-5, Akram. The case of the prosecution is based on the ocular testimony of PW-1, as PW-5 turned hostile during the recording of his testimony. The appellant was enlarged on bail in pursuance to the order dated 21. 3. 2002 but did not put an appearance for hearing of the appeal. The bailable and non-bailable warrants have remained unexecuted and the whereabouts of the appellant are not known. The surety has also sold the property and left and is not available. A status report in this behalf has been filed in Court which is taken on record.

(3.) WE have gone through the record of the trial court and perused the impugned judgement as also the grounds of appeal.