USMAN Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Smt. Nasreen w/o late Mushtaque wrote a complaint to SO, Police Station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar on 02.01.2002 regarding the killing of her daughter Afsana. According to the informant, the accused-appellant Usman s/o Abdul Sattar, who used to manufacture the bodies of trucks near Afzalgarh Road, used to come near the informant's house quite often. Informant was a widow. She had a daughter named Afsana. Usman used to tease and flirt with her daughter. A complaint was made to the family members of Usman in this respect. On 01.01.2002, when Afsana went to cut cattle grass and did not return by the evening, informant-mother made a search for her daughter. Informant's neighbours PW 2 Ram Kishore and PW 3 Shakeel Ahmad told her in the morning of 02.01.2002 that when Afsana was cutting cattle grass on 01.01.2002 at 5:00 p.m., accused Usman followed her. On having made frantic search, the informant found the dead body of her daughter Afsana in the field situated near the house of Ram Kishore. She was fired on her left temple. On the basis of said complaint, a chik FIR was lodged on 02.01.2002 at 7:30 a.m. in PS Jaspur, which was registered as case crime no. 4 of 2002 under Section 302 IPC. There appeared to be no delay in lodging the first information report.

(2.) Investigation began on the basis of such report. PW 8 SI Suresh Chandra Joshi took over the investigation of the case on 02.01.2002. He recorded the statement of the informant PW 1 Smt. Nasreen. He prepared the inquest report (Ext. Ka-2), took simple earth and blood stained earth, a memo (Ext. Ka-6) whereof was prepared. PW 8 also inspected the place of occurrence and prepared site plan (Ext. Ka-8). He affected the arrest of the accused, who was brought to the Police Station on 02.01.2002. Accused was medically examined on his request. Accused also confessed his guilt, an entry whereof was made in G.D. (Ext. Ka-9). PW 8 also visited the place of occurrence and got the country-made pistol recovered on the disclosure and pointing of the accused, a recovery memo (Ext. Ka-10) whereof was prepared. PW 8 also proved the site plan (Ext. Ka-11). PW 8 recorded the statements of three witnesses on 06.01.2002 and statements of two other witnesses on 11.01.2002. The country made pistol and the cartridge etc. were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra. PW 8 also said that the report (Ext. Ka-12) given by FSL, Agra was on the file. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-13) for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was submitted against the accused-appellant. A separate charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-18) for the offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act was also filed.

(3.) When the trial began and the prosecution opened it's case, separate charges for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act were framed against the accused-appellant Usman, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As many as 10 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. They were - PW 1 Smt. Nasreen, PW 2 Ram Kishore, PW 3 Shakeel Ahmad, PW 4 Constable Jadgish Prasad, PW 5 Khalil Ahmad, PW 6 Bundu Hasan, PW 7 Dr. S.S.Pangti, PW 8 SI Suresh Chandra Joshi, PW 9 ASI Bachi Singh Bisht and PW 10 Dr. Mukesh Gupta (formerly Medical Officer, PHC Jaspur). Incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he said that he was falsely implicated in the case. He did not explain anything in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., despite having been given an opportunity for the same. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned trial court convicted accused Usman for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and also for the offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act. He was awarded rigorous imprisonment for life and also a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in relation to the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He was awarded a year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in relation to the offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act. Aggrieved against the orders of conviction and sentence, present criminal appeals were preferred.