SAHUL HAMEED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are accused 1 and 2 respectively in Sessions Case No. 64 of 1988 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. Under charge No. 1 the first appellant, who hereinafter will be referred to as the first accused (A-1), was charged for an offence of murder on an allegation that at 2.30 a.m. on 26-5-1987, he stabbed Fazal Hasuf, the deceased in the case, with a knife, M.O.I, as a result of which the said Fazal Hasuf died and the second charge was framed against the second appellant, who will be hereinafter referred to as the second accused (A-2), under Section 302 r/w 109 IPC with an allegation that he abetted A-1 to stab the deceased and that A-1 stabbed the deceased Fazal Hasuf on account of the said instigation. The learned Sessions Judge, on the evidence adduced, convicted and sentenced each of the accused to suffer imprisonment for life.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is this: P.W. 1 is the father of the deceased and P.W. 10 is the elder brother of the deceased. They were residents of Jayalani Street. Tuticorin. P.W. 1 was working in Madura Coats and retired and the deceased was working as a Loadman of mangoes. On 25-5-1987. P.W. 8 accompanied by 8 girls, who are known to P.W. 1 while he was at Madurai went to the house of P.W. 1 to stay for the night. They had gone there with a view to obtain certificates from a school. The girls were desirous of going to a movie and the deceased accompanied them. After sending the girls and the deceased, P.W. 1 went to his elder brother's house to take his bed. In the meantime while the deceased was proceeding to a theatre with P.W. 8 and other girls, he met A-1 and A-2. A-1 and A-2 asked the deceased to send two of the girls with them. The accused were taken to task by the deceased. Thereafter, they went to a theatre, witnessed a movie and returned home. The deceased after leaving the girls in his house, proceeded to the tea-stall run by P.W. 9 to take tea. On the way, he met A-1 and A-2 as well as his friends P.Ws. 3 and 4. All of them went to the teastall and then were returning. P.W. 4 was proceeding to a mosque for prayer and saw the accused coming from west. The deceased was following P.W. 4. The accused asked the deceased to stop and were seen talking with the deceased. When P.W. 4 reached a junction of South Street and New Street, he heard that derogatory remarks were made against the sisters of the accused. The deceased was also seen slapping A-2. A quarrel ensured between the parties resulting in a scuffle. At that time, A-2 held the hands of the deceased and asked A-1 to stab him. A-2 took a knife. M.O.I, from his waist and stabbed the deceased on the left flank. P.W. 4 was threatened not to divulge the incident and the accused thereafter ranaway from the scene. P.W. 10, the elder brother of the deceased, was returning after his prayer and heard that his brother had been stabbed to death. P.W. 10 thereafter went and informed P.W. 1 that his brother had been stabbed to death. P.W.1 went to the scene of occurrence and found his son lying with a stab injury., Thereafter, he proceeded to Tuticorin Central Police Station, where he gave a complaint, Ex. P-1 to P.W. 14, the Head Constable, who, on the basis of the said complaint, registered a case in Crime No.473 of 1987 under Section 302 IPC by preparing express reports Ex. P-14 is a copy of the printed First Information Report. Express reports were despatched to the Higher officials and to the Court.

(3.) Investigation was taken up by P.W. 16, the Circle Inspector of Police, Tuticorin Central Police Station, who reached the scene of occurrence by 7.45 a.m. where he prepared an observation mahazar, Ex. P-8. He also drew a rough sketch, Ex. P-16. Inquest over the dead body of Fazal Hasuf was conducted between 6.45 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. Ex. P-17 is the inquest report. P.W. 16 also seized M.Os. 2,3 and 4 under a mahazar Ex. P-9 attested by P.W. 11. The dead body was sent with a requisition for conducting autopsy.