IQBAL MANSOORY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is Accused No. 1 in S.C. No. 140 of 2006 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri. The respondent police laid a charge-sheet against a total number of 7 persons including the appellant herein. But, 3 persons arrayed as-accused in the police report by name (1) Rajendra Sharma @ Pandit Sharma @ Rajkumar, (2) Soni @ Kembasoni and (3) Rajarathinam absconded. Therefore, the case against them was split up by the learned Magistrate and the same is pending separately. Thus, 4 persons namely (1) Iqbal Mansoory @ Iqbal Khan [A1, the appellant herein] (2) Jaleelshah [A2]; (3) Mohammed Isan @ Hasan [A3]; and Balakrishnan [A4] faced the trial. The trial court framed as many as three charges against the accused. The first charge is against A1 to A4 for the offence under Sec. 120-B r/w 302 of IPC; the second charge is under Sec. 302 of Penal Code against the appellant (A1) alone; and the third charge is under Sec. 27(1)(b) of The Arms Act against A1 alone. By judgement dated 19.04.2011, the trial court acquitted A2 to A4, but however, convicted the appellant (A1) alone under Sec. 302 of Penal Code and under Sec. 25(1)(b) of The Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000.00 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five months for the offence under Sec. 302 of Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Sec. 27(1-b) of the Arms Act. Challenging the above said conviction and sentences, A1 is before this court with this criminal appeal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- The deceased in this case was one Madhanagopal. He was an Advocate by profession practicing in the Madras High Court as well as before the Subordinate Courts. P.W.1 is his daughter and P.W.2 is his wife. They were all residing at Alandur in Chennai. A3, A4 and the absconding accused Rajarathinam were all involved in NARCOTIC offences. When the NARCOTIC drug was transported from Madhya Pradesh to Bangaluru, A4 was arrested. The deceased had married the sister of A1 also. A4 had the feeling that it was the deceased who gave intimation to the authorities which resulted in his arrest. All these accused were acting in a gang involving in NARCOTIC Drug smuggling. Because of the above occurrence, it is alleged that all these four accused along with the three absconding accused hatched conspiracy to do away with the deceased. The conspiracy took place in Madhya Pradesh and in Central Prison at Bangalore.

(3.) When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Sec. 313 of Crimial P.C. he denied the same as false. They did not choose to examine any witness, however, they marked the Remand Report of A1 dated 25.11.2002 as Ex.D.1 and an order of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, as Ex.D.2. Their defence was a total denial.