ANWAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Anwer has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.5.1979 of 3rd AddI. Sessions Judge, Saharanpor, in S.T. No. 342 of 1978 by which he has been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased, Soma son of Mulahar Harijan, aged about 13-14 years, used to work on the farm of Mubarak Ali and used to stay therein the night as well. Appellant Anwar, who is the son of Mubarak Ali was a person of-loose morals Somas sister Angoori went to give food to him on. 15.8.1978 when Anwar misbehaved with her. Due to this misbehaviour, exchange of words took place between Soma and him and he also held out a threat. At about 9 P.M. complainant Lachhi along with Antu and Harmal was returning to his village from Saharanpur. When they reached near the grove of Pancham Singh, which is near their village, they heard some sound from the field of Mubarak Ali and they also heard the voice of Anwar to the effect that the man had been finished. The complainant and others immediately ran towards the place from where sound was coming and they saw that Anwar was sitting on the chest of Soma and was pressing his neck and two other persons had caught hold of his hand and feet. Anwar and his companions ran away on seeing the complainant. The appellant was identified in the light of torch. Soma was already dead when the complainant reached there. Thereafter the complainant went to the village and narrated the incident. Somas father used to ply rickshaw in Saharanpur and he used-to return home in the night. A search was made for him in the night but as he could not be found a First Information Report of the incident was lodged by Lachhi at 7.20 A.M, on 16.8.1978 at P.S. Kotwali Dehat, Saharanpur, which is 7 kms. from the place of occurrence.

(3.) After usual investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant Anwar under Section 302/34 I.P.C. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined six witnesses including two eye-witnesses. The appellant Anwar in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. denied the prosecution case. He stated that Soma no doubt worked at his farm but he used to go back to his home in evening. He further pleaded that the complainant was a man of Sardar Rajpal Singh with whom he had enmity. The accused did not examine any witness in defence. The learned Sessions Judge believed the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated earlier.