MAQBULAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant, Smt. Maq bulan, lived in the Ahata Kapur in Mohalla Ajitganj of Kanpur city. Adjacent to the quarter in which she was living is the quarter of Smt. Sampati who objected to undesirable persons visiting Smt. Maqbulan. According to Smt. Maqbulan, it was Srimati Sampati who used to meet undesirable persons. Both women, however, alleged that an incident took place on 18th June, 1961, as a result of an exchange of hot words between them. A complaint lodged by Smt. Sampati (P.W. l) under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. was pending against the Appellant when, on 22nd June, 1961, at about 2 p.m., there was an incident between the two women which gave rise to the prosecution of the Appellant on a charge for an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. The Appellant has been found guilty and sentenced to four year's R.I. by a Civil and Session's Judge of Kanpur.

(2.) THE prosecution allegation was that Smt. Maqbulan began to abuse Smt. Sampati, and, at a time when Smt. Sampati was opening the lock of her quarter, started inflicting injuries upon Smt. Sampati with a knife. Smt. Sampati raised a hue and cry which attracted Smt. Parwati (P.W. 4) Smt. Munni (P.W. 5) and Siya Dulare (P.W. 3) as well as Dr. Somanath Batra (P.W. 2) who saw various parts of the fight between the two women in the course of which Smt. Sampati caught hold of the hair of Smt. Maqbulan because Smt. Maqbulan had started inflicting injuries with a knife on her stomach. Smt. Sampati took a brick and hit Smt. Maqbulan on the head. Finally, Smt. Maqbulan threw her knife into her own quarter and rushed out and was caught near a school called "Budhpuri School" after running for some distance and taken to police station Bahuparwa where an F.I.R. was lodged on 22.5.1962 at 2. 45p.m. The learned Sessions Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses depose, accepted the version of the prosecution witnesses. It may be observed that the counter version of Smt. Maqbulan, that the aggression started from the side of Smt. Sampat and her supporters, was not sought to be proved by any evidence in defence although Smt. Maqbulan's own fanvil it said to reside in her quarter. Neither Smt. Maqbulan nor anyone else on her behalf lodged any report alleging any attack upon Smt. Maqbulan. When the Investigating Officer brought Smt. Maqbulan to the place of occurrence, Smt. Maqbulan is said to have pointed out the knife (Ex.1) with which she is said to have attacked Smt. Sampati. A site plan was duly prepared and blood stained earth was taken from the place of occurrence which is shown in front of the quarter of Smt. Sampati.

(3.) THE evidence of the prosecution witnesses has been assailed on the ground that they could not be held to have seen the beginning of the occurrence. The statement of Dr. Batra (P.W. 2) was pointed out in particular where it is found that the two women were grappling with each other when he arrived. He seems to have arrived at a later stage than the other witnesses. He stated that he saw the throwing away of the knife by Stat Maqbulan and attended to the injuries or Smt. Sampati. He seems to have exaggerated one of the injuries on the stomach of Smt. Sampati by stating that a part of intestine or some fat had come out which he put back before bandaging the stomach. Under cross -examination, he was unable to give sufficient details. Smt. Sampati was, however, examined by Dr. Rastogi on 22 -6 -1962. He found four incised wound, out of which one was on the stomach, two on the left shoulder, and one on the head, and one lacerated wound on Smt. Sampati. These injuries show a determined attempt to wound and they corroborate the prosecution version that the two women were interlocked in a struggle at the time when some of the injuries were inflicted upon Smt. Sampati. They repelled the defence version given by Smt. Maqbulan that the injuries of Smt. Sampati were the result of a fall. Dr. Rastogi was specifically questioned on this matter and Stated that the injuries on the body of Smt. Sampati could not be caused by a fall, It very surprising that the doctor was so careless as not to note the time of the examination of Smt. Sampati and (sic) to mention the duration of the injuries. This, however is not sufficient to prove that there was anything suspicions about the injury report. It was not questioned on behalf of the accused that Smt. Sampati received the injuries at the time alleged. The Appellant only set up the plea that the injuries were caused by a fall which version runs completely counter to the injury report and the doctor's evidence.