GHULAM MOHAMMAD Vs. REX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GHULAM Mohammad, aged twenty -five years, resident of the city of Muzaffarnagar, has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 302, Penal Code, and sentenced to death. He appeals against that conviction and there is also the reference by the learned Sessions Judge for the confirmation of the death sentence.

(2.) THE prosecution case was that on 7th January 1948, Ghulam Mohammad appellant, Mohammad Ayub deceased and Laiq Ahmad, a boy of fourteen, came out of the Novelty Talkies at about 9 P. M. Mohammad Ayub was demanding from the boy Laiq Ahmad to repay Rs. 3,000, but Laiq Ahmad stated his inability to pay the amount, Ghulam Mohammad is said to have intervened and to have asked Mohammad Ayub not to tease the boy. This intervention by Ghulam Mohammad was not liked by Mohammad Ayub and he gave a shoe beating on the face of Ghulam Mohammad. Upon this, Ghulam Mohammad took out a knife from his pocket and struck Mohammad Ayub with it. Kalu Ram constable happened to be nearby at the shop of a milkman. His attention was attracted by the noise caused and he arrived at the scene. He found Mohammad Ayub severely injured. He took Mohammad Ayub on a thela to the Kotwali, arrested Ghulam Mohammad on the spot and took into his custody the blood stained knife from the hands of the appellant. It is said that there was also a blood -stained muffler on the body of the appellant and he took it also in his custody. Mohammad Ayub died soon after. The post mortem report shows that there were five stab wounds and one incised wound on the person of Mohammad Ayub. Some of these stab wounds were on the vital parts of the body. The report was lodged at the thana by Kalu Ram constable and therein he mentioned Ghulam Mohammad as the assailant and the fact that he snatched the knife from the hands of the appellant on the spot.

(3.) BEFORE the committing Magistrate the appellant denied having caused any injuries to Mohammad Ayub. He said that the knife did not belong to him. He admitted that the muffler was his. He ascribed the case against him to enmity with Kalu Ram constable and with the prosecution witness Yunis. Before the learned Sessions Judge he went to the extent of even denying to have gone to the cinema on the night of the occurrence. Nor did he give any explanation as to how Ayub received the injuries.