JAKIR IBRAHIM KHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the order dated 27-4-1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 5 of 1987 on his file. Appeal No. 2 of 1988 is preferred by original accused No. 1 Jakir Ibrahim Khan and Appeal No. 8 of 1988 is preferred by original accused No. 7 Suresh Appa Thorath. Original accused Nos. 2 to 6 were acquitted of all the charges levelled against them by the prosecution.

(2.) Original accused Nos. 1 and 7 were convicted for the offences punishable under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, section 148 of Indian Penal Code section 323 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced for the first and second mentioned offences to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count and for the third mentioned offence, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. Both the accused were also convicted of a charge for offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. The substantive sentenced were to run concurrently.

(3.) According to the prosecution, the complainant Manda Shirke and her husband (deceased Laxman) lived with their children in one hut in a slum area called Sainath hutment, Shivajinagar, Pune. The building of the office of the Labour Union of the Corporation employees was being constructed in the vicinity of their residence and the work of plinth and slab was partly completed at the time of incident namely 26-9-1986. As it was a rainy season, the deceased and his family members had gone under the cover of roof over the plinth to sleep there for the night and many more persons from the vicinity also were sleeping on the said plinth at that time. At about 10.00 p.m. the present appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 7 came there and started pulling chaddars spread on each of the persons sleeping there in search of one person whom they wanted. In doing so, they pulled the chaddar with which witness Manda was covered. The deceased Laxman woke up and registered his strong protest about this act of misconduct in the context of his wife. The appellants are said to have disclosed that they were in search of one Suresh Thombare and Hussain Shaikh. There was some exchange of hot words between the deceased Laxman and the appellants. The appellants then whistled by way of a signal and invited original accused Nos. 2 to 6 to this place. Original accused No. 1 was armed with a small stick with a chain tied to it and accused No. 7 Suresh was armed with a knife. The others also possessed one or the other type of weapons. It is alleged that in the flight accused No. 7 stabbed deceased Laxman with a knife. Accused No. 1 is not said to have made any assault. Deceased Laxman then tell down in injured condition and was then attended to by the neighbours after the assailants had made their way. On his way to the hospital, he is said to have died. The matter was reported to the polici by witness Manda and a F.I.R. was recorded. P.I. Mahajan took over the investigation and completed the same. In course of time accused No. 1 and one other accused were arrested at Ambajogali, District Beed on or about 1-10-1986 and accused No. 7 was arrested on 5-10-1986. On 1-10-1986 accused No. 1 is said to have produced a stick attached with chain. On 13-10-1986 an identification parade was held at the hands of Special Judicial Magistrate. The witness Manda Shirke is said to have identified accused Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 7. Witness Arun Adsul is said to have identified accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7. Witness Deepak Pandhare is said to have identified accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5. After completing the investigation accused Nos. 1 to 7 were charge-sheeted on 17-12-1986 for offences punishable under sections 147 I.P.C. 148 I.P.C., 302 I.P.C. read with 149 I.P.C. and 323 I.P.C. read with 149 I.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had framed charge on 11-2-1987 vide Ex. 2. All of the accused had pleaded not guilty to the said charge. Their defence was of total denial. No defence witness was examined. After hearing the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that no guilt was proved against accused Nos. 2 to 5. Finding the present appellants guilty as stated at the outset he convicted them of the charges for the said offences and awarded sentences as mentioned above.