MD KHADEER KHADEER Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals arise out of the judgment in Sessions Case No. 20 of 1994, dated 29th June, 1996 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

(2.) Before the trial Court, the accused were tried for the following charges, viz., Firstly, that you A-1 to A-3 on or about 23-2-1993 at about 7.45 p.m. at Red Hills, Hyderabad, in furtherance of your common intention, did commit murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of Haji Mohd. Yakub by stabbing him with knives and that you thereby committed an offence punishable u/Sec. 302 r/w 34 IPC; Secondly, that you A-1 to A-3 on or about 23-2-1993 at about 7-45 p.m. at Red Hills, Hyderabad in furtherance of your common intention, committed robbery of property of net cash of Rs. 2,32,018/- and eight demand drafts for Rs. 1,60,000/- belonging to Haji Mohd. Yakub and that you thereby committed an offence punishable u / Sec. 392 Thirdly, that you A-1, on the date, time and place as mentioned in charge No. 1 supra and during the course of same transaction, were found in possession of a knife, in a notified area, without being in possession of a licence duly issued in this behalf by a competent authority appointed by Government and that they by committed an offence punishable u/Sec. 25(IB) of the Arms Act; Fourthly, that you A-2 on the date, time and place as mentioned in charge No. 1 supra and during the course of same transaction, were found in possession of a knife, in a notified area without being in possession of a licence duly issued in this behalf by a competent authority appointed by Government and that thereby committed an offence punishable u/Sec. 25(1B) (a) of the Arms Act; Fifthly, that you A-3 on the date, time and place as mentioned in charge No. 1 supra and during the course of same transaction, were found in possession of a knife, in a notified area, without being in possession of a licence duly issued in this behalf by a competent authority appointed by Government and that thereby committed an offence punishable u/Sec. 25 (IB) (a) of the Arms Act; Sixthly, that you A-1 to A-4 on the date, time and place as mentioned in charge No.1 supra and during the course of same transaction, agreed to kill Haji Mohd. Yakub, an illegal act by stabbing him to death and was done in pursuance of the said agreement and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC read with Section 120-B (i) IPC; Seventhly, that you A-1 to A-4, on the date, time and place as mentioned in charge No. 1 supra and during the course of the same transaction, agreed to do an illegal act, i.e., robbed Haji Mohd. Yakub by taking Rs. 2,32,018/- cash and eight demand drafts worth Rs. 1,60,000/- after killing him and was done in pursuance of the said agreement and that thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 392 IPC read with Section 120-B (i) IPC; Eighthly, that you A-5, on the date, time and place as mentioned in charge No. 1 supra and during the course of the same transaction after murdering Haji Mohd. Yakub by A-1 to A-3 with the criminal conspiracy of A-4, you A-5 harboured A-1 to A-4 knowing or having reason to believe them to be the offenders with the intention of screening them from legal punishment that you thereby committed an offence punishable u/Sec. 302 IPC read with Section 212 IPC; Ninethly, that you A-5, on the date, time and place as mentioned in charge No. 1 supra and during the course of same transaction, you A-1 to A-3 robbed Haji Mohd. Yakub for a sum of Rs. 2,32,018/- and eight demand drafts for Rs. 1,60,000/- with the criminal conspiracy of A-4, you A-5 harboured you A-1 to A-4 knowing or having reason to believe them to be the offenders with the intention of screening them from legal punishment and that you thereby committed an offence punishable u/Sec. 392 IPC read with Section 212 IPC; Tenthly, that you A-5, on the date, time and place as mentioned in charge No. 1 supra and during the course of same transaction dishonestly received stolen property of Rs. 5,000/- belonging to Haji Mohd. Yakub, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property and that you thereby committed an offence punishable u/Sec. 411 IPC.

(3.) The trial Court found A-1 to A-3 not guilty of the charge under Section 302 IPC read with Sec. 34 IPC, however found them guilty of the charges under Section 304 part I, IPC read with Sec. 34 IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years each. The trial Court also found the accused 1 to 3 guilty of the charge under Section 392 read with Sec. 34 IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each and directed both the sentences shall run concurrently. The trial Court found A-1 to A-3 not guilty of the other charges framed against them and acquitted them of the same. The trial Court found A-4 and A-5 not guilty of the charges framed against them and acquitted them of the same.