RAFEEQ AHMED Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the early morning of 4-6-1989, the deceased received injuries. He died in the Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad at 5-50 a.m. on 7-6-1989. On the requisition sent by the Doctor P.W.8, the Head constable, P.W.9, went to the hospital at about 4-00 a.m. and recorded Ex.P-10 statement and forwarded Exs.P-10 and P-11 to II Town Police Station, Nizamabad. P.W.14, the Constable of II Town Police Station, Nizamabad, on receipt of Exs.P-10 and P-11 at 4-30 a.m. registered the case as Cr.No. 60/89 under Section 307 IPC and issued FIR. Ex.P-14 is the FIR sent to the Court. P.W.14 seized M.Os. 1 to 3 in the presence of P.W.5 and prepared Ex.P-3 panchanama at the scene of offence. On 4-6-1989, at about 6-10 a.m. the Magistrate P.W.13 recorded the dying declaration, Ex.P-8onreceiptofEx.P-15, requisition in the presence of P.W.8 the doctor, who certified that the patient was conscious and was in a fit condition to give the statement. That endorsement is Ex.P-9. After that the deceased was shifted to the Gandhi Hospital where an operation was conducted and thereafter he died. P.W.16, the Sub-Inspector of Police, has conducted the inquest, examined P.W.3, the first wife, P.Ws.4 and 6, the brothers of the deceased, and prepared Ex.P-5 the inquest report. The opinion of the panchas was that the deceased died of the stab injuries. P.W.12, the Doctor, conducted the post-mortem examination on 8-6-1989 at 2-55 p.m. and issued post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-12. He opined that the deceased died due to the multiple stab wounds but he had not mentioned anything about the nature of stab injuries. He did not see the patient at the time of or before the surgery on his body.

(2.) The accused made statement before P.W.15 which ultimately led to the recovery of M.O.6. The prosecution in all examined 16 witnesses out of whom, P.W.1 is the second wife of the deceased and sister of A-1. P.W.2 is a native doctor before whom the oral dying declaration was made. P.W.3 is the first wife of the deceased. P.Ws. 4 and 10 are the brothers of the deceased. The other witnesses were examined to prove the investigation and recovery.

(3.) The scene of offence, as is evident from the prosecution story, which can be accepted, is at Nizamabad where A-1 is residing. The prosecution case is that the deceased was a motor-mechanic and he effected repairs to the car which was entrusted to him by A-1. On 2-6-89, the deceased came to Nizamabad. On 3-6-89 both A-1 and the deceased went to the house of P.W. 11 where P.W.2 was also present. A-1 and the deceased discussed about the car entrusted for repairs. Ultimately, the deceased agreed to return the car after payment of Rs.35,000 /- to him by A-1 and A-1 agreed to pay that amount. At about 2-00 p.m. A-1 and A-2 entered the room where the deceased and his second wife were sleeping. A-2 caught hold of the deceased in spite of resistance by the wife and A-l stabbed the deceased, which ultimately result in his death. P.W.1 has not supported the case of the prosecution. It is natural that having lost her husband, she may try to protect her brother by retracting from her earlier statement.