MOHD IRFAN ALI Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 24.1.2003 in Sessions Case No. 112/1997 on the file of IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. By the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.100/- each in default of payment of which to suffer simple imprisonment for three months under Section 302 IPC, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.100/- each in default of payment of which to suffer simple imprisonment for three months under Section 201 IPC, sentenced A1 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of which to suffer simple imprisonment for three months under Section 404 IPC, with a direction to run the substantive sentences concurrently. By the very judgment, though the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Section 120-B IPC, no separate sentence has imposed upon them.

(2.) The Prosecution case is briefly narrated as follows. P.W.4 is the nephew, P.W.5 is the brother and P.W. 10 is the sister of the deceased. The deceased worked as Deputy Secretary in the A.P. Wakf Board. A1, A2 and A5 were employees of the Wakf Board. P.W.1 worked as the Special Officer, P.W.2 as Project Officer, P.W.12 as Superintendent, Establishment, and P.W. 16 as Security Officer in the Wakf Board. A1 worked as an orderly watchman at the residence of P.W.1 situated at Chinthalabasti, Hyderabad. The said house was under demolition at the relevant time. A2 worked as Steno-Typist and A5 worked as the Car Driver under P.W.1. On 21.9.1992 P.W.15 met A1 and A2 and requested them to provide a job in the Wakf Board. P.W.15 studied only Intermediate. As there was heavy competition for jobs, A1 asked P.W.1 to pay Rs.20,000/- to provide a job, and finally after bargaining A2 agreed for Rs.15,000/-. On 10.11.1992 P.W.15 paid Rs.15,000/- to A2. A2 took P.W.15 to the office of P.W.1 and introduced him as his relative, and requested him to provide a job to him. P.W.1 asked them to meet the deceased. As the deceased was not available in the office on that day, A1 took an application form and other certificates of P.W.15 and asked him to meet later. On 23.10.1992 A2 informed P.W.15 that the deceased refused to provide job to him. P.W.15 then demanded return of his money. A2 assured him that he would somehow arrange a job in the Board. After some time, A1 approached P.W.1 and requested him to provide jobs to A4 and A6 in any post in the Board. P.W.1 again referred them to the deceased. Deceased did not oblige the request of A1. The deceased also turned down the request of A2 for higher scale of pay in preference to his seniors. He also turned down the request of A2 to provide job in the Board to his brother-in-law. On 9.11.1992, PW4 received a phone call at 7.50 pm to send the deceased to the house of P.W.1 at Chintalbasthi. When the deceased reached home at 8.10 pm she informed him about the telephone call. The deceased tried to contact P.W.1 over phone but was not successful. Therefore, to meet him personally he left to the house of P.W.1. As the deceased did not return on that day, on 10.11.1992 at about 7 am, P.Ws.4 and 10 went to the house of P.W.1 and came to know that he had never called the deceased to come to his house at Chintalbasti. Then they went to the house of P.W.1 at Chintalabasti and enquired with A1. He told them that the deceased did come there on 9.11.1992 in the night but as P.W.1 was not available in the house he returned home. He also told them that he saw the deceased talking to some strangers. Later P.W.1 lodged a report . with the police. A case was registered. Investigation was taken up. During the investigation, P.W.30 suspected A1's involvement in the crime. He found A1 to A6 absconding. On 14.11.1992 he arrested A3 and in pursuance of his confession, he recovered the dead body of the deceased. He also recovered certain incriminating articles. He held inquest over the dead body. He sent the dead body for conducting postmortem examination. After completion of usual investigation, he filed a charge-sheet. Five charges were framed against the accused. They denied their guilt. To support its case, Prosecution examined 32 witnesses and marked 48 documents besides M.Os.1 to 20. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid, challenging which the accused preferred the present appeal.

(3.) Learned Counsel for appellants contended that the circumstances relied upon by the Prosecution have not been proved. Even if they are held to have been proved, they do not form a complete chain. The Prosecution failed to examine the sole eyewitness. The motive alleged by the Prosecution cannot be said to be the motive for committing the murder of the deceased. P.W.18 was examined by the police two months after the incident and therefore it was not possible for him to identify the persons who came to his telephone booth. The voice of the caller over telephone to the house of the deceased has not been established to be that of A1. P.W.3 is totally a stranger to A1 and A2 and his identification in the Court after several years is valueless. No test identification parade was held. The arrest of A3 and recovery of the dead body at his instance cannot be believed because P.W.20 knew the location even prior to the detection of the place by the police. The recoveries have been concocted. In the earliest opportunity no suspicion has been raised against any one of the accused. On the other hand, Ex.P1 shows that the informant suspected seven persons, but not the accused. The names of PWs.3, 6, 21 and 29 have not been mentioned in any of the seven remand reports. There is no evidence that the deceased was done to death in the house of P.W.1. No bloodstains were found in the car. There is absolutely no evidence to show where the murder took place. P.W.10 did not identify that M.Os.1 to 12 belonged to the deceased. The learned Counsel for appellants, therefore, prays that the impugned order should be set aside. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contended that there is clear motive for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased as he became obstacle for their activities. A1 and A2 used to collect monies from unemployed youth for securing jobs to them, but the deceased never co-operated with them. The deceased was made to come to the house of P.W.1 in which A1 and his wife were living at Chinthalabasti by A1, by making telephone calls to the house of the deceased. A1 even admitted that the deceased visited the house. The physical features of the accused were imprinted in the minds of the Prosecution witnesses with the help of which they could identify the accused even after lapse of time, and, therefore, though test identification parade has not been held, it does not affect the case of the Prosecution. The witnesses have no enmity or grouse against the accused to implicate them falsely. A3 had exclusive knowledge about the place where the dead body of the deceased was concealed. The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record properly came to the right conclusion, and there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with it.