AMJAD BIN MOHAMMED Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are accused 1 to 3 in S.C. No.215 of 1999 before the learned 33 Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The appellants/accused were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 read with 34 I.P.C. The first charge was against A.1 under Section 302 IPC. He was found guilty of the said charge and he was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The second charge was against A.2 and A.3 under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. They were found guilty of the said charge and accordingly they were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. The third charge was against A.1 to A.3 under Section 323 read with 34 I.P.C. They were found guilty of the said charge and convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. All the substantive sentences were directed to be run concurrently.

(2.) Before we proceed to consider the facts involved in the case, we would like to place on record that a wrong practice has been developed among the Sessions Judges not to frame proper charges. In the instant case, the charge against A.I was framed only under Section 302 IPC. The second charge against A.2 and A.3 was under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. That is not the correct way of framing a charge. If there is any allegation that A.1 and also A.2 and A.3, in furtherance of their common intention, committed the murder of the deceased, then the learned Sessions Judge ought to have framed the charge against A. 1 to A.3 under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and the proper second charge would have been against A.1 under Section 302 IPC, simplicitor, The Sessions Judge is required to show that the second charge against A.1 was framed as an alternative charge. This practice should be followed by all concerned. Now let us proceed to deal with the facts in the present case.

(3.) The substance of the charge against the accused is that on 17.1.1999 at about 5 p.m., infront of House No. 124, Camp No.6, Osmania University Campus, Hyderabad, A.1 caused the death of Khaja Qutubuddin by stabbing him with a knife on the left side of the chest.