MOHAMMED HANIF Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being dissatisfied by the common judgment rendered in ST No. 213/90. ST No. 15191 and ST No. 43/91 on 31/3/19921 7/4/1992 by the 111rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam, thereby convicting the appellant Mohd. Hanif for an offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. and the appellants Mohd. Salim and Mohd. Jameel for offence punishable under section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentencing each of them 10 suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000.00 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of six months with a direction that the sum of Rs. 15,000.00 be paid to the widow of the deceased Mumtaz Au out of the fines so imposed, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

(2.) Adumbrated in brief, the prosecution story at the trial was, that on 20/6/1990, the deceased and his son Shakir Ali (P.W. 10) had gone to attend the Court at Jaora. At about 11.45 A.M. the appellants Mohd. Salim and Mohd. Jamed caught hold of the deceased and the appellant Mohd. Hanif mounted murderous attack by knife on the deceased. This incident was witnessed by Shakir Ali (P.W. 10), who reported it immediately to his counsel, Abid Ali (P.W. 7) Shakir Ali (P.W. 10) then on the advice of his counsel came to Police Station along with Ibrahim (P.W. 2) and lodged the First Information Report (Exh. P/11) at police Station, Jaora. The deceased succumbed to the injuries. The autopsy was perforated by Dr. V.V. Purohit (P.W. 4) who gave his report Ex. P/7. Spot map (Ex.P-1) was prepared. The appellants were arrested on different dates and three separate cases (Mohd. Salim - ST No. 213/90, Mohd. Hanif - ST No. 15/91, and Mohd. Jameel So No. 43/91) were committed for trial. The appellants Mohd. Salim and Mohd. Banil on 17/1/1991 and Mohd. Jameel on 14/2/1991 were charged under section 302/34 I.P.C. and in the alternative u/s. 302 I.P.C. to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On trial, they were convicted and sentenced as above.

(3.) Shri Harbans Singh Oberoi, the learned counsel for the appellants querulously questioned the correctness of the impugned judgment and directed scathing attack against it. He urged that the conviction is based on the sale testimony of Shakir Ali (P.W. 10), the son of the deceased, which is not corroborated even by the testimony of Advocate Abid Ali (P.W. 7). PW 10, urges the counsel, is thus not wholly reliable and as Such the trial Court fell into an error in recording conviction on the fulcrum of at cast partly unreliable witnesses without proper corroboration from independent source. He thus, prayed that the conviction and sentence deserved to be vacated.