MOHD. HANIF Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING dissatisfied by the common judgment rendered in ST No.213/90, ST No. 15/91 and ST No.43/91 on 31.3.9217.4.92 by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam, thereby convicting the appellant Mohd. Hanif for an offence punishable under section 302 IPC and the appellants Mohd. Salim and Mohd Jameel for offence punishable under section 302/34 IPC and sentencing each of them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/ - and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of six months with a direction that the sum of Rs. 15,000/ - be paid to the widow of the deceased Mumtazali 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 20.6.90, the deceased and his son Shakir Ali (PW 10) had gone to attend the Court at Jaora. At about 11.45 A.M. the appellants Mohd. Salim and Mohd. Jameel 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 (PW 10) , who reported it immediately to his counsel, Abid Ali (PW 7) Shakir Ali (PW 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 performed by Dr. V.V. Purohit (P.W.4) who gave his report Ex.P/7. Spot map (Ex.P1) 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 ST No.43/91)were committed for trial. The appellants Mohd. Salim and Mohd. Hanif on 17.1.91 and Mohd. Jameel on 14.2.91 were charged under Sec.302/34 IPC and in the alternative u/s 302 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On trial, they were convicted and sentenced as above.

(3.) SHRI G.S. Chouhan learned Dy. Government Advocate on the other hand, strenuously supported the judgment and labeled PW 10 as a natural and wholly reliable witness. The judgment, counsel submitted, did not warrant any interference. It was thus vigorously urged that the conviction merited to be maintained.