BASIT ALI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal at the instance of the accused-appellants basitali alias Nawab and Sirajuddin alias Siraj against their conviction for the offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the learned Second Additional Sessions judge, Bhopal on 12-1-1973 in Sessions Trial No. 152 of 1972.

(2.) THE facts, leading to the appeal, are that Vinod and the accused-appellants were on inimical terms. According to the prosecution story, on 23-6-1972, Vinod Kumar son of Durgaprasad set out from his house at about 5. 30 A, M. for opening the hotel, which was situate at a distance of about 300 ft. from his residential house. The locality, where the deceased resided and had his hotel, is known as Jahangirbad market in Bhopal town Both the accused Nawab and Siraj followed him on way from his house near the hotel of one Narayan. The accused-appellant Siraj caught hold of the deceased from behind and the other accused-appellant Nawab stabbed Vinod Kumar with a knife on the region of his chest. Vinod Kumar fell down and died on the spot. The accused persons ran away from the spot immediately in different directions through two lanes nearby-one going towards the grain market and other going towards the girls school. Laxman Rao, a servant working in the hotel of the deceased, while coming to the residential house of the deceased to find out as to why the deceased had not come with the keys of the hotel to open the same, saw Vinod Kumar lying on the road near the hotel of Narayan. He informed durgaprasad, father of the deceased. Durgaprasad immediately, with his other son Shyamsunder, rushed to the spot. They arranged for a taxi immediately to take Vinod Kumar to hospital where he was declared dead. Shyamsunder, the brother of the deceased informed the police station on telephone that his brother Vinod Kumar has been killed and thereafter the police officers came to the hospital, recorded the first information report lodged by Durgaprasad, father of the deceased and commenced investigation.

(3.) IN the trial Court, and also before us, it was not disputed by the appellants that Vinod Kumar died homicidal death due to the injuries inflicted on him. It was also not disputed that the accused-appellants and the deceased were on inimical terms. The defence of the accused was of innocence. It was contended that due to enmity, they have been falsely implicated by creating the concocted evidence of Kaluram, the only eye-witness connecting the accused persons with the offence, and the evidence of Mohan, Kanahaiyalal, Rammanohar Constable and Balkishan to corroborate the false version of Kaluram. According to the accused persons, the evidence of Kaluram (P. W. 2) was highly improbable and that the conduct of this witness, at the time of incident, as deposed by him and other witnesses, was also unnatural and not worthy of reliance. Though there was nothing to suggest that this eye-witness Kaluram (P. W. 2) had any animus against the accused persons, it was contended that because this witness resides in the same neighbourhood and that the father of the deceased was residing as tenant in a portion of the house belonging to the brother of this witness, he might have been interested in helping the cause of Durgaprasad.