HAKIM KHAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment of conviction under Section 302, IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/- passed on 31-7-1992 by Shri R. P. Gupta III Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore in Sessions Trial No. 201/91, appellant has filed this appeal.

(2.) COUNSEL for the appellant argued vehemently and submitted that conviction is based upon the sole testimony of eye-witness P. W. 1 Parvin Bi, widow of the deceased. He submitted that the testimony of P. W. 1 Parvin Bi is not reliable and she has not seen the incident. He submitted that the manner in which graphic description of the incident is given by her before the Court clearly demonstrates that she is a tutored witness who has not seen the incident. Counsel for the appellant, then, in alternative, argued that even if the prosecution case is accepted as it is, then also, this case will not amount to murder but at the most, it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the manner in which offence is committed and injury is received by the deceased, offence will be covered by illustration (c) of Section 299 of IPC. He submitted that it is not a case of murder but it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

(3.) COUNSEL for the State supported the judgment and submitted that the prosecution has established its case. He submitted that the prosecution has established that the appellant intended to cause the injury and that the injury has caused death of deceased Aziz Khan. He submitted that in the post-mortem report (Ex. P-13), it is mentioned that the incised injury has cut the carotid vessels on the right side of neck. He submitted that considering the injury described in the post-mortem report, it can safely be inferred that the injury was sufficient in the normal course of nature to cause death. Counsel for the State submitted that offence is covered by Clause 3rdly of Section 300, IPC. He further submitted that testimony of P. W. 1 Parvin Bi is wholly reliable and natural and her statement before the Court and statement before the police under Section 161, Cr. PC corroborate each other. He submitted that the defence could not point out any omission or contradiction between her two statements. He submitted that FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and if details are not mentioned in the FIR, then it will not make the prosecution case weak. He submitted that the appeal has no merit and it be dismissed.