MOHAMMAD HAFEEZ Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 5/1/1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai Distt. Sagar in S. T. No. 161/93 whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under with the direction that all the custodial sentences shall run concurrently convicted under Sentenced to section 451 of the IPC undergo R. I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to suffer S. I. for 1 month. 354 of the IPC undergo R. I. for 2 years. 306 of the IPC undergo RI. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default, to suffer S. I. for 3 months.

(2.) PROSECUTION story, in short, may be narrated thus -

(3.) THE appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication due to prevailing animosity. In the examination, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he further asserted that it was chanda, who was solely responsible for driving the prosecutrix to commit suicide. According to him, while scolding the prosecutrix, chanda not only threatened to defame her but also to make a false complaint to her parents. Ashok Kumar (DW1), a resident of Ram ward only, came forward to support the assertion. An alternative defence of alibi was sought to be proved by summoning Pramod kumar Vyas (DW2) and Gulsher Khan (DW3), respectively the owner of Prabhat Talkies and Cinema Operator. Nevertheless, their evidence only indicated that, at the relevant point of time, the appellant was required to remain present in the Talkies to work as an Assistant Operator.