MUZAFFAR KHAN Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is instituted against the judgment and order dated 2.6.2015 and 5.6.2015, respectively, rendered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chamba, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 1/13 (regd. No. 42/14), whereby the appellant -accused (hereinafter referred to as accused), who was charged with and tried for offences punishable under Ss. 302, 201, 34 IPC and Ss. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/ - for offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC and in case of default of payment of fine, he was ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He was also sentenced under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 to suffer simple imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/ - and in case of default of payment of fine, he was further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Co -accused Sahabdeen and Sardaro Begum were acquitted of the offence charged against them.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that on 19.8.2012 Mohd. Raffi telephonically informed Police Station Tissa that Muzaffar Khan has killed his wife with gunshot. S.I./Addl SHO Dharam Singh (PW -13) alongwith ASI Ravinder Singh and others proceeded to the spot. The statement of Abdul Majeed was recorded under Sec. 154 Cr.P.C vide Ext. PW -1/A. He was working on daily wages in Public Works Department. His eldest daughter is Reena Begum. His daughter Reena Begum(deceased) was married with Muzaffar Khan alias Jaffari about one and a half month back as per Muslim rites and customs. After the marriage his daughter came to his house 2 -3 times with her husband and stated that her husband used to quarrel on trivial issues. He used to taunt her that she has not brought any dowry nor she is doing the household work. He also used to say that if she will speak out, he would shot her with a gun. He had also advised his son -in -law not to pick up quarrels with his daughter. On 19.8.2012 at about 7:00 AM, he was sleeping in his house. He heard the noise near the house of his daughter Reena Begum. On hearing the noise, he and his wife Smt. Shamshad Begum went to the spot. They went to the room of Reena Begum. Mohd. Farooq, Mohd. Hanu and Pradhan Dilawar Mohd were present on the spot. Pradhan Dilawar told that Muzaffar Khan has killed his wife with gun and ran away from the spot. He saw the dead body of his daughter lying on the cot. He noticed bullet mark on her right breast. Many persons had assembled there. His daughter was killed by Muzaffar Khan alias Jaffari with gun of his father Sahabdeen. On 19.8.2012, SI Dharam Singh handed over rukka Ext. PW -1/A to Const. Rakesh Kumar (PW -6) for taking the same to Police Station Tissa. Thereafter, FIR Ext. PW -5/B was registered. The spot map was prepared. In the ground floor of the house of the accused persons there were three rooms. In the third room a gun SBML length about 53 inch with iron rod and string bearing body No. 6263 with which the accused Muzaffar Khan killed his wife was recovered and sealed in pulinda with 15 seal impressions of seal "V". It was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW -2/C. During the course of investigation, it revealed that co -accused Sahabdeen after the gun shot removed the gun from the room of accused Muzaffar and kept it in another room. Blood stains were cleaned by Sardaro Begum, wife of accused Sahabdeen with the help of duster and both Sahabdeen as well as his wife caused disappearance of the evidence. The post mortem report is Ext. PW -11/B. Viscera and case property were taken into possession and sent for chemical examination. Reports of RFSL, Mandi Ext. PX and RFSL, Dharamshala Ext. PY were obtained. On completion of the investigation, challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

(3.) The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as 13 witnesses. The accused was also examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating circumstances put to him. The learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, this appeal.