LAWS(RAJ)-2002-7-176

RAOOF & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On July 24, 2002
RAOOF And ANR. Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals are directed against the judgment dated. January 11, 1996 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kota, whereby the appellants Hanif, Akku @ Sazid and Raoof have been convicted for the offence under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.200/ - in default to further undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case are that PW1 Haroon submitted a written report Ex.P1 at Police Station Gumanpura, Kota City on June 19,1993 at 8.30 P.M. It was, interalia, stated in the written report that today at 8.30 P.M. he, Abid and Ismail - had arrived at' Akash Talkies' to see movie 'Sangram'. When they were standing near Betel-shop situated in the premises of Akash Talkies, Sazid, Hanif, Daljeet Singh and Raoof armed with weapons entered inside the premises from main gate of the Talkies. Hanif was having 'Chhura' and others were having knives in their hands. It was also stated in the written report Ex.Pl and Arjoo @ Anwar Hussain son of Mukhtyar Bhai, resident of Bhistipada, Chhawani, Kota who was his neighbour, was selling cinema tickets in black market. Having entered into the premises of the Talkies Hanif caused an injury with 'Chhura' on the head of Arjoo. Thereafter Arjoo ran towards the office of Ashok Transport Company and Vishal Haryana Transport Company. The accused chased him and caught hold of him near the office of transport company. Thereafter, Raoof, Daljeet Singh and Sazid inflicted injuries with knives on the abdomen of Arjoo. Hanif caused injury on his forehead. Arjoo fell down and thereafter the accused filed-away. It was also stated by Haroon (Ex.P1) that they could not intervene because the accused were armed with deadly weapons. Arjoo died at the spot after ten minutes. Police jeep reached at the spot. They (Haroon, Abid and Ismail) took Arjoo to M. B.S. Hospital, Kota in police jeep where doctor declared him dead. Arjoo was murdered because of enmity. On the basis of this report, SHO Police Station Gumanpura, Kota City registered a case under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and investigation commenced. Formal first information is Ex.P2. Prem Shankar, I.O., reached on the spot and prepared site plan Ex.P4. Blood-smeared soil and control soil was seized and sealed vide Ex.P.6. One button was also seized from the spot and the I.O. sealed it and prepared seizure memo Ex.P15. Inquest report Ex.P7 of the dead body of Arjoo was prepared, Autopsy of the dead body was conducted by PW3 Dr. G.S. Vishnar, Medical Jurist, MBS Hospital, Kota on June 20,1993 at 9.40 P.M. and he prepared postmortem report Ex.P8. Statements under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code were recorded. All the four accused were arrested. On the information given in the police custody and at the instance of Hanif 'Chhura' was recovered from his house which was seized and sealed by Prem Shankar, l. O. vide recovery memo Ex.P22. On the information and at the instance of the remaining accused knives were recovered which are alleged to have been used in the alleged incident. Clothes of all the accused were also seized by the I.O. and he prepared recovery memos and seizure memos of all these articles. On completion of investigation a chargesheet was laid against the appellants and Daljeet Singh in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Kota (South who committed the case to the court of Sessions Judge, Kota. On transfer file was received by learned Additional Sessions Judge. Learned trial Judge framed charge under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code against the appellants and Daljeet Singh, which was denied by them and they claimed trial.

(3.) The prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses in support of its case. During trial Daljeet Singh expired. In their statements recorded under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code the appellants claimed innocence and stated that witnesses deposed against them because of enmity. In defence three witnesses were examined.