AKHTAR ALI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was placed on trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Kota for having committed murder of his own minor daughter Afroz Learned Judge, vide judgment dated Oct. 29, 1999 convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- Under Sec. 302 IPC:-

(2.) The factual scenario of the prosecution case is that the appellant instituted a report on Aug. 12, 1997 at 8.00 A.M. with the police station Udyog Nagar, Kota to the effect that his daughter Afroz aged 6 years was missing. Police Station Udhyog Nagar, Kota registered the report in Rojnamcha and initiated search proceedings. Thereafter, Smt. Raise PW 3 mother of Afroz on Aug. 15, 1997 around 11.30 A.M. orally informed Police Station Udyog Nagar. Kota that the appellant made confession before her that he had killed Afroz and concealed her body. On the basis of the said report, Police Station Udhyog Nagar, Kota registered a case under Sections 302 read with Sec. 201 Penal Code against the appellant and investigation commenced, on the basis of the information supplied by the appellant, dead body of Afroz got recovered from the Bada adjacent to the house of appellant. Post mortem on the dead body was conducted and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. In due course, the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Kota. Charge under Sections 302 and 201 Penal Code were framed against the appellant, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as witnesses in support of its case. In his explanation under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C., the appellant claimed innocence. However, no witness was examined in defence. The learned trial Judge, on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated hereinabove.

(3.) Mr. Azad Ahmed vehemently criticised the impugned judgment and 1 canvassed that no reliance could be placed or: the testimony of Kallu PW 4 who was a child and was under undue influence of his mother. Learned counsel next contended that the appellant never made any confession before his wife Raisa and false case was concocted against him. Learned counsel further contended that testimony of Kallu has not been corroborated by medical evidence as no injury was found on the head of the deceased.