Decided on September 04,2002

BHAIYYU Appellant


- (1.)The appellants in this appeal stand convicted under section 302 of the Indian penal Code and were sentenced to imprisonment for life. The appellant no. 1, in addition to section 302 was also convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under section 324 I PC by the trial court. On appeal the High Court did not find any good reason to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants. Consequently their appeals were also dismissed. Hence these appeals by the appellants.
(2.)The prosecution case, in brief, was that on 26th February, 1995 at about 7.30p. m. Aslam (PW 1) and Sarwar (the deceased) and the appellants were walking together and when they reached near ramanandnagar Pulia the appellants demanded rs. 200/- each from Aslam and sarwar for celebrating ID. They offered to pay Rs. 100/- each pleading their inability to pay more. On being annoyed the appellant no. 1 stabbed Aslam with knife and thereafter both the appellants started stabbing Sarwar. As many as 12 injuries were caused to the deceased sarwar and he died on the spot. After aslam was assaulted he ran away from the place of incident and lodged the FIR. On registering a case and after investigation both the appellants were charge- sheeted. The learned sessions judge after trial and after appreciating the material placed on record found both the appellants guilty for offence punishable under section 302 IPC and, he further found the appellant no. 1 punishable under section 324 IPC also.
(3.)The learned counsel for the appellants strongly contended that excepting the evidence of Aslam (the injured witness) the prosecution case was not at all supported by any other private witness. The evidence of PW 1 ought not to have been believed as to the assault by the appellants on the deceased inasmuch as aslam having suffered knife injury ran away from the place of incident as such he could see the assault on the deceased from distance, more so in the darkness. The learned counsel also contended that there were discrepancies as to the place of occurrence and there are serious contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. He lastly contended that without the aid of section 34 IPC the appellants could not have been convicted. The learned counsel for the state made submissions supporting the prosecution case. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.