LAWS(MPH)-2003-4-24

MOHAMMAD ASIF Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On April 25, 2003
MOHAMMAD ASIF Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against judgment dated 11-5-1990 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No. 32 of 1989 against his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of life imprisonment.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 28-9-1988 at about 1. 35 P. M. at Kabitpura, Bhopal, deceased Irfan had scuffle with the appellant and the appellant took out the knife and gave blow on the chest of Irfan. That Irfan ran towards his house and he was chased by the accused. When the deceased reached his house the accused went away saying that he will not leave him to go to the hospital. Eye witnesses of the offence are mother of deceased Khalikulnisha (P. W. 5), her daughter-in-law Kiswar Jahan (P. W. 4) and her son Taufique (P. W. 9 ). Kiswar Jahan (P. W. 4) rushed to the Police Station, Shahjahanabad and First Information Report (Ex. P-7) was recorded on that very day at about 1. 51 P. M. by Assistant Sub-Inspector R. N. Mishra (P. W. 8 ). Irfan was declared dead in the hospital and post-mortem of the dead body was conducted by Dr. J. N. Soni (P. W. 2 ). Dr. J. N. Soni (P. W. 2) has found that in the left side of the chest of deceased, there was an incised wound which had cut the lungs and the cause of the death was the shock and haemorrhage due to the injury. Investigating Officer Kuber Singh Rajput (P. W. 11) took the recovery statement (Ex. P-2) of the appellant on 29-9-1988 and a knife was recovered on his instance from nearby bushes. Investigating Officer has also prepared map (Ex. P-13) of the place of incident and after recording statements of eye-witnesses Rahman Khan (P. W. 6) and Mehruddin (P. W. 10), charge-sheet was filed against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) THE accused abjured the guilt and he in his statement under Section 313, Cr. PC denied the statement of the prosecution witnesses and pleaded false implication due to enmity.