CRLA/769/2010 of Mohd. Ikram , Mohd. Hussaini Alam Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 December 2014

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Both the Criminal Appeals, one through the Legal Aid andanother through an Advocate, under Section 374 (2), of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.), are preferred by theappellant – sole accused against the judgment, dated 02.11.2009,rendered in S.C. No.406 of 2009, by the I-Additional MetropolitanSessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the learnedSessions Judge found the appellant guilty of the offence punishableunder Section 307 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergoRigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years and to pay a fineof Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three (3)months for the said offence.

2. Since both the criminal appeals arise out of the samejudgment, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, in view of the fact that the issue involved in both the criminalappeals is one and the same and the adjudication of issue in oneappeal decides the another appeal, the facts in Criminal AppealNo.191 of 2010 are dealt with for adjudication.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

That the accused and PW.2 (injured) and some others areworking as embroidery workers with one Aslam, and all of them areresiding in one house in different rooms. The accused fell in love withLW.14 Miss.Gulshan Bano Aziz Khan, who used to arrange meals tothe workers. PW.2 approached LW.14 with marriage proposal and itwas under consideration of the aunt of LW.14. LW.14 informed thesame to the accused and the accused approached PW.2 and warned him not to interfere with his love affair, and took a decision to do awayPW.2. On the night of 28.10.2007 the accused, PW.2 and otherworkers slept after chit chatting for some time and in the early hours,on the next day i.e. 29.10.2007, the accused sat on PW.2 and startedbeating him and when PW.2 raised hue and cries, PW.1 and otherswoke up and at that time, the accused cut his throat with a knife. PW.2received injury on the right side of his throat. When PW.1 and otherstried to catch hold of the accused, he threatened them with direconsequences by showing the knife and thrown the knife there itselfand ran away. PW.1 and others put some clothes on the throat ofPW.2 and stopped bleeding. Fifteen minutes thereafter, police camethere and shifted PW.2 to the Osmania General Hospital for treatment. After recording the statement of the injured, PW.11 – Sub-Inspector ofPolice registered a case in Crime No.206 of 2007 under Section 307IPC against the accused. He examined the witnesses and recordedtheir statements, visited the scene of offence, conducted observationpanchanama, drew sketch and seized material objects in the presenceof the mediators. The accused was apprehended on 30.10.2007. After recording the confessional statement of the accused in thepresence of mediators, he was sent to judicial custody. PW.10 treatedPW.2 and issued medical certificate with his opinion that the injuriesare simple in nature. After completion of the investigation, the policefiled charge sheet.

4. On appearance of the accused before the trial Court, thecharge under Section 307 IPC was framed against him, read over andexplained to him, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

5. During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 11 were examined andExs.P.1 to P.8 and M.Os.1 to 6 were marked on behalf of theprosecution. No oral evidence or documentary evidence was adducedon behalf of the accused.

6. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, thetrial Court found the appellant - accused guilty of the offence underSection 307 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him asstated above. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed Crl.A.No.191 of 2010 through legal aid, and also Crl.A. No.769 of 2010through another Advocate.

7. Heard and perused the entire material available on record.

8. After evaluating the evidence and after examining thematerial available on record, this Court is of the view that there are novalid reasons to interfere with the Judgment of the trial Court inconvicting the appellant – accused for the offence under Section 307IPC, as the trial Court appreciated the evidence in its properperspective.

9. When this Court pointed out that there are no merits in theappeals, learned counsel for the appellant, confined his argumentsonly to the quantum of sentence, and prayed that a lenient view maybe taken while imposing sentence, since the appellant is in prisoneversince the date of his apprehension.

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case andthe time elapsed, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence ofimprisonment imposed against the appellant for the offence underSection 307 IPC by the trial Court to that of the period, which theappellant has already undergone.

11. In the result, the conviction recorded against the appellant -accused by the Court of the I - Additional Metropolitan SessionsJudge, Hyderabad, in S.C.No.406 of 2009, by Judgment, dated02.11.2009, for the offence under Section 307 IPC, is hereby confirmed. However, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by theCourt below is modified to rigorous imprisonment for five (5) yearswhile setting aside the sentence of fine. The period alreadyundergone by the appellant – accused shall be given set off.

12. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.191 of 2010 is partlyallowed. In view of the disposal of Crl.A. No.191 of 2010, no ordersneed be passed in Crl.A. No.769 of 2010 and hence, the same isclosed.

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, standdismissed.

______________

RAJA ELANGO, J

December 30, 2014.

KTL