Allahabad High Court Judgement

Allahabad High Court Judgement

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice at mail@myadvocates.club
JUDGEMENT HEADLINE : In Case Of Direct Evidence, Absence Or Weakness Of Motive Looses Significance
JUDGEMENT TITLE : Kallu Vs. State Of U.P. On 30/01/2009 By Allahabad High Court
CASE NO : CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 856 OF 1982
CORAM : Hon'ble Shiv Shanker,J. And Hon'ble Vijay Kumar Verma,J.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

AFR
RESERVED


Criminal Appeal No. 856 Of 1982


Kalloo & Others...........................................Appellants-accused.

Versus
State Of U.P. .................................... ...........Respondent.



Hon'ble Shiv Shanker, J.
Hon'ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.

(Delivered By Hon'ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.)

Challenge In This Appeal Is To The Judgment And Order Dated 25.03.1982 Passed By The 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Moradabad In S.T. No. 624 Of 1979 (State Vs. Kalloo & Others), Whereby The Appellant Accused Kalloo @ Kalwa Has Been Convicted And Sentenced To Undergo Imprisonment For Life Under Section 302 Of Indian Penal Code (in Short, 'I.P.C.'), And The Appellants-accused Smt. Sharifan, Iliyas And Ali Husain Have Been Convicted And Sentenced To Undergo Imprisonment For Life Under Section 302 Read With Section 34 IPC.
2.During Pendency Of This Appeal, The Appellants-accused Kalloo And Smt. Sharifan Have Died And Hence, The Appeal Against Them Has Been Abated Vide Order Dated 24.07.2007.
3.The Incident Resulting In The Death Of Raunaq S/o Aziz (P.W.7), Resident Of Village Ratanpur, P.S. Pakwara District Moradabad Occurred In The Intervening Night Of 28/29.09.1979. The Dead Body Of The Deceased Was Recovered From The Courtyard Of The House Of Accused Smt. Sharifan, Situated In Village Mudhia Malookpur P.S. Munda Pandey, District Moradabad. The Deceased Was The Son-in-law Of Accused Smt. Sharifan And Was Married To Her Second Daughter Shaqueena. Accused Kalloo Was Also The Son-in-law Of Accused Sharifan, Who Was Married To Her Eldest Daughter. Accused Iliyas And Ali Husain Are The Sons Of Smt. Sharifan.
4.The First Information Report Regarding The Incident Of Committing The Murder Of Deceased Raunaq Was Lodged At P.S. Munda Pandey By Chheda Lal (P.W. 1), S/o Bhoj Raj Resident Of Village Mudhia Malookpur. It Is Alleged In The First Information Report Ext. Ka 1 That Bhoj Raj, Father Of The First Informant Chheda Lal Is The Chaukidar Of Village Mudhia Malookpur. Due To His Old Age And Short Sight, The First Informant Was Patrolling In The Village In The Intervening Night Of 28/29.09. 1979. He Heard Noise From The House Of Sharifan At About 1.30 A.m., On Which He Reached There And Saw That Raunaq S/o Aziz Resident Of Village Ratanpur, To Whom Sharifan's Daughter Is Married, Is Lying Dead In The Courtyard. On Inquiry, The First Informant Came To Know That Murder Of Raunaq Has Been Committed By His Sadhu Kalloo, Mother-in-law Sharifan And Both Brothers-in-law Iliyas And Ali Husain By Means Of Gandasa. Ram Pal Singh Thakur, Ahmad Husain And Some Other Persons Of Village Were Present There.
5.Leaving Village People At The Place Of Incident, The First Informant Chheda Lal Went To P.S. Munda Pandey And Gave Oral Information About The Incident. On The Basis Of That Information, The Then Head Moharrir Jhamman Lal ( P.W. 4) Prepared Chick FIR Ext. Ka 1 And Registered A Case Under Section 302 IPC At Crime No. 181/79 On 29.09.1979 At 3.10 A.m. Against (1) Kalloo (2) Sharifan (3) Iliyas And (4) Ali Husain. Entry In G.D. No. 5 Ext. Ka 3 Was Also Made At The Same Time About Registration Of The Case.
6.S.I. Iqbal Ahmad Zaidi (P.W.6) Was Present At P.S. Munda Pandey At The Time Of Registration Of The FIR. The Investigation Of The Case Was Entrusted To Him. He Recorded The Statement Of Chheda Lal At Police Station Itself And Thereafter Proceeded To The Place Of Incident Along With Other Police Personnel. After Reaching On The Place Of Incident, The Inquest Proceeding On The Dead Body Of Deceased Was Conducted By Him On 29.09.1979, During Which Inquest Report Ext. Ka 4, Photo Lash Ext Ka 5, Challan Lash Ext Ka 6, Letter CMO Moradabad Ext. Ka 7, Letter R.I. Ext. Ka 8 And Seal Impression Ext. Ka 9 Were Prepared And Thereafter The Dead Body In Sealed Condition Was Sent Through The Constables Tota Ram (P.W.2) And Jalim Singh For Post-mortem Examination, Which Was Conducted On 30.09.1979 At 12.00 Noon. The Genuineness Of Post-mortem Report Ext. Ka 7 Has Been Admitted By The Defence Counsel. Hence This Report Is Admissible In Evidence. According To The Post-mortem Report, The Following Ante-mortem Injuries Were Found On The Person Of Deceased.
(1)Incised Wound On The Scalp Right Side...(illegable) 2cm. X 1cm X Muscle Deep.
(2)Incised Wound On The Middle Of Scalp 2-1/2 Cm. X 1cm X Muscle Deep
(3)Incised Wound On The Back Of Neck In The Middle Line 4cm X One And Half Cm. X Muscle Deep.
(4)Incised Wound On The Side Of Neck On Right Side 2cm X 1cm X Muscle Deep, 4cm Behind The Right Auricle.
(5)Incised Wound On The Right Side Of Neck, 3cm X 1cm X Muscle Deep Size 1cm Behind Right Auricle.
(6)Incised Wound On The Right Side Of Base Of Neck 4cm X 1/2cm X Skin Deep.
(7)Incised Wound On The Tip Of Right Shoulder 6cm X 0.1/2cm X Skin Deep.
(8)Incised Wound On The Neck (left Side) 9cm X 3cm X Muscle Deep, 5cm In Front Of Right Auricle.
(9)Incised Wound On The Chest 4cm X 1- 1/2cm X Muscle Deep At The Right Side Of Sternum (ulterior).
(10)Incised Wound On The Meddle Of Shaft Of Left Lower Arm 7cm X 3cm X Muscle Deep.
(11)Incised Wound On The Left Side Of Left Scapula 8cm X 1/2cm X Skin Deep.
(12)Incised Wound On The Front Of Left Scapula 12cm X 1/2cm X Skin Deep.
(13)Incised Wound On The Left Lumber Region 5cm X 1/2cm X Skin Deep.
(14)Incised Wound On The Right Wrist 5cm X 3cm X Bone Deep Underlying Bone Fractured.
(15)Incised Wound Below The Lower Lip 7cm X 1/2cm X Skin Deep.
(16)Incised Wound At The Left Side Of Right Nostril 2cm X 1cm X Skin Deep.
In The Opinion Of The Medical Officer, Who Conducted The Post-mortem Examination, The Death Was Caused About One And Half Day Back Due To Shock And Haemorrhage As A Result Of Multiple Ante-mortem Injuries.
7.After Conducting Inquest Proceedings And Sending The Dead Body For Post-mortem Examination, S.I. Iqbal Ahmad Collected Simple And Blood Stained Earth From The Place Where The Dead Body Was Found Lying And After Filling The Same In Two Containers, Fard Ext. Ka 10 Was Prepared. A Blood Stained Dari (Ext. 6) Was Found Lying On The Place Of Incident, Which Was Taken Into Possession And Fard Ext Ka 11 Was Prepared In This Regard. It Was Told By Haseena, Wife Of The Accused Iliyas, That This Dari Was Lying On The Cot On Which The Deceased Raunaq Was Sleeping At The Time Of Incident. On The Same Day One Kurta Ext. 7, Paijama Ext. 8, A Pair Of Shoes Ext. 9 Of The Deceased Raunak Were Also Taken Into Possession And Fard Ext. Ka 12 Was Prepared. The Statements Of Witnesses Ram Pal Singh And Ahmad Husain Were Recorded Thereafter. These Witnesses Had Shown Their Torches To The Investigating Officer Which Were Taken Into Possession And Given In Their Supurdagi Vide Supurdaginama Ext. Ka 2. Thereafter Site Plan Ext. Ka 13 Was Prepared By P.W. 6 After Making Spot Inspection. On The Same Day At About 4.00 P.m. The Accused Kalloo And Sarifan Were Arrested From The Railway Station Munda Pandey And On Personal Search Of The Accused Kalloo A Bag Containing One Paijama Ext. 2 And One Baniyan Ext. 3 Was Recovered And Fard Ext. Ka 14 Was Prepared. Thereafter Both The Accused Along With Recovered Articles Were Brought To P.S. Munda Pandey, Where Entry Was Made In G.D. No. 23 Ext. Ka 18. The Accused Iliyas Was Arrested By P.W. 6 On 30.09.1979 From Village Dalpatpur. Thereafter The Investigation Was Taken In His Hands By S.O. Achal Singh On 04.10.1979 Who After Completing The Investigation, Submitted Charge-sheet Ext. Ka 16 Against All The Four Accused.
8.The Baniyan, Paijama, Bag, Dari Etc. Were Sent For Chemical Examination To Forensic Science Laboratory U.P. Lucknow, Report Whereof Is Ext. Ka 18. According To This Report, Stains Of Blood Were Found On Baniyan, Paijama, Dari And Ring.
9.On The Case Being Committed To The Court Of Session For Trial, Charge Under Section 302 IPC Against The Accused Kalloo And Separate Charge Under Section 302 Read With Section 34 IPC Against The Accused Sharifan, Iliyas And Ali Husain Were Framed, To Which They All Pleaded Not Guilty And Claimed To Be Tried.
10. The Prosecution In Order To Bring Home The Charges To The Accused Persons Examined Seven Witnesses In All. P.W. 1 Chheda Lal Is The First Informant,who Had Lodged The FIR At P.S. Munda Pandey. He Is Not The Eyewitness Of The Incident. P.W. 2 Constable Tota Ram Is The Dead Body Carrier, Who Along With Constable Jalim Singh Had Carried The Dead Body Of Deceased Raunaq For Post-mortem Examination. P.W. 3 Ram Pal Singh And P.W. 5 Ahmad Husain Are Said To Be The Eyewitnesses Of The Incident Of Committing Murder Of Deceased Raunaq. P.W. 4 Jhamman Lal Is The Scribe Of Chik FIR Ext. Ka 1 And G.D. Of Registration Of The Case Ext. Ka 3. P.W. 6 Iqbal Ahmad Zaidi Is The First Investigating Officer, Who Has Proved Various Papers As Mentioned Herein-above. Charge-sheet Ext. Ka 16 Has Also Been Proved By This Witness By Recognizing The Handwriting And Signagure Of S.O. Achal Singh, The 2nd Investigating Officer. P.W. 7 Aziz Is The Father Of Deceased, Who Has Deposed Regarding The Motive Of Committing The Murder Of His Son Raunaq.
11. In Their Statements Recorded Under Section 313 Of The Code Of Criminal Procedure (in Short 'the Cr. P. C.') The Accused Persons Denying Their Participation In The Incident Of Murder Of The Deceased Raunaq Have Stated That They Are Not Aware As To Why They Have Been Implicated In This Case.
12. In Defence The Accused Persons Have Examined D.W. 1 Prem Babu Shukla Advocate, Who Has Proved Affidavit Paper No. 20-B. This Affidavit Is Said To Be Of The Witness Ahmad Husain. The Accused Persons Have Further Examined Saqueena As D.W. 2, Who Is Said To Be The Wife Of Deceased.
13. After Taking Entire Evidence Into Consideration, The Learned Trial Court Convicted And Sentenced The Appellants-accused As Stated In Para 1 Above. Hence, This Appeal.
14. We Have Heard Sri Rupak Chaubey Learned Counsel For The Accused Iliyas And Ali Husain, Sri Ram Milan Dwivedi Learned AGA For The Respondent/ State And Perused The Impugned Judgement And Entire Evidence On Record Carefully.
15. It Is Not Disputed By The Accused Persons That Dead Body Of Deceased Raunaq Was Recovered From The House Of Accused Sharifan. Even A Suggestion Was Not Put To Any Witness Denying The Recovery Of The Dead Body Of Deceased From The Courtyard Of The House. A Specific Question Was Put To The Accused Smt. Sharifan In Her Examination Under Section 313 Cr. P. C. That The Dead Body Of Raunaq Was Recovered From Her House By Darogaji (investigating Officer), Whether She Wants To Say Something In This Regard. Answer To This Question Has Been Given In Negative Meaning Thereby That The Accused Sharifan Does Not Want To Say Anything In This Regard. Similar Question Was Put To The Accused Iliyas And Ali Husain In Their Examination Under Section 313 Cr. P. C. And They Also Have Answered The Said Question In Negative. These Accused Could Deny The Recovery Of Dead Body From Their House, But In Answer To The Specific Question Framed In This Regard By The Trial Court, These Accused Have Not Stated That The Dead Body Of Deceased Raunaq Was Not Recovered From Their House. On The Basis Of The Reliable Testimony Of The Witnesses Examined By The Prosecution, It Is Fully Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt That Dead Body Of The Deceased Was Found Lying In The Courtyard Of The Accused Smt. Sharifan. This Fact Finds Corroboration From The Site Plan Ext. Ka 13 Also. Although The Dead Body Of Deceased Was Recovered From The Courtyard Of The House Of These Accused Persons, But They Have Not Furnished Any Explanation About Availability Of The Dead Body In The Courtyard Of Their House. Being Inmates Of The House From Where The Dead Body Of Deceased Was Recovered, These Accused Were Required To Furnish Explanation About Availability Of The Dead Body In Their Courtyard, But For The Reasons Best Known To Them, They Have Not Furnished Any Explanation About Availability Of The Dead Body In Their Courtyard And Recovery Thereof By The Police From There.
16. Regarding The Incident Of Committing The Murder Of Deceased Raunaq On The Alleged Date, Time And Place, The Prosecution Has Examined P.W. 3 Ram Pal Singh And P.W. 5 Ahmad Husain As Eyewitnesses. Both These Witnesses Are The Neighbourer Of The Accused Smt. Sharifan. As Would Appear From The Site Plan Ext. Ka 13, The Houses Of The Witnesses Ram Pal Singh And Ahmad Husain Are Situated Near The House Of The Accused Smt. Sharifan In Eastern And Southern Side Respectively. Both These Witnesses Have Fully Supported The Case Of Prosecution In Their Statements. Giving Sound Reasons, The Learned Trial Court Has Rightly Placed Reliance On The Testimony Of These Witnesses And We Too Find No Infirmity In Their Testimony.
17. P.W. 5 Ahmad Husain Was Examined In Trial Court On 26.02.1982. He Has Stated In His Statement That About Two Year Five Months Ago, He Was Sleeping In The Vacant Land Of Hafiz. At About 1.30 A.m. In The Night, He Awakened On The Hue And Cry From The House Of Smt. Sharifan And When He Having A Lathi And Torch Reached Near The Tree Situated In The House Of Sharifan, He Saw That The Accused Iliyas And Ali Husain Were Catching Hold Of The Legs Of Raunaq In Their Courtyard And The Accused Kalloo Was Assaulting Him By Gandasa And Smt. Sharifan Was Exhorting Saying "killed Raunaq". It Is Further Stated By This Witness That After Committing The Murder Of Raunaq, The Accused Persons Went Inside The House And Immediately Thereafter They Came Out And Went Away Saying That If Anybody Would Intervene, They Would Not Spare Him Also. P.W. 5 Has Further Stated That When Kalloo Was Assaulting Raunaq By Gandasa, He (Kalloo) Was Wearing Paijama And Baniyan, But When After Committing The Murder Of Deceased The Accused Persons Came Out From House And Went From There, Kalloo Was Wearing Shirt And Tehmad And He Was Having A Bag In His Hand. Seeing The Trousers (paijama) Ext 2 And Baniyan Ext. 3 In Court, P.W.5 Has Stated That This Paijama And Baniyan Are The Same Which The Accused Kalloo Was Wearing At The Time Of Incident. The Witness Was Subjected To Cross-examination, But Nothing Material Could Be Elicited From His Mouth So As To Discard The Credit- Worthiness Of His Statement. This Witness Has No Enmity With The Accused Persons And He Was Not Related In Any Manner To The Deceased. There Was No Reason For Him To Depose Falsely Against Accused Persons. The Testimony Of This Witness Is Wholly Reliable, On The Basis On Which It Is Fully Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt That Murder Of Deceased Raunaq Was Committed On The Exhortation Of The Accused Smt. Sharifan By The Accused Kalloo By Inflicting Injuries To Him By Means Of Gandasa And At The Time Of Assaulting The Deceased, The Accused Iliyas And Ali Husain Were Catching Hold Of His Legs.
18. Although P.W. 3 Ram Pal Singh Has Also Given Eyewitness Account About The Incident Of Murder Of Deceased In His Statement Recorded In Trial Court On 30.11.1981, But About His Arrival On The Place Of Incident, P.W. 5 Ahmad Husain Has Stated In His Cross-examination That When 10-20 Persons Of Village Had Come There At The Place Of Incident, Ram Pal Also Had Reached There Following Them. If On The Basis Of This Statement Of P.W.5 Ahmad Husain, It Is Assumed That P.W.3 Ram Pal Singh Had Not Seen The Actual Incident Of Committing Murder Of Deceased By The Accused Persons, Even Then On The Basis Of His Testimony, It Is Established That After Committing The Murder Of Deceased, The Accused Persons Went Away After Coming Out From Their House Giving Threatening And At That Time They Were Having A Bag.
19. The Oral Evidence Led By The Prosecution Finds Corroboration From The Medical Evidence. We Have Already Mentioned Ante-mortem Injuries Which Were Found On The Person Of Deceased At The Time Of Post-mortem Examination. As Many As Sixteen Ante Mortem Incised Wounds Were Found On The Person Of Deceased. All These Wounds Can Be Caused By Gandasa, Which Is A Sharp Edged Weapon. Since The Genuineness Of The Post-mortem Report Ext. Ka 17 Was Admitted By The Counsel Of The Accused Persons In Trial Court, Hence The Prosecution Was Not Required To Examine The Medical Officer, Who Conducted Post-mortem Examination, As On Admitting Its Genuineness, The Entire Post-mortem Report Including Ante-mortem Injuries Noted Therein Is Admissible In Evidence In View Of The Provisions Of Section 294 Cr. P. C. Therefore, On The Basis Of The Post-mortem Report Also, This Fact Is Established That Murder Of Raunaq Was Committed By Means Of Sharp Edge Weapon. The Post-mortem Examination On The Dead Body Of Deceased Was Conducted On 30.09.1979 At 12.00 Noon And According To The Post-mortem Report Ext. Ka 17, All The Ante- Mortem Injuries Were Caused About One And Half Day Ago By Sharp Edged Weapon. As Such The Ante-mortem Injuries Were Possible To Be Caused In The Intervening Night Of 28/29.09.1979 At About 1.30 A.m.
20. The Testimony Of The Witness Ahmad Husain Has Been Assailed By The Learned Counsel For The Appellants Contending That This Witness Had Filed An Affidavit In Lower Court In Which He Had Stated That He Did Not See Any Incident And Hence On This Ground No Reliance Can Be Placed On His Testimony. We Find No Force In This Contention, Because In His Statement Recorded In Trial Court, P.W. 5 Ahmad Husain Has Made It Clear That His Thumb Impressions Were Obtained On Some Blank Papers By The Accused Kalloo Saying That Compromise Had Taken Place And Hence He Would Be Relieved From Giving Evidence. There Is No Reason To Disbelieve The Statement Of Ahmad Husain And On The Basis Of His Statement It Is Established That His Thumb Impressions On Some Papers Were Obtained By Playing Fraud With Him On The Pretext That Compromise Had Taken Place Between The Parties And Hence He Would Be Relieved From Giving Evidence. It Is Specifically Stated By P.W.5 In His Cross-examination That The Alleged Affidavit Was Not Prepared At His Instance And He Did Not Put His Thumb Impression On The Said Affidavit After Hearing The Contents Thereof. It Is Also Specifically Stated By Him That His Thumb Impressions Were Obtained On The Blank Papers By The Accused Kalloo And He Did Not Put His Thumb Impression After The Paper Was Typed. This Aspect Has Been Dealt With In Detail In The Impugned Judgment By The Learned Trial Judge, Who Also Has Held That Affidavit Paper No. 20-B Was Obtained By The Counsel Of The Accused Persons By Deceiving The Witness Ahmad Husain And Playing Fraud On The Court. We Fully Agree With The Findings Recorded By The Learned Trial Court On This Matter. Therefore, No Reliance Can Be Placed On The Testimony Of D.W.1 Prem Babu Shukla Advocate, Who Has Been Examined By The Accused Persons To Prove The Affidavit Paper No. 20-B. The Statement Of This Witness Has Been Rightly Found Unreliable By The Learned Court Below Giving Cogent Reasons In The Impugned Judgment. Therefore, The Testimony Of P.W.5 Ahmad Husain Cannot Be Said To Be Unreliable Due To The Affidavit Paper No. 20-B.
21. On The Basis Of The Oral And Medical Evidence As Mentioned Herein-above, This Fact Is Fully Established Beyound Reasonable Doubt That Murder Of The Deceased Raunaq Was Committed By The Accused Persons In Furtherance Of Their Common Intention In The Intervening Night Of 28/29.09.1979 At About Mid Night In The House Of Smt. Sharifan And At The Time Of Incident, The Appellants-accused Iliyas And Ali Husain Also Had Played An Active Role By Catching Hold Of The Legs Of The Deceased At The Time Of Inflicting Injuries To Him By The Accused Kalloo On The Exhortation Of The Accused Smt. Sharifan. The Learned Trial Court After Proper Appreciation Of The Evidence Giving Cogent And Sound Reasons In The Impugned Judgement Has Rightly Convicted All The Accused Persons Of The Offences With Which They Were Charged.
22. It Was Vehemently Contended By The Learned Counsel For The Appellants That There Was No Motive For The Accused Persons To Commit The Murder Of Deceased, Who Was Their Near Relative And Some Unknown Enemies Of The Deceased Might Have Committed His Murder, As The Deceased Himself Was A Hardened Criminal And He Was Having Enmity With Many Other Persons. We Are Not Impressed With This Submission. It Is A Case Of Direct Evidence And On The Basis Of Cogent And Reliable Testimony Of P.W. 5 Ahmad Husain It Is Fully Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt That Murder Of The Deceased Was Committed By The Accused Persons In Furtherance Of Their Common Intention. Therefore, In Such Situation Weakness Or Absence Of Motive Looses Significance. It Is Well Settled Principle Of Law That Where There Is Direct Reliable Evidence To Prove The Crime, The Matter Of Motive Looses Significance. In The Case Of Thaman Kumar Vs. State Of Union Territory Of Chandigarh, Reported In (2003) 6 SCC 380: (AIR 2003 Sc 3975), The Hon'ble Apex Court Has Observed As Under:-
"There Is No Such Principle Or Rule Of Law That Where The Prosecution Fails To Prove The Motive For Commission Of The Crime, It Must Necessary Result In Acquittal Of The Accused. Where The Ocular Evidence Is Found To Be Trustworthy And Reliable And Finds Corroboration From The Medical Evidence, A Finding Of Guilt Can Safely Be Recorded Even If The Motive For The Commission Of The Crime Has Not Been Proved."

23. In The Case Of State Of H.P. Vs. Jeet Singh Reported In (1999) 4 SCC 370 : (AIR 1999 SC 1293), The Apex Court Has Made The Following Observations:-
"No Doubt It Is A Sound Principle To Remember That Every Criminal Act Was Done With A Motive But Its Corollary Is Not That No Criminal Offence Would Have Been Committed If The Prosecution Has Failed To Prove The Precise Motive Of The Accused To Commit It. When The Prosecution Succeeded In Showing The Possibility Of Some Ire For The Accused Towards The Victim, The Inability To Further Put On Record The Manner In Which Such Ire Would Have Swelled Up In The Mind Of The Offender To Such A Degree As To Impel Him To Commit The Offence Cannot Be Construed As A Fatal Weakness Of The Prosecution. It Is Almost An Impossibility For The Prosecution To Unravel The Full Dimension Of The Mental Disposition Of An Offender Towards The Person Whom He Offended."


24. The Following Observations Regarding Motive Made By The Hon'ble Apex Court In The Case Of Nathuni Yadav And Others V. State Of Bihar And Another 1997 (34) ACC 576 Are Worth Mentioning:-
"Motive For Doing A Criminal Act Is Generally A Difficult Area For Prosecution. One Cannot Normally See Into The Mind Of Another. Motive Is The Emotion Which Impells A Man To Do A Particular Act. Such Impelling Cause Need Not Necessarily Be Proportionally Grave To Do Grave Crimes. Many A Murders Have Been Committed Without Any Known Or Prominent Motive. It Is Quite Possible That The Aforesaid Impelling Factor Would Remain Undiscoverable. Lord Chief Justice Chambell Struck A Note Of Caution In 'Reg V. Palmer' Thus: "but If There Be Any Motive Which Can Be Assigned I Am Bound To Tell You That The Adequacy Of That Motive Is Of Little Importance. We Know, From Experience Of Criminal Courts That Atrocious Crimes Of This Sort Have Been Committed From Very Slight Motives; Not Merely From Malice And Revenge, But To Gain A Small Pecuniary Advantage, And To Drive Off For A Time Pressing Difficulties."

25. In The Case Of Molu And Others V. State Of Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 2499, The Hon'ble Apex Court Has Held As Under In Para 11 Of The Report At Page 2505:-
"It Is Well Settled That Where The Direct Evidence Regarding The Assault Is Worthy Of Credence And Can Be Believed, The Question Of Motive Becomes More Or Less Academic. Sometimes The Motive Is Clear And Can Be Proved And Sometimes, However, The Motive Is Shrouded In Mystery And It Is Very Difficult To Locate The Same. If, However, The Evidence Of The Eye-witnesses Is Credit-worthy And Is Believed By The Court Which Has Placed Implicit Reliance On Them, The Question Whether There Is Any Motive Or Not Becomes Wholly Irrelevant."

26. Regarding Motive For Commission Of Crime, The Apex Court Has Observed As Under In The Case Of Suresh Chandra Bahri V. State Of Bihar AIR 1994 SC 2420 In Para 21 Of The Report At Page 2429:-
"Sometimes Motive Plays An Important Role And Becomes A Compelling Force To Commit A Crime And Therefore Motive Behind The Crime Is A Relevant Factor For Which Evidence May Be Adduced. A Motive Is Something Which Prompts A Person To Form An Opinion Or Intention To Do Certain Illegal Act Or Even A Legal Act But With Illegal Means With A View To Achieve That Intention. In A Case Where There Is Clear Proof Of Motive For The Commission Of The Crime It Affords Added Support To The Finding Of The Court That The Accused Was Guilty For The Offence Charged With. But It Has To Be Remembered That The Absence Of Proof Of Motive Does Not Render The Evidence Bearing On The Guilt Of The Accused Nonetheless Untrustworthy Or Unreliable Because Most Often It Is Only The Perpetrator Of The Crime Alone Who Knows As To What Circumstances Prompted Him To A Certain Course Of Action Leading To The Commission Of The Crime."
27. Moreover, On The Basis Of The Testimony Of P.W.7 Aziz, This Fact Is Borne Out That The Accused Persons Wanted To Get Rid Of The Deceased Raunaq, As They Were Intending To Sell His Wife Saqueena. P.W. 7 Aziz Is The Father Of Deceased, He Was Examined In Trial Court On 01.03.1983. He Has Stated In His Statement That His Son Raunaq Was Married To Saqueena, Daughter Of The Accused Sharifan And Accused Kalloo Is His Sadhu, Who Is The Resident Of Machhariya, P.S. Katghar. It Is Further Stated By The Witness Aziz That About A Month Before The Murder Of His Son Raunaq, The Accused Kalloo Had Carried Saqueena To His House And When Raunaq Came To Know That Kalloo Is Intending To Sell Saqueena, He Had Brought Her From The House Of Kalloo And When They Came To Know That Sharifan Also Wanted To Sell Her, Raunaq Did Not Send Her (Saqueena) Either To Village Machhariya Or To Her Maiyaka In Village Mudhia Malookpur. P.W. 7 Has Further Stated That His One She-buffalo Was Being Brought-up In The Sasural Of Raunaq And Two Or Three Days Before The Incident Of His Murder, The Accused Iliyas And Kalloo Had Come To His House And They Had Asked Him To Bring His She-buffalo, On Which Raunaq Had Told That He Would Come After Two Or Three Days To Bring The She-buffalo. It Is Further Stated By P.W.7 Aziz That Murder Of Raunaq Was Committed In The Night Of The Day, On Which He Had Gone To The House Of Sharifan To Bring The She-buffalo. Nothing Material Could Be Elicited From This Witness In Cross-examination And Hence There Is No Reason To Disbelieve The Aforesaid Statement Made By Him. As Such The Prosecution Has Succeeded To Show That The Accused Kalloo And Smt. Sharifan Were Intending To Sell Saqueena, Wife Of The Deceased And Since The Deceased Was Not Sending Saqueena Either To The House Of Kalloo Or Smt. Sharifan, Hence The Accused Persons Wanted To Get Rid Of Him. Therefore, It Cannot Be Said That There Was No Motive For The Accused Persons To Commit The Murder Of Deceased.
28. Regarding The Complicity Of The Appellants-accused Iliyas And Ali Husain In The Incident Of Murder Of Deceased Raunaq, It Was Contended By Their Learned Counsel That Theory Of Catching Hold Of The Legs Of Deceased By These Accused Is Not Worthy Of Reliance, Because Ante-mortem Injury No. 3 Was On The Back Of Neck Of Deceased, Which Falsified The Theory Of Catching Hold Of His Legs At The Time Of Incident. We Are Not At All Impressed With This Argument. It Is True That According To The Post-mortem Report Ext. Ka 17, Ante-mortem Injury No. 3 (incised Wound) Was On The Back Of Neck Of Deceased In The Middle Line, But On This Basis The Theory Of Catching Hold Of The Legs Of Deceased By The Accused Iliyas And Ali Husain Is Not Falsified. When The Deceased Was Being Assaulted By The Accused Kalloo, He Certainly Would Have Been Moving Here And There And He Would Not Remain Lying Like A Idol At The Time Of Inflicting Injuries. Therefore, Sustaining Injury By The Deceased On The Back Of His Neck At The Time Of Catching Hold Of His Legs Is Not Impossible. The Complicity Of The Appellants Accused Iliyas And Ali Husain Is Also Not Falsified Due To The Ante-mortem Injuries On Other Parts Of The Person Of Deceased, Because In Our Considered Opinion, All The Ante-mortem Injuries Could Easily Be Caused To The Deceased By The Accused Kalloo In The Process Of Catching Hold Of His Legs By The Accused Iliyas And Ali Husain. We Do Not Agree With The Contention Of The Learned Counsel For The Appellants That Injury On The Back Side Of The Body Of Deceased Cannot Be Caused In The Process Of Catching Hold Of His Legs. On The Basis Of The Cogent And Reliable Evidence Of P.W. 5 Ahmad Husain, The Complicity Of The Appellants-accused Iliyas And Ali Husain And Their Active Participation In The Incident Of Murder Of Deceased Raunaq By Catching Hold Of His Legs Is Fully Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt. Therefore, Merely Due To The Ante-mortem Injuries On All Parts Of The Deceased, It Cannot Be Said That The Role Of Catching Hold Of His Legs By The Accused Iliyas And Ali Husain Has Been Falsely Assigned To Them.
29. It Was Further Submitted Regarding The Complicity Of The Appellants-accused Iliyas And Ali Husain That These Accused Were Living In Village Machhariya And They Were Not Present In Their House On The Fateful Night. For This Contention Our Attention Has Been Drawn Towards The Statement Of P.W. 1 Chheda Lal, Who Has Stated In Para 8 Of His Statement That It Is Known To Him That Sarifan's Son Iliyas And Ali Husain Carry On Agricultural Work In Village Machhariya. On The Basis Of This Statement, It Was Contended By The Learned Counsel For The Appellants That The Accused Illiyas And Ali Husain Used To Live In Village Machhariya Where They Were Carrying On Agricultural Work And They Were Not Present In Village Mudhia Malookpur, Where The Murder Of The Deceased Was Committed. We Do Not Find Any Force In This Contention Also. It Is Only Stated By P.W.1 Chheda Lal That Sharifan's Son Iliyas And Ali Husain Carry On Agricultural Work In Village Machhariya. This Witness Has Nowhere Stated That They Were Living In Village Machhariya. Moreover, From The Statement Of P.W.1 Chheda Lal Also, This Fact Is Borne Out That When He Reached The House Of Accused Sharifan On Hearing Noise From There In The Fateful Night, He Was Told By The Witnesses Ram Pal Singh And Ahmad Husain That Murder Of Raunaq Has Been Committed By Sharifan, Kalloo, Illiyas And Ali Husain. On The Basis Of The Testimony Of This Witness, This Fact Is Also Established That When He Reached The House Of Accused Sharifan, The Dead Body Of Raunaq Was Lying In The Courtyard Of Her House. In Their Statements Recorded Under Section 313 Cr.P.C., The Accused Iliyas And Ali Husain Have Not Denied That Dead Body Of Deceased Was Recovered From Their House. These Accused Have Nowhere Stated In Their Statements That They Were Not Present In Their House In The Fateful Night And Were Residing In Village Machhariya. Question No. 10 Put To These Accused In Their Examination Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Is"whether They Have To Say Something More". The Answer Has Been Given In Negative By Both The Accused. In Answer To Question No. 10, These Accused Could Easily Say That Prior To The Incident They Were Living In Village Machhariya And Were Not Present In Their House In Village Mudhia Malookpur In The Fateful Night, But No Such Statement Has Been Made By Them. The Accused Persons Have Not Examined Any Witness To Show That The Accused Iliyas And Ali Husain Were Living In Village Machhariya Prior To The Incident And They Were Not Present In Their House In The Fateful Night. On The Contrary, On The Basis Of The Reliable Testimony Of The Witnesses Ram Pal Singh And Ahmad Husain, The Presence Of The Accused Iliyas And Ali Husain In Their House In The Fateful Night Is Fully Established Beyond Reasonable Doubt. On The Basis Of The Wholly Reliable Testimony Of P.W.5 Ahmad Husain, It Is Also Proved That The Accused Iliyas And Ali Husain Were Catching Hold Of The Legs Of The Deceased At The Time Of Inflicting Injuries To Him By The Accused Kalloo On The Exhortation Of Accused Smt. Sharifan. Therefore, The Contention Of Learned Counsel For The Appellants That The Accused Iliyas And Ali Husain Were Not Present In Their House In The Fateful Night Has Got No Force.
30. Regarding The Recovery Of Blood Stained Baniyan And Paijama From The Bag Which Was Recovered From The Accused Kalloo At The Time Of His Arrest On 29.09.1979, It Was Submitted By The Learned Counsel For The Appellants That Copy Of The Recovery Memo Ext. Ka 14 Was Not Furnished To The Accused Kalloo And Hence On This Ground The Recovery Of Blood Stained Baniyan And Paijama Is Falsified. For This Submission The Learned Counsel Has Placed Reliance On The Case Of Jackaran Singh Vs. State Of Punjab 1995 Cri.L.J. 3992 (SC). It Is True That The Recovery Memo Ext. Ka 14 Does Not Bear The Thumb Impression Or Signature Of The Accused Kalloo, But On This Ground The Recovery Of Blood Stained Paijama And Baniyan From The Possession Of Accused Kalloo Is Not Falsified, Because On The Basis Of The Reliable Testimony Of P.W. 6 S.I. Iqbal Ahmad Zaidi It Is Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt That The Accused Kalloo And Sharifan Were Arrested From The Railway Station Munda Pandey On 29.09.1979 At About 4.00 P.m. And At That Time The Accused Kalloo Was Carrying A Bag In His Hand From Which Blood Stained Paijama Ext. 2 And Baniyan Ext. 3 Were Recovered. Blood Was Found On The Said Paijama And Baniyan By The Chemical Examiner Vide Report Ext. Ka 18. Moreover, If The Evidence Regarding Recovery Of The Blood Stained Paijama And Baniyan From The Possession Of Accused Kalloo Is Not Taken Into Consideration, Even Then His Complicity In The Incident Of Committing Murder Of Deceased Raunaq Is Not Falsified, Because On The Basis Of The Wholly Reliable Testimony Of P.W. 5 Ahmad Husain, It Is Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt That The Accused Kalloo Had Inflicted Injuries To The Deceased Raunaq By Means Of Gandasa In The Intervening Night Of 28/29.09.1979 In The House Of His Mother-in-law Smt. Sharifan.
31. It Was Further Submitted By The Learned Counsel For The Appellants That Haseena, Wife Of The Accused Iliyas, Was Present In The House In The Fateful Night And Hence She Could Be The Best Witness To Depose Regarding The Incident Of Murder Of Deceased Raunaq And Since She Has Not Been Examined During Trial, Hence Adverse Inference Would Be Drawn Against The Prosecution And On This Ground It Can Be Said That Murder Of Deceased Was Not Committed In The House Of Accused Sharifan. We Do Not Find Any Force In This Contention. Smt. Haseena Is The Wife Of The Accused Iliyas. She Would Not Give Evidence Against Her Husband. Hence, If She Was Not Examined During Trial, Then No Adverse Inference Can Be Drawn Against The Prosecution, Because The Prosecution Is Not Bound To Examine All The Witnesses By Whom The Incident Is Said To Have Been Witnessed.
32. The Learned Counsel For The Appellants Further Vehemently Contended That P.W. 5 Ahmad Husain Is Also The Witness Of Inquest Proceeding And He Has Signed The Inquest Report Ext Ka 4, But Name Of The Accused Persons Is Not Mentioned Therein And On This Basis It Can Be Said That Some Unknown Persons Had Committed The Murder Of Deceased And The Accused Persons Have Been Falsely Implicated In This Case. The Contention Of The Learned Counsel For The Appellants Was That Had The Accused Persons Committed The Murder Of Deceased, And If P.W.5 Ahmad Husain Had Witnessed The Incident Of Murder, Then Name Of The Accused Persons Ought To Have Mentioned In Inquest Report And Since The Name Of The Accused Persons Are Not Mentioned In This Report, Hence On This Ground The Accused Persons Are Liable To Be Acquitted. We Are Not At All Impressed With This Contention. It Is True That Ahmad Husain P.W. 5 Is Also The Witness Of Inquest Report Ext. Ka 4, But Due To Non-mentioning Of The Names Of Accused Persons In This Inquest Report, It Cannot Be Inferred That The Murder Of Deceased Was Committed By Unknown Persons, Because It Is Not The Requirement Of Law To Mention The Name Of Witnesses And Accused In The Inquest Report. In This Regard Reference May Be Made To The Case Of Radhamohan Singh @ Lal Saheb And Others Vs. State Of U.P. J.T.2006 (1) Sc 482 . It Is Settled Law Now That Mentioning Of The Name Of Accused Persons Or Weapons Carried By Them And Names Of The Eyewitnesses In The Inquest Report Is Not The Requirement Of Law. Inquest Report Is Confined To The Ascertainment Of The Apparent Cause Of Death And It Need Not Mention, Who Assaulted The Deceased And Who Were The Witnesses Of The Assault.
33. The Provision For Holding Of Inquest Is Contained In Section 174 Cr.P.C. And The Heading Of Section Is, 'Police To Enquire And Report On Suicide Etc.' Sub-Sections (1) And (2) Thereof Read As Under:-
174. Police To Enquire And Report On Suicide, Etc. (1) When The Officer In Charge Of A Police Station Or Some Other Police Officer Specially Empowered By The State Government In That Behalf Receives Information That A Person Has Committed Suicide, Or Has Been Killed By Another Or By An Animal Or By Machinery Or By An Accident, Or Has Died Under Circumstances Raising A Reasonable Suspicion That Some Other Person Has Committed An Offence, He Shall Immediately Give Intimation Thereof To The Nearest Executive Magistrate Empowered To Hold Inquests, And, Unless Otherwise Directed By Any Rule Prescribed By The State Government, Or By Any General Or Special Order Of The District Or Sub-divisional Magistrate, Shall Proceed To The Place Where The Body Of Such Deceased Person Is, And There In The Presence Of Two Or More Respectable Inhabitants Of The Neighbourhood, Shall Make An Investigation, And Draw Up A Report Of The Apparent Cause Of Death, Describing Such Wounds, Fractures, Bruises, And Other Marks Of Injury As May Be Found On The Body, And Stating In What Manner, Or By What Weapon Or Instrument (if Any), Such Marks Appear To Have Been Inflicted.
(2) The Report Shall Be Signed By Such Police Officer And Other Persons, Or By So Many Of Them As Concur Therein, And Shall Be Forthwith Forwarded To The District Magistrate Or The Sub-divisional Magistrate.

34.The Language Of The Aforesaid Statutory Provision Is Plain And Simple And There Is No Ambiguity Therein. An Investigation Under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Is Limited In Scope And Is Confined To The Ascertainment Of The Apparent Cause Of Death. It Is Concerned With Discovering Whether In A Given Case The Death Was Accidental, Suicidal And Homicidal Or Caused By Animal. It Is For This Limited Purpose That Persons Acquainted With The Facts Of The Case Are Summoned And Examined Under Section 175 Cr.P.C. The Details Of The Overt Acts Are Not Necessary To Be Recorded In The Inquest Report. The Question Regarding The Details As To How The Deceased Was Assaulted Or Who Assaulted Him Or Under What Circumstances He Was Assaulted Or Who Are The Witnesses Of The Assault Is Foreign To The Ambit And Scope Of Proceedings Under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Neither In Practice Nor In Law It Is Necessary For The Person Holding The Inquest To Mention All These Details.
35. In Podda Narayana V. State Of A.P. AIR 1975 SC 1252, It Was Held By The Hon'ble Apex Court That The Proceedings Under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Have A Very Limited Scope. The Object Of The Proceedings Is Merely To Ascertain Whether A Person Has Died Under Suspicious Circumstances Or An Unnatural Death And If So What Is The Apparent Cause Of The Death. The Question Regarding The Details As To How The Deceased Was Assaulted Or Who Assaulted Him Or Under What Circumstances He Was Assaulted Is Foreign To The Ambit And Scope Of The Proceedings Under Section 174. Neither In Practice Nor In Law Was It Necessary For The Police To Mention Those Details In The Inquest Report. It Is, Therefore, Not Necessary To Enter All The Details Of The Overt Acts In The Inquest Report. Their Omission Is Not Sufficient To Put The Prosecution Out Of Court.
36. In Shakila Khader V. Nausher Gama AIR 1975 SC 1324, The Contention Raised That Non-mention Of A Person's Name In The Inquest Report Would Show That He Was Not A Eye-witness Of The Incident Was Repelled On The Ground That An Inquest Under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Is Concerned With Establishing The Cause Of Death And Only Evidence Necessary To Establish It Need Be Brought Out. The Same View Was Taken In Eqbal Baig V. State Of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1987 SC 923 That The Non-mention Of Name Of An Eye-witness In The Inquest Report Could Not Be A Ground To Reject His Testimony. Similarly, The Absence Of The Name Of The Accused In The Inquest Report Cannot Lead To An Inference That He Was Not Present At The Time Of Commission Of The Offence, As The Inquest Report Is Not The Statement Of A Person Wherein All The Names (accused And Also The Eye-witnesses) Ought To Have Been Mentioned.
37. The View Taken In Podda Narayana V. State Of A.P. (supra) Was Approved By A Three-judge Bench In Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari V. State Of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1991 SC 1853 And It Was Held That The Testimony Of Eye-witnesses Could Not Be Discarded On The Ground That Their Names Did Not Figure In The Inquest Report Prepared At The Earliest Point Of Time. The Nature And Purpose Of Inquest Held Under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Was Also Explained In The Case Of Amar Singh V. Balwinder Singh JT 2003(2) SC 1; 2003 (2) S.C.C. 518.

38. Thus It Is Well Settled By A Catena Of Decisions Of The Hon'ble Apex Court That The Purpose Of Holding An Inquest Is Very Limited, Viz., To Ascertain As To Whether A Person Has Committed Suicide Or Has Been Killed By Another Or By An Animal Or By Machinery Or By An Accident Or Has Died Under Circumstances Raising A Reasonable Suspicion That Some Other Person Has Committed An Offence. There Is Absolutely No Requirement In Law Of Mentioning The Details Of The FIR, Names Of The Accused Or The Names Of The Eye-witnesses Or The Gist Of Their Statement Nor It Is Required To Be Signed By Any Eyewitnesses.
39. Therefore, In View Of The Law Laid Down By The Hon'ble Apex Court In The Cases Mentioned Herein-above, Due To Non-mentioning The Names Of The Accused Persons In Inquest Report Ext. Ka 4, It Cannot Be Inferred That Murder Of The Deceased Was Not Committed By The Appellants.
40. Drawing Our Attention Towards The Statement Of D.W. 2 Saqueena, It Was Submitted By Learned Counsel For The Appellants That The Motive Of Committing The Murder Of Deceased Raunaq By The Accused Persons As Alleged In The Statement Of P.W. 7 Aziz Is Falsified. The Learned Trial Court Giving Sound Reasons Has Concluded That The Woman Who Was Examined In The Name Of Saqueena As D.W.2 Cannot Be The Wife Of Deceased Raunaq And Some Imposter Has Been Examined In The Name Of Saqeena Showing Her To Be The Wife Of Deceased. We Agree With The Findings Of Learned Trial Court Recorded In This Regard In The Impugned Judgment. D.W. 2 Saqueena Was Examined In Trial Court On 22.03.1982. In Her Cross-examination, She Has Stated That Raunaq Had Died In The House Of Her Mother, But She Did Not Go To The House Of Her Mother At The Time Of Death Of Raunaq. It Is Further Stated By D.W.2 That After The Death Of Raunaq She Did Not Try To Know As To How, When And Where Raunaq Died. This Shows That The Woman Who Has Been Examined In The Name Of Saqueena As D.W.2 Cannot Be The Wife Of Deceased Raunaq, Because It Is Not Believable That On Hearing About The Death Of Her Husband, The Wife Of Deceased Would Not Go To Her Maiyaka To See The Dead Body Of Her Husband. On The Basis Of The Age As Stated By D.W. 2 In Her Statement And Keeping In View Other Factors, The Learned Trial Court Has Rightly Concluded That The Woman, Who Was Examined By The Accused Persons In The Name Of Saqueena As D.W. 2 Is Not The Wife Of Deceased Raunaq. Therefore, On The Basis Of The Statement Of D.W. 2 Saqeena, The Motive As Alleged By P.W. 7 Aziz For Committing The Murder Of His Son Raunaq By The Accused Persons Is Not Falsified.
41. It Was Further Contended By Learned Counsel For The Appellants That The Torches In The Light Of Which P.W.3 Ram Pal Singh And P.W.5 Ahmad Husain Are Said To Have Witnessed The Incident Were Not Produced In Trial Court, Which Is Fatal To The Prosecution. It Is True That The Witnesses Ram Pal Singh And Ahmad Husain Had Not Brought Their Torches In Trial Court At The Time Of Their Examination, But On This Ground It Cannot Be Said That These Witnesses Were Not Having Torches At The Time Of Incident. The Torches Of Both These Witnesses Were Seen By The Investigating Officer S.I. Iqbal Ahmad Zaidi And After Giving The Torches In Their Supurdgi, Fard Supurdaginama Ext. Ka 7 Was Prepared Which Has Been Proved By Him (P.W.6) In Trial Court At The Time Of His Examination. Therefore, Availability Of Light Is Not Rendered Doubtful Merely Due To Non Production Of Torches In Trial Court By The Witnesses Ram Pal Singh And Ahmad Husain. The Accused Persons Were Previously Known To These Witnesses. Known Persons Can Be Recognised In The Night Even In The Light Of Stars. Therefore, In Our Opinion Non Production Of Torches By The Witnesses Ram Pal Singh And Ahmad Husain In Trial Court Is Not Fatal To The Prosecution.
42. No Other Point Worth Mentioning Was Urged Before Us By The Parties Counsel.
43. For The Reasons Mentioned Herein-above, We Are Of The Considered Opinion That The Prosecution Has Successfully Brought Home The Charges To The Accused Persons. There Is No Scope To Make Any Interference In The Impugned Judgement, As It Does Not Suffer From Any Legal Infirmity.
44. Consequently, The Appeal Is Dismissed. The Conviction And Sentence Recorded By The Trial Court Against The Accused-appellants Iliyas And Ali Husain Are Affirmed. They Are On Bail. They Shall Be Taken Into Custody By The Trial Court Concerned And Sent To Jail To Serve Out The Remaining Sentence. After Sending The Accused-appellants To Jail, Their Sureties And Surety Bonds Shall Stand Discharged.
The Appeal Stands Abated Against The Accused-appellants Smt. Sharifan And Kalloo Due To Their Death.
The Office Is Directed To Return Trial Court Record Expeditiously Along-with A Copy Of This Judgement For Necessary Action. Compliance Report Be Sent By The Trial Court Concerned Within Two Months.

Go to Navigation