Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1311 (PNJ)

Irshad Ali v. State of Haryana

2007-07-11

A.N.JINDAL, MEHTAB S.GILL

body2007
JUDGMENT Mehtab S.Gill, J. :-This is an appeal against the judgment dated 4.8.1997 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri, whereby he convicted Irshad Ali son of Jinda Hassan under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. He was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for six months. 2. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement Ex.PG of Umardeen given to ASI Dharamvir on 3.6.1994 at 12.45 a.m. in front of Lal Maternity Hospital, Yamuna Nagar, whereby he stated, that he was running a Drycleaner Shop in the name of Taj Mahal in Chhota Model Town, Yamunanagar. He was the president of Dhobbi Sabha. Mohammad Farook was running a tailoring shop. They were both brothers. On 2.6.1994 at 11.00 a.m., Mohd. Farook informed that Sazida d/o Jinda had gone to the house of his employee Gulshan in Sugar Mill Colony, Yamunanagar for marrying him, as they were having a love affair. Mohd. Farook stated, that Sazida wanted to marry Gulshan against the wishes of her parents. She should be advised to return to her house. Umardeen and Farook went to the house of Gulshan. Sazida was present there. Mother of Sazida and her Bhabhi (sister-in-law) were also present there, who were trying to persuade her to go to her house. Sazida stated, that she wanted to marry Gulshan. After a lot of persuasion, Sazida agreed to go to the house of Mohd. Farook at Shiv Puri Colony B, Yamunanagar. Wife of Mohd. Farook was not present in her house. On the asking of the mother of Sazida, Umardeen took Sazida to his own house. At about 6.30 p.m., wife of Mohd. Farook took Sazida to her own house. At about 8.30 p.m., Umardeen went to the house of Mohd. Farook to persuade Sazida not to marry Gulshan. In the meantime, Islam resident of Kanshepur came there. Sazida insisted on marrying Gulshan. Thereafter, her mother went away. At about 9.30 p.m., Sazida’s brother Irshad Ali came to the house of Mohd. Farook and started talking to Sazida. He also tried to persuade her, but Sazida did not agree. He asked her to come out in the verandah so that they talk in private. She went to the verandah of the house. Irshad Ali took out a dagger (Chhura) and tried to hit her. Farook and started talking to Sazida. He also tried to persuade her, but Sazida did not agree. He asked her to come out in the verandah so that they talk in private. She went to the verandah of the house. Irshad Ali took out a dagger (Chhura) and tried to hit her. She ran and climbed on the bed, which was lying in the room. Irshad Ali followed her and after climbing on the bed with the dagger in his hand, he attacked Sazida. He inflicted injuries on her breast and neck. Umardeen and others tried to intervene, but they were threatened not to do so. Sazida fell down and died at the spot. On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex.PG/1 was recorded on 3.6.1994 at 1.15 a.m. The special report reached the J.M.I.C., Yamunanagar, on the same day at 5.00 a.m. 3. The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box Dr. Mrs. Neelam Gupta PW1, Om Parkash PW2, Gopal Singh PW3, Raghbir Singh Constable PW4, Jaspal Constable PW5, Dr. S.K.Gupta PW6, Jagdish Ram S.I. PW7, Ram Kishan ASI PW8, Umar Deen PW9, Farook PW10 and Dharam Vir ASI PW11. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued, that motive for the commission of the crime is very weak. It is alleged that Sazida was having an affair with Gulshan, but Gulshan was not brought into the witness box. Mother of Sazida and her Bhabhi (sister-in-law) were also not examined, nor any reason has been given by the prosecution as to why they were not brought into the witness box to prove the motive aspect of the case. 5. At the place of occurrence, there were three male persons present i.e. Umar Deen PW9, Farook PW10 and Islam, but strangely the three did not intervene to stop the appellant from injuring Sazida. Their behaviour was not natural. In fact both eye witnesses Umar Deen PW9 and Farook PW10 were not present, when the occurrence had taken place. Clothes of the appellant would have also got smeared with blood, but they were not taken into possession. In fact Umar Deen PW9, Farook PW10 and Islam were persuading Sazida to marry Gulshan, but on her refusing to do so, they were the ones who committed the murder of Sazida. 6. Learned counsel for the State has argued, that there is no delay in the lodging of the FIR. In fact Umar Deen PW9, Farook PW10 and Islam were persuading Sazida to marry Gulshan, but on her refusing to do so, they were the ones who committed the murder of Sazida. 6. Learned counsel for the State has argued, that there is no delay in the lodging of the FIR. Occurrence had taken place in the night on 2.6.1994 and by morning 5.00 a.m., the special report had reached the J.M.I.C., Yamunanagar. Both Umar Deen PW9 and Farook PW10 are independent witnesses. They are not related to either of the parties. It is conceded by the appellant, that at the time of occurrence, he and deceased Sazida were in the house of Farook PW10. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 8. Occurrence in this case took place on 2.6.1994 at 9.30 p.m. in the house of Farook PW10. FIR Ex.PG/1 came into existence on 3.6.1994 at 1.15 a.m. and the special report reached the J.M.I.C., Yamunanagar on the same day at 5.00 a.m. There is no delay in lodging of the FIR. In fact the promptness with which the FIR has been lodged by Umar Deen PW9, who is an independent person, goes a long way in proving the case of the prosecution. 9. Deceased Sazida is no other person than the real sister of appellant Irshad Ali. Appellant could not tolerate his sister disobeying him, when he tried to convince her in the house of Farook PW10. He lost his temper and attacked her with dagger (chhura) Ex.P1. 10. As per the F.S.L. report, the articles taken into possession i.e. two pillows, bed-sheet, cloth covers, plastic sheet, lady’s shirt, salwar, brassier and chunni had human blood. This also shows that the occurrence had taken place on the bed in the house, as stated by Farook PW10. The statements of both Umar Deen PW9 and Farook PW10, the two eye witnesses to the occurrence, are cogent and convincing. Their testimony could not be demolished in spite of a lengthy cross-examination. Their statements get corroboration from the medical report as spelt-out by Dr. S.K.Gupta PW6, who prepared the postmortem report Ex.PD. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., appellant Irshad Ali has stated as under:- “The case is false. I am innocent. Their testimony could not be demolished in spite of a lengthy cross-examination. Their statements get corroboration from the medical report as spelt-out by Dr. S.K.Gupta PW6, who prepared the postmortem report Ex.PD. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., appellant Irshad Ali has stated as under:- “The case is false. I am innocent. On 2.6.1994 at about 7.00 p.m. when I came home my wife told me that wife of Farook s/o Maqsood Ahmed r/o Shiv Puri Colony, had called my sister in noon time and she has not returned yet. Being ignorant about the address of Farook I could trace his house at 8 p.m. After entering into room of Farook house, I saw my sister Sajida encircled with Umardeen. Farook tailor master Islam and Farook Sepoy who were persuading her to marry some unknown person. When I tried to take my sister from them Umardeen resisted and took out a dagger lying under double bed and gave a blow at my chest which I prevented by my left hand, thus receiving injuries on my left hand, Islam and Farook exhalted Umardeen to kill me. To save my life I ran away and came to my house and narrated whole incident to my wife. My parents were not at house. Next day I went to police station to meet my brother Shahjad to complain against Umardeen and his associates but the police arrested me in the present case at the instance of Umardeen and his associates whereas my sister was murdered by Umardeen and his associates to save themselves from criminal case or kidnapping and wrongful confinement of my sister”. 11. In his statement, appellant has admitted his presence in the house, but has tried to shift the burden of murder of Sazida on to Umar Deen PW9. The eye witness account cannot be disbelieved and the appellant has made a lame attempt to prove his innocence. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court. Dismissed. —————————————