Bilal Hajar @ Abdul Hameed vs State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

3. The   case   of   the   prosecution   may   be   briefly stated as follows.

5. The   details   of   the   offences   under   the   Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) for which the accused were tried are set out herein below:

6. On   19th   August   1991,   some   posters   were found  pasted  on the walls of public streets in the city of Coimbatore. These posters contained threats that   seven   persons   belonging   to   a   particular community would be killed.  One person, out of the seven named person, was “Siva Kumar @ Siva”.

8. On   01.09.1991   between   2.30   p.m.   to   3.30 p.m., all the nine accused (A­1 to A­9) assembled in the house of the appellant (A­6) and they hatched a criminal conspiracy to murder Siva.  In furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, on 05.09.1991, around 4 7.45   a.m.   accused   (A­1   to   A­5)   along   with   one absconded   accused   armed   with   deadly   weapons assembled   at   Kovai   Mill   Road,   Coimbatore   and accused (A­1 and A­3) attacked Siva with knife, who was passing through the road.   Accused (A­1) also stabbed   one   Constable   Chinnathambi   (PW­1)   with knife, who had come to the spot.  Injured Siva was taken to the nearest hospital where he succumbed to injuries and was declared dead.

9. This   incident   led   to   arrests   of   nine   accused. Investigation  was   carried out and after  completing it,   the   charge­sheet   was   filed   against   the   nine accused and they were put to trial for commission of various offences as detailed above. By order dated 29.07.2003,   the   Sessions   Judge   convicted   the accused persons as under:

40. Having   scanned   the   testimony   of   PW­3   and PW­4,   we   find   no   good   ground   to   discard   their testimony.  In our opinion, their testimony is found natural,   consistent   and   does   not   suffer   from   any contradictions much less major contradictions so as to brush aside as being wholly unreliable. The two courts below, in our view, therefore rightly relied on their   testimony   to   sustain   appellant’s   conviction under Section 120­B, IPC.

49. In   our   opinion,   there   is   no   contradiction   in their   version   on   the   issue   of   visit   to   the   hospital. Whether   both   went   together   or   went   individually with some time gap between their visits is hardly of 24 any   significance   so   as   to   discard   their   entire testimony.

56. In the light of detailed foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution was able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt with the aid of evidence that the appellant (A­6) was one of   the   active   members   of   the   criminal   conspiracy along with other accused and hatched the plan in his   house   in   the   meeting   which   was   held   on 01.09.1991 to kill/eliminate Siva and in furtherance thereof   accused   (A­1   to   A­5)   successfully killed/eliminated   Siva   on   05.09.1991   by   causing 28 Siva stab injuries with the aid of knife resulting in his homicidal death.  The appellant's conviction and award of life sentence as prescribed under Section 302   read   with   Section   120­B,   IPC   was,   therefore, rightly   held   made   out   along   with   other   accused persons   by   the   two   courts   below.     We,   therefore, concur with their view and accordingly uphold it.

57. We may only mention that it was not the case of   the   appellant   and   nor   was   urged   also   that   his case falls under Section 120­B (2), IPC and therefore he be awarded less sentence as prescribed therein.

58.   In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit   in   this   appeal.   The   appeal   thus   fails   and   is accordingly dismissed.

October 10, 2018