Hakkim vs State Tr.Dy.Supdt.Of Police

Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution was that PW-1 by name Alim George was a resident of Kaliba Sahib Street in Nagur Town. He was living with his three wives by name Fatima, Sayeeda (deceased) and Sameema and their mothers, his daughter Jeni, his son Jaffer Hussain, Rahana sister of his deceased wife Sayeeda, one of his friends by name Goodnameshah PW-2 and his nephew Niyaz Ahmad PW-3 were also living along with him. PW-1 stated to have worked as Imam in some mosque in Koothanallur before setting up his residence in Nagur. He also stated to have worked as Principal in the Melapalayam Arabic college. He has also worked as Imam in a mosque in Malaysia apart from serving as a teacher in a Madrasa at Udumalaipet. His guru was stated to be one Sayed Ali Sahib in Nagur.

There were certain allegations against PW-1 to the effect that he was indulging in certain nefarious activities, namely, exploiting women folk by drugging them and also thereafter blackmailing them. At the instance of PW- 23, a report appeared about the nefarious activities in a magazine called “Yevukanai”. According to the prosecution, the said report provoked the accused along with three others, two of whom were also prosecuted before the trial Court which resulted in their involvement in the present crime alleged against them.

It is stated that when PW-1 along with the other residents was in his house on 26.10.1996 at 4.00 p.m., the door of the house was pushed open by the Appellants-accused holding knives in their hands, they entered the house and asked for PW-1 by calling who was ‘George’ and one of the accused placed a knife on the neck of PW-3 while another accused pulled the deceased Sayeeda by her hair and yet another person advanced towards PW-1 while another accused extorted to ‘kill him’. When the accused attempted to inflict injuries on PW-1, he warded off the same which resulted in an injury to his forehand. At that point of time while deceased Sayeeda raised an alarm, the accused persons caught hold of her hands and legs and inflicted multiple injuries on her. When PW-4, the mother of the deceased came for her rescue, she was inflicted with stab injuries in which process her right hand ring finger got severed. While three of the accused held the deceased Sayeeda, A-1 stated to have cut her throat which resulted in her instantaneous death. When PWs-2 and 3 tried to intervene, they were also inflicted with knife injuries.

In view of the milieu created, people living in and around the place of residence of PW-1, gathered around and caught hold of all the four accused- Appellants. The deceased and the injured were shifted to the hospital where PW-1’s statement Exhibit P-5 was recorded which was registered as Crime No.464 of 1996 at 6.30 p.m. at Nagur Police Station under Sections 147, 148, 452, 324, 307 and 302, IPC and the express report was forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate at Nagapattinam and was delivered at 00.10 hours.

In the trial Court, the prosecution examined as many as 34 witnesses apart from marking Exhibits P-1 to P-42. M.Os.1 to 11 the material objects were also placed before the Court. M.Os.2 to 5 were the knives which were used in the crime. M.Os.7 to 11 were the dress worn by the deceased Sayeeda. M.O.6 was the blood stained cement flooring while M.O.7 was the cement flooring without blood stain. The trial Court reached the conclusion that all the charges framed against A-5 and A-6 were not proved beyond all reasonable doubts and, therefore, they were acquitted. It also held that the charges framed under Section 120B IPC against A-1 to A-4, that the charge framed against A-3 under Section 324, IPC (one count) and the charge framed against A-4 under Section 326, IPC were not proved. They were accordingly acquitted of the said charges. It, however, found all the Appellants-accused guilty of the charges under Section 449, IPC and A-1 was found guilty of charges under Section 307, IPC and 302, IPC as well as charge under Section 324, IPC found proved against A-3 and A-4. The Appellants were sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 5 years for the charge found proved against them under Section 449, IPC. A-1 was sentenced to undergo RI for three years for an offence under Section 307, IPC. A-2 to A-4 were sentenced to undergo three years RI for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149, IPC. A-1 was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302, IPC and A-2 to A-4 were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 109, IPC. A-3 and A-4 were sentenced to undergo six months RI for the offence under Section 324, IPC.

In the light of the long period during which they were in jail in other cases and since it was pleaded that there was none to pay any fine on their behalf, the trial Court refrained from imposing any fine on Appellants- accused. By the impugned judgment the Division Bench of the High Court having confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court the Appellants are before us.

Once the said contention of the Appellants is rejected, the other co1ntentions, namely, that there was no scope to invoke Sections 109 and 149, IPC would also fall to the ground. If that is the outcome of the above discussion, there is no scope to find fault with the ultimate conclusion of the trial court having convicted the Appellants for the offences found proved against them for which the sentence came to be imposed. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the submission made on behalf of the Appellants to hold that only Section 304 Part II, IPC can be applied and a lesser punishment should be imposed. Having regard to the extensive use of the weapons by the accused in the process of killing of the deceased and the inflicting of the injuries on PWs-1 to 4, we do not find any scope to show any concession in the matter of punishment and consequently the said submission stands rejected. In the light of our above conclusion, we do not find any scope to refer to any of the decisions relied upon for reduction of sentence.

Therefore, while confirming his conviction as per the judgment impugned in this appeal, we hold that he is entitled for the benefit of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and the sentence already undergone by him shall be sufficient for the above conviction. Therefore, he shall not be detained any more in this case unless his detention is warranted in any other case. Criminal appeal No. 1410 stand disposed of on the above terms.