Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Abdul Latif on 12 March, 2018
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
Bench: S.Abdul Nazeer
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1427 OF 2008
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ….. APPELLANT
VERSUS
ABDUL LATIF ….. RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.
1. This appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh is directed against the judgment dated 14.11.2006 in Criminal Appeal No.1685 of 1998, whereby the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, has allowed the appeal in part and altered the conviction of the respondent-accused from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I of IPC. The respondent-accused was in custody for about ten Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR Date: 2018.03.12 17:33:50 PKT Reason: years and five months as on the date of the judgment passed by the High Court. 1 The High Court has sentenced the accused for the period which he had already undergone.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that Nazma Begum (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) is the wife of the respondent-accused. They were married about eleven years back from the date of the incident. Reshma and Taufique are the daughter and son respectively of the accused and the deceased. In the intervening night of 17th and 18th June, 1996, the accused went to attend the ‘Milad’ and came back to his house at 12 in the night. It is said that after coming to his house, some altercation took place between the deceased and the accused, as a result of which the accused gave a kick to the deceased and on receiving the blow of kick, deceased was hit by the flagstone of almirah. The accused further gave two to three pushes to the deceased, as a result whereof she received multiple injuries. Thereafter, the accused strangled the deceased by an artificial plait (chutila), as a consequence of which she died.
3. The incident was witnessed by the minor children namely, Reshma and Taufique. It is further averred that the accused terrorized his children and told them not to disclose the incident to anybody. It is further contended that later on the deceased went to the house of his neighbour, Sitaram Pathak and told him that after attending the ‘Milad’, when he came back to his house, he found his wife dead. He requested Sitaram Pathak to call his parents-in-law. In the morning of 2 next day, his father-in-law lodged a report at 5.19 hours in the concerned police station.
4. On lodging of the FIR, the police party arrived at the spot; prepared inquest report of the dead body of the deceased and sent it for post mortem, prepared the spot map, recorded the statement of the witnesses and seized the blood-stained earth, as well as, other articles from the place of occurrence. The police arrested the accused and at his instance, an artificial plait, which was used as a weapon in the commission of the offence and a Mangalsutra were seized.
5. After the completion of investigation, a chargesheet was submitted in the competent court, which on its turn committed the case to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court, on the basis of the averments made against the accused in the chargesheet, framed charge punishable under Section 302 of IPC, which he denied and requested for trial.
6. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and placed Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/15, the documents on record. The accused in support of his defence, examined two witnesses as DW-1 and DW-2. The trial court on appreciation of the evidence on record held that the accused did commit the offence for which he was charged and eventually convicted him under Section 302 3 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of life and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of one month.
7. As noticed above, the High Court has altered the punishment and convicted the accused under Section 304 Part I of IPC.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned senior counsel for the respondent at length. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State submits that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC and convicting him only under Section 304 Part I of IPC. It is argued that having regard to the evidence on record, particularly the evidence of eye-witnesses, PW-5 and PW-6, and the evidence of the doctor PW-1, the High Court was not justified in reducing the sentence. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the respondent has sought to justify the impugned order.
9. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel at the bar and perused the materials placed on record.
10. Reshma (PW-5) was a minor, aged about twelve years at the time of deposing before the trial court. She in her evidence has stated that on the date of incident, her father, she herself, her mother and her younger brother were in the house. Her father and her younger brother had gone to attend the ‘Milad’. When her father came back and knocked the door, her mother opened it and asked her 4 father to take food. However, her father was reluctant to take food. Her father moved and slept and the mother came and slept by her side and then her father and mother started quarrelling. On hearing the noise of quarrel, she woke up. Her father gave a kick to her mother and on account of force of the kick, she received injuries of the flagstone of almirah. Thereafter, the accused strangled the deceased by artificial plait on the neck of the deceased and on account of the pressure, the deceased fell down and passed away. PW-6 is the son of the deceased, who was aged about eight years at that time. He has also made a similar statement.
11. Dr. B.K. Sharma, an Autopsy Surgeon, was examined as PW-1. The post mortem report is marked as Ex.P/1. PW-5 and PW-6 have stated in their evidence that the accused had injured the eyes of the deceased with the knife. However, the post mortem report does not disclose any injuries to the eyes.
12. It is clear from the evidence on record that the accused came to the house after attending the ‘Milad’ at midnight. The deceased opened the door and, thereafter, the deceased and the accused went to sleep. Suddenly, quarrel took place between them. It is clear from the evidence of PW-1 that the death occurred due to injury Nos. 11 and 12. The other injuries were simple in nature. The evidence of PW-1 shows that the death occurred on account of Asphyxia. The evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 coupled with evidence of PW-1 makes it clear that the incident had occurred all of a sudden, without any premeditation. It is evident that 5 the accused had not taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Therefore, the High Court has rightly convicted the accused under Section 304 Part I of IPC. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
……………………………J. (N.V. RAMANA) ……………………………J. (S. ABDUL NAZEER) New Delhi;
March 12, 2018.
6
ITEM NO.1505 COURT NO.9 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1427/2008
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appellant(s)
VERSUS
ABDUL LATIF Respondent(s)
([HEARD BY : HON. N.V. RAMANA AND HON. S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]) Date : 12-03-2018 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of judgment today.
For Appellant(s) Ms. Shashi Juneja, Adv.
Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv.
Mr. B.N. Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Mishra Saurabh, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana and His Lordship.
The High Court has rightly convicted the accused under Section 304 Part I of IPC. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in terms of the signed non reportable judgment.
(SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR) (RENUKA SADANA)
AR CUM PS ASST.REGISTRAR
(Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file) 7