Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. Ld. MM after taking cognizance for the offence supplied the copies of the challan to all the accused as provided u/s 207 Cr.P.C and committed the FIR NO:484/07; PS GOKUL PURI; U/S 364/365/302/201/120B IPC ; STATE VS. JAVED & OTHERS case to the court of Sessions and on turn allocated to this court for trial. Thereafter case was fixed for arguments on charge.

9. After hearing arguments and on perusal of the material placed on record charge for the offence u/s 364/302/201/120B IPC was framed against accused Mohd. Javed, Mohd. Shakir and Mehfooz and charge for the offence u/s 201 IPC was framed against accused Mohd. Ashfaq to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, thereafter case was fixed for prosecution evidence.

17. In view of the aforesaid confrontations and contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses and the electronic evidence collected by the IO coupled with the fact that none of public witnesses have supported the prosecution version it is established that prosecution failed to place on record unbreakable chain of circumstances and requested for acquittal of all the accused for the offence as alleged against them.

18. Ld. counsel on behalf of accused Ashfaq submitted that he was the bonafide purchaser of mobile phone hand set. During the course of investigation he disclosed before the IO that he had purchased the mobile hand set from Mehfooz and this fact is not denied by co-accused Mehfooz during his examination by the IO. He also got recovered the mobile hand set belonging to deceased from his native village and in such circumstances it FIR NO:484/07; PS GOKUL PURI; U/S 364/365/302/201/120B IPC ; STATE VS. JAVED & OTHERS cannot be said that Mohd. Ashfaq assisted in destroying the evidence in the present case and in view of the investigation conducted by the IO no ingredients for the offence u/s 201 IPC is brought on record against the accused. It is further pleaded that accused Ashfaq during his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C also admitted the fact that he had purchased the mobile set belonging to deceased Idrish from accused Mehfooz on payment of Rs.500/- and requested for his acquittal.

28. In view of the aforesaid established facts on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution and on careful perusal of the observation given by their lordships in the aforesaid decided cases upon which both the parties FIR NO:484/07; PS GOKUL PURI; U/S 364/365/302/201/120B IPC ; STATE VS. JAVED & OTHERS placed their reliance I am of the considered view that prosecution succeeded in proving an unbreakable chain of circumstances to prove the offence u/s 364/302/201/120B IPC against accused Mohd. Javed s/o Lal Mohd, Mohd. Shakir s/o Mohd. Suleman and Mehfooz s/o Mainuddin. No sufficient ingredients to prove the offence u/s 201 IPC against accused Mohd. Ashfaq s/o Mohd. Nazmul are proved however, prosecution succeeded in proving the case u/s 411 IPC against accused Ashfaq.

15.In view of the aforesaid discussion I hereby sentenced the convict namely Mohd. Javed, Shakir and Mehfooz for a term of RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each in default of payment of fine they shall further undergo SI for six months for the offence punishable u/sec. 302/120B IPC. They are also FIR NO:484/07; PS GOKUL PURI; U/S 364/365/302/201/120B IPC ; STATE VS. JAVED & OTHERS sentenced for a term of imprisonment for ten years for the offence u/s 364/120B IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each and also in default of payment of fine they all shall undergo SI for three months. They all are also sentenced for a term of imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each in default of payment of fine further SI for 30 days for the offence u/s 201/120B IPC. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Fine not paid.