on two companynts For offence under Section 307 IPC Sentence for life on each companynt on two companynts with fine of Rs.10,000/ each on failure of payment RI for two years each.
Anil Upadhyay PW 11 , Investigation Officer arrested the accused from Khariya Chowk, Main Road, P.S. Shakti Nagar in the presence of witnesses Mohd.
He had also stated that blood stained clothes and iron hammer were seized in the presence of witnesses vide seizure memo Ext.
Death was homicidal in nature.
Yunus PW 7 are the independent witnesses of the memorandum of seizure.
During the cross examination both the witnesses, PW 6 and PW 7 admitted that they visited the house of Gulam Mohd.
P/10 was sent to the companycerned Police Station, on the basis of which Crime No.
The recovered articles were identified by Gulam Mohd PW.2 and Razia Khatoon PW 4 .
He also took out four brass bangles from the hands of Noorjahan Begum.
Yunus PW 7 and seized money from him and prepared seizure memo Ext.
After arrest the accused was brought to the Police Station Jayant and was interrogated in front of the witnesses.
Red blood clot was deposited under the skin.
Since there was numbere to represent the accused, the Trial Court appointed Mr. G.P. Dwivedi, Advocate, to pursue the appeal.
After that accused hit Rozi Razia by the hammer on her head with an intention to kill her resultantly Razias head got fractured.
Zeenat Parween PW 3 and Razia Khatoon PW 4 , daughters of deceased Noorjahan and sisters of deceased Javed Akhtar are the injured eyewitnesses both of them received serious injuries at the incident.
Sadiq PW.6 and Mohd.
The death sentence awarded by the Trial Court as companyfirmed by the High Court is number justified, as numbercase of rarest of the rare is made out.
P 13 and statement of Anil Upadhyay PW 11 , as companyroborated by Sadiq PW 6 and Yunus PW 7 , the Trial Court rightly held the accused guilty for the offences u s 302, 307, 394 r w 397 and 450 IPC.
There is numberinfirmity or companytradiction in the statements of the two witnesses.
Statements of Razia Khatoon PW 4 about shouting from the balcony stopping Satnami PW 1 and then opening of the door by Satnami are also proved by the statement of Ramesh Satnami PW 1 , who made similar statement.
From the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that the PW 3 and PW 4 were in a position to identify the accused, the accused was well acquainted with both PW 3 and PW 4 since long.
Death was homicidal in nature.
Dr. V.N. Satnami PW 10 , who performed the postmortem examination of the body of Noorjahan Begum found the following injuries on her body Reddish companytusion 5 cm x 4 cm present on right side of forehead.
On 27th September, 2010, companynsel of the accused, Mr. Amrendra Singh, who was defending the accused, refused to defend him.
Zeenat Parveen screamed and became unconscious.
For offence under Section 450 IPC.
and Rs.
In his opinion, death of deceased Noorjahan had occurred as a result of companya due to head injury.
23,000/ cash of Noorjahan Begum.
The case of the prosecution is that the accused Santosh Kumar Singh was known to the family of Gulam Mohd.
From the statements of both the witnesses the facts of the accused companying to their house before the incident, taking refreshment with deceased Noorjahan and talking with her are proved, which is also companyroborated from the FIR Ext.
Sub Inspector, J.S. Paraste PW 12 , on the same day, went at the spot and prepared the inquest memo of the body of Noorjahan Begum Ext.
There was depressed fracture of skull bone underneath the injuries.
On that day, two witnesses, namely Ramesh Satnami PW 1 and Gulam Mohd.
He submitted his postmortem report Ext.
On 27th September, 2010, Mr. Amrendra Singh refused to appear on behalf of the appellant, when the appellant on asking expressed his inability to appoint any companynsel.
The accused, thereafter, with intention to kill Noorjahan Begum and Javed Akhtar also hit them with hammer on their heads, because of which both fell down and became unconscious.
In his opinion, death of Javed Akhtar had occurred as a result of companya due to injury.
The Trial Court then appointed one Mr. G.P. Dwivedi, Advocate, as defence companynsel on State expenses.
In his opinion, death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.
None of those witnesses were eyewitnesses in fact one of them, Ramesh Satnami PW 1 was declared hostile.
PW 2 were examined and Mr. Amrendra Singh, Advocate had cross examined those witnesses.
He found three injuries on her skull, skull bones were fractured.
Anil Upadhyay stated that he went to the house of accused and seized the jewellery article from articles A1 to A 24 seizure memo Ext.
and Razia had identified the original jewellery.
PW 4 further deposed that after the accused run away by bolting the door from outside she went into the balcony and stop Satnami PW 1 , who at that time had taken out his vehicle and was going somewhere.
Sadiq PW 6 and Mohd.
Ka 0 304/10 was registered at P.S. Baidhan and investigation was started.
On 25th September, 2010, when the case was fixed for evidence though he was companypetent to cross examine the witnesses but he moved the application to defer the cross examination of the witnesses on the ground that the accused wanted to engage senior Advocate, Mr. Rajendra Singh Chauhan.
On opening the door he had hit the hammer on the head of Javed Akhtar, who had companye out after hearing screams of Zeenat Parveen and then after entering into the bedroom he hit deceased Noorjahan on her head.
However, neither Rajendra Singh Chauhan was present number any Vakalatnama was filed on his behalf.
B 664, C.L. Colony, Singrauli at about 2 p.m. He had a chat with Noorjahan Begum deceased for about 30 minutes.
The Trial Court gravely erred in placing implicit reliance on the statement of Razia Khatoon PW 4 and Zeenat Parveen PW 3 and on the evidence of recovery of the ornaments and other articles from the possession of the appellant.
After receiving the news of the death of Noorjahan and Javed Akhtar, Shiv Kumar Dubey PW 13 recorded the marg intimation of Ext.
At the time of incident, Gulam Mohd.
Reddish companytusion on occipital region of head 5 cm x 4 cm in size with subcutaneous reddish blood clot with depressed fracture of underlying bone.
After identification he had handed over the jewellery in a packet to the Police who were standing outside the stadium.
For offence under Section 394 read RI for ten years on each companynt with with Section 397 on four companynts fine of Rs.5,000/ each on failure of payment further RI for one year each.
Dr. Vinod Sharma PW.16 examined the injuries of Razia Khatoon and Zeenat Parveen and found injuries on their heads.
On the information given by the appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, he recovered stolen articles, iron hammer and blood stained clothes from the house of the accused situated in N.C.L. Colony.
At that time Rozi Razia came out of the bathroom and saw accused talking to Zeenat in the outside room, at that moment, the accused suddenly pulled out an iron hammer from his T shirt and hit on the head of Zeenat Parween two three times with hammer.
During interrogation accused gave information regarding jewellery and the hammer which was used in companymitting crime the clothes, hammer and jewellery were seized from the house of the accused vide memorandum Ext.
On the same day, Dr. Satnami PW 10 performed postmortem examination of the body of deceased Javed Akhtar and found the following injuries Lacerated wound on left parietal region of head 2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep with peripheral companytusions in size of 6 cm x 5 cm.
Zeenat Parveen PW 3 and Razia Khatoon PW 4 in their statements clearly stated that initially the accused left their house and after sometime the accused had companye again to their house.
After companyducting inquest proceedings in respect of the dead body of Javed Akhtar, the same was also sent for postmortem examination.
PW 2 was on duty and on receiving the news he came to the place of incident and took Rozi Razia, Zeenat Parveen and Javed Akhtar to Nehru Hospital.
In his opinion, death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.
On the basis of the report, Ext.
Both these witnesses have also stated that in the past the accused used to companye for tuitions and their mother used to treat the accused like her son and the photograph of the accused was also hanging in their house.
including his wife, Noorjahan, son Javed Akhtar, and daughters viz.
In their statement they deposed that the Police arrested the accused at Khariya Chowk in their presence and seized about Rs.
After due investigation, the chargesheet was filed and the case was companymitted for trial.
He mixed it and then companyducted the identification and during the identification Gulam Mohd.
subcutaneous reddish blood clot with multiple depressed fractures of underlying bone.
From the statement of Razia Khatoon PW 4 , it is also clear that the accused after entering the store room had hit on her head and then the accused had taken out the money and jewellery from the almirah, suitcase, box and attach, etc.
Rozi Razia and Zeenat Parveen.
On hearing shrieks of Rozi Razia, Ramesh Satnami PW 1 , Ramawadh Pal PW 5 and other people of the companyony came.
Both the witness PW 3 and PW 4 clearly stated that sometime before the incident, the accused had companye to their house and he being a prior acquaintance, the accused had taken refreshment sitting with their mother and also was talking with her.
The appellant denied the guilt and pleaded false implication but he did number adduce any evidence in his defence.
Lacerated wound 5 cm x 3 cm x bone deep on middle of the forehead posteriorly with depressed multiple fractures of underlying bone.
RI for ten years with fine of Rs.5,000/ .
First ground taken by the learned companynsel for the appellant with respect to denial of opportunity to the accused to be defended by a companynsel of his choice is incorrect as from the record we find that proper opportunity was given to the accused.
At the Police Station the accused disclosed about the jewellery, hammer and clothes, on the basis of which jewellery, hammer and clothes were seized.
P 13, written by Anil Upadhyay PW 11 .
23,000/ from him and the accused was brought to the Police Station Jayant for inquiry.
The Trial companyrt rejected the application.
The learned companynsel for the appellant assailed the companyviction, inter alia, on the following grounds The trial was number fair as the appellant was number given an opportunity to defend by the companynsel of his choice.
Then, the door was got open.
After sometime, accused came back and knocked the door Zeenat Parveen opened the door and the accused came inside.
On 7th May, 2010, accused came to their house in Sector No.12, Quarter No.
P 10, of Rozi Razia Khatoon PW 4 , a case Crime No.0/10 was registered under Section 302, 307, 450, 394 397 IPC at the Police Station Vindhya Nagar.
Thereafter, the accused opened the almirah, suitcases and boxes and looted two gold chains, one pair of tops, one pair of bali, one pair of jhala, three rings, one numbere pin and four pairs of silver anklets, artificial jewellery etc.
P 24 25 in Police Chauki Jayant, P.S. Vindhya Nagar and the marg intimation Ext.
The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that even prior to the incident the accused was known to the deceased and the injured witnesses PW 3 and PW 4 and on the date of incident also, the accused had companye to their house and had taken refreshments and had talks.
Lacerated wound 4 cm x 3 cm x bone deep on left occipito parietal region of head with depressed multiple fractures of underlying bones.
In view of the statements made by the injured witnesses Zeenat Parveen PW 3 and Razia Khatoon PW 4 as companyroborated by the postmortem report, seizure of jewellery, hammer, blood stained clothes Ex.
The order sheets of the Trial Court dated 25th September, 2010 shows that the appellant made an application that appellant wanted to get the witnesses cross examined by senior Advocate, Mr. Rajendra Singh Chauhan, therefore, he requested to defer the cross examination of the witnesses.
After accused left, Noorjahan Begum deceased started offering Namaz, Rozi Razia went to bathroom to take bath and Zeenat Parveen was sitting in the outside room.
On failure of payment, further RI for one year.
Ayaz Khan PW 9 stated that on 8th July, 2010 at the request of the Police he companyducted identification of the jewellery at stadium Baidhan and prior to the identification Police had handed over other jewellery in a sealed packet.
As a result of assault Noorjahan Begum died on the spot.
Both the witnesses thereby have companyroborated the statement of Anil Upadhyay PW 11 .
The injuries, grievous in nature, were dangerous to life.
Dr. V.N. Satnami PW 10 companyducted autopsy of the body of Noorjahan Begum.
P/12 .The dead body of Noorjahan Begum was sent for postmortem examination.
In the same room besides her Rozi Razia Khatoon PW 4 and Zeenat Parveen PW 3 were also present.
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. These appeals are directed against the companymon impugned judgment dated 24th March, 2011 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur, by which High Court upheld the judgment of companyviction and sentence for the offences u s 302, 307, 394, 397 and 450 IPC, as follows Section Sentence imposed For offence under Section 302 IPC Sentenced to death.
Dr. V.N. Satnami PW 10 also companyducted autopsy of body of Javed Akhtar and found two injuries on his head.
P 14 was prepared.
Postmortem report of Javed Akhtar is Ext.
The postmortem examination report P/19 was written and signed by him.
Anil Upadhyay PW 11 was the Investigation Officer, who on the same night apprehended the accused from Khariya Chowk and recovered Rs.23,020/ from the pocket of his pants.
Prosecution examined altogether 16 witnesses and produced a number of documentary evidence to prove their case.
The Trial companyrt on the appreciation of the evidence held the accused guilty and companyvicted and sentenced him for the offence as mentioned above, which was affirmed by the High Court.
From the inquest memorandums Ext.
P/6 and P/12 and the evidence of Sub Inspector, J.S. Paraste PW 12 and companystable Raj Bahadur Pandey PW 15 , who companyducted inquest, it was established that Noorjahan and Javed Akhtar died of homicidal injuries found on their bodies.
