Judgement

UNTWALIA, J.:- These are three appeals by special leave. One of them was directed from some interlocutory order of the High Court and had become infructuous. Mr. Yogeswar Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants asked us to dismiss that appeal as being infructuous. We accordingly do so. In one of the remaining two appeals the appellant is Kumari Shamim Rahmani. She has been convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Dr. Hari Om Gautam. A sentence of life imprisonment has been awarded to her. In the other appeal the appellant is Shri. Amir Ahmad Rahmani, elder brother of Shamim. He is said to have lodged a false information at the Police Station in connection with the said murder with the intention of screening his sister from legal punishment. He has been convicted under Section 201 of the Penal Code. The trial Judge imposed a sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment on him but the High Court has reduced it to one year.

2. The, murder of the Doctor was the culmination of the wrong and vicious path of love and lust between him and appellant Shamim. As is not uncommon in such type of love affairs, the girl found the arms of her lover getting loose and cold. It resulted in her frustration. In a jealous and revengeful attitude she used her arms on a gun and shot her lover dead. Thus she landed herself in the long arms of law and suffered the conviction for murder. We may observe at the outset that in the conduct of the case on behalf of the appellants in the trial Court as also in the High Court there has been over-doing and too much hair-splitting but all in vain. On reading the two judgments of the Courts below and on perusal of the relevant materials and pieces of evidence in the case and after hearing the fair and able argument of Mr. Yogheswar Prasad we have come to the conclusion that not only Shamim s appeal is concluded by the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below with which, but for very strong reasons, this Court is loathe to interfere, the findings in our opinion, are absolutely correct. The exhaustive criticism of the prosecution case and the evidence adduced by it has been fully dealt with by the High Court as also by the trial Court. The appeal of appellant Amir Ahmad, for the reasons to be stated hereinafter, is fit to succeed.

3. we proceed to state the facts of the case very briefly. We also do not think it necessary to deal with in any detail, all the points urged on behalf of appellant Shamim as almost all of them were repetitions of the arguments advanced in the High Court and rightly rejected by it. It will be hardly of any use to paraphrase the judgment of the High court for the purpose of affirming it.

4. The appellants father was one Azizur Rahman Khan since deceased. Mostly he lived at a place outside the city of Lucknow. In a rented house at 23, Kandhari Lane, Police Station Kaiserbagh, Lucknow lived Smt. Sikander Jahan, mother of the appellant Shamim, her elder sister Km. Naseem Rahmani and her younger brother - a boy of tender age - named Mohmmad Ahmad Rahmani alias Sheikhu. The appellants have another brother named F. A. A. Rahmani who at the relevant time was Personal Assistant to a Minister of the Central Government and was living in Delhi. Appellant Amir Ahmad was living in another house in the City of Lucknow at No. 24, New Berry Road, Police Station, Hazratganj. Lucknow. He. had a shop where he dealt in spare parts of tractors.

5. At the time of the occurrence which took place at about 11.00 or .11.15 p.m.on the 11th July, 1968 appellant Shamim was a College going girl and was about 22 years of age. Shortly before in the year 1967 she had passed her B.Sc. examination. Dr. Gautam was about 35 years of age at the time of occurrence. He was a married man and had his wife living. There were three children born of their wedlock. Dr. Gautam was attached to Balrampur Hospital, Lucknow in the year 1966. Azizur Rahman had a paralytic att