IMPORTANT POINTS
When all the accused were armed with knives and all the knives were used, there was no error in conviction with the aid of section 109 and 149 IPC.
The age of the accused on the date of crime decides his juvenility.

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 r/w 109 and 149 – Four knives recovered from place of occurrence – Eye witness account establishing that all accused were armed with knives Witnesses receiving injuries of varying degrees at the hands of the accused persons – Medical evidence and eye witness accounts establishing use of multiple knives – Section 109 and 149 rightly invoked – Conviction u/s 302 r/w 109 and 149 – No infirmity – Section 304 Part II has no application. (Para 18, 19)
       (2013) 6 SCC 770; (2012) 3 SCC 221; (2009) 13 SCC 211 – Referred
       (b) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – Rule 98 – Appellant in Cr. A. No. 1410 of 2011 only 17 years and 9 months old at the time of crime – He is entitled to be treated under the Rules for sentence – While confirming his conviction, sentence already undergone held sufficient – Directed to be released. (Para 22)
       (2010) 15 SCC 83 – Relied upon
       (2013) 11 SCC 193 – Referred
       Facts of the case:
       PW-1 by name Alim George is 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.
       In view of 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; a report appeared about the nefarious activities in a magazine called “Yevukanai” at the instance of PW-23.
       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.
       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, and they asked for PW-1. 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’.
       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.
       The trial court 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.
       Division Bench of the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.
       Finding of the Court:
       A1 should be treated as per JJ Rules 2007. No interference is warranted in case of other accused.
       Result: Appeal filed by A1 disposed of. Appeal of other appellants A2 to A4 dismissed.

JUDGMENT

FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.

1. In these appeals preferred by Accused Nos.1 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as ‘A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4’), the Appellants herein seek to challenge the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The Division Bench by the impugned judgment dated 23.07.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.359 of 2005 confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in the judgment dated 06.04.2005 in SC No.240 of 2003.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. The accused, who were held by the neighbours, were beaten by the public and were shifted to the hospital by the police personnel. It is in the above stated background that the Appellants were arrested along with the other two accused and after recording the statements of witnesses, the charge-sheet came to be filed. Apart from PWs-1 to 4, the injured eye witnesses related to the deceased, an independent witness PW-5 who was employed on that day for changing the tiles of the roof of the house of PW-1 was als

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(SC) 567

IMPORTANT POINTS When all the accused were armed with knives and all the knives were used, there was no error in conviction with the aid of section 109 and 149 IPC. The age of the accused on the date of crime decides his juvenility.

Cases Referred (4)

IMPORTANT POINTS
When all the accused were armed with knives and all the knives were used, there was no error in conviction with the aid of section 109 and 149 IPC.
The age of the accused on the date of crime decides his juvenility.