Updated: Saturday September 24, 2016/AsSabt
Thoul Hijjah 22, 1437/Sanivara
Asvina 02, 1938, at 05:35:19 PM
Ilam ud Din v. Emperor
A.I.R. 1930
Ilam Din murdered Rajpal, the publisher of the
pamphlet “Rangila Rasul”, on April 6, 1929. Ilam Din was sentenced to
death on May 22, 1929. Mohammed Ali Jinnah and Farrukh Hussain filed an
appeal to the Lahore High Court against the death sentence. Following is
the All India (Law) Reporter record of the case.
A.I.R. 1930
BROADWAY and JOHNSTONE, JJ.
Ilam Din—Accused - Appellant.
v.
Emperor—Opposite Party.
Criminal Appeal No. 562 of 1929, Decided on
17th July 1929 from order of Sess. Judge,
Penal Code, S. -302—That murderer is 19 or 20
years of age and murder prompted by veneration for founder of religion is not
extenuating circumstance.
The mere fact that the murderer is only 19 or
20 years of age and that the act was prompted by feelings of veneration for the
founder of his religion and anger at one who had scurrilously attacked him, is
a wholly insufficient reason for not imposing the appropriate sentence provided
by law: A.I.R. 1928 Lah 531, Ref.
[P158 C1, 2]
Mohammd [sic] Ali Jinnah and Farrukh
Hussain—for Appellant.
Ram Lal and J.L. Kapur— for the Crown.
Broadway, J.—Ilam Din, son of Talia Mand, a
Tarkhan of some 19 or 20 years of age, and a resident of Mohalla Sirianwala,
Lahore City, has been convicted of having caused the death of one Rajpal on 6th
April 1929, and, under S. 302, I.P.C., has been sentenced to death. He
has appealed, and the case is also before us under S. 374, Criminal P.C.
The deceased was a Hindu book-seller having a
shop in the
It seems that he had recently gone on a visit
to
That his assailant intended to cause death is
established by the medical evidence which shows that he received no less than
eight wounds, seven being incised and one a punctured one. The nature of
these injuries also show that Rajpal endeavoured to defend himself, for four of
the incised wounds were on his hands. He received a wound on the top of
his head that cracked the right parietal bone, two incised wounds above the
spine of the left scapula and a punctured wound in his chest. This
last pierced the heart cutting the fourth rib and caused almost instantaneous
death.
The case for the prosecution is that the
appellant purchased a knife from Atma Ram (P.W. 8) on the morning of 6th April,
proceeded to the ship of the deceased at about 2 p.m. and attacked him as he
was sitting on the gaddi in the outer verandha writing letters. The
assault was witnessed by Kidar Nath (P.W. No. 2) and Bhagat Ram (P.W. No. 3)
employees of the deceased who were in the shop at the time, the former sitting
at work in the inner verandah and the latter standing on a ladder in the outer
verandah or room arranging books on the shelves. They raised an alarm,
threw books at the appellant who dropped his knife and ran out. He
was pursued by Kidar Nath and Bhagat Ram who were joined outside by Nanak Chand
(P.W. No. 4) and Parma Nand (P.W. No. 5). The appellant turned into a
woodyard belonging to Vidya Rattan, who had seen the pursuit from his office
door and who hastened into the woodyard and seized the appellant, being
assisted by the pursuers who were on his heels. The appellant is then
stated to have repreatedly [sic] and loudly proclaimed that he was neither a
thief nor a dacoit but had “taken revenge for the prophet.” Ilam Din was
taken to the deceased’s shop, the police were notified and took over the
appellant and the investigation.
A very brief report was made by Kidar Nath who
said nothing of the assertions made by Ilam Din when he was captured, and did
not mention the name of his fellow servant.
On the following day as a result of a statement
made by Ilam Din to the Police, the shop of Atma Ram was discovered, and on 9th
this Atma Ram picked out the appellant at an identification parade held under
the supervision of a Magistrate as the man to whom he had sold the knife found
in Rajpal’s shop.
There can be no doubt that Atma Ram could have
sold the knife as he had several of identically the same make and pattern, two
of which have been produced as exhibits. He stated that he bought
these knives at an auction sale of Medical Stores.
M. Jinha [sic] has attacked the prosecution
story on various grounds. He urged that Kidar Nath was not a
reliable witness because (1) he was an employee of the deceased and therefore, “interested;”
(2) he had not stated in the First Information Report (a) that Bhagat Ram was
with him, and (b) that the appellant had stated that he had avenged the
Prophet. As to Bhagat Ram it was contended he, as an employee, was
interested, and as to the rest that there were variations in some of the
details.
Objection was taken to the admissibility of the
statements made to the police which led to the discovery of Atma Ram, and Atma
Ram’s identification of Ilam Din and his testimony regarding the sale of the
knife to Ilam Din were characterised as untrue and improbable. (His
Lordship after discussing the evidence held that the guilt had been established
and proceeded as follows.) Mr. Jinnah finally contended that the sentence
of death was not called for and urged as extenuating circumstances, that the
appellant is only 19 or 20 years of age and that his act was prompted by
feelings of veneration for the founder of his religion and anger at one who had
scurrilously attacked him.
As was pointed out in Amir v. Emperor (1):
[A.I.R. 1928 Lah. 531.]:
“the mere fact that the murderer is 19 or 20 years of age, * * * * is a wholly
insufficient reason for not imposing the appropriate sentence provided by law.”
The fact that Ilam Din is 19 or 20 years of age
is not, therefore, a sufficient reason for not imposing the extreme penalty and
I am unable to see that the other reasons advanced by Mr. Jinnah can be
regarded as affording any excuse for a deliberate and cold blooded murder of
this type.
I would, therefore, dismiss the appeal and
confirm the sentence of death.
Johnstone, J.—I concur.
V.B./R.K.
Appeal dismissed.
--------------------------------------------------------
Courtesy: Mr. Afrasiab Mohal, Advocate, Cell
0345-46444423
Go to Index | LL. B. – I | LL. B. – II | LL. B. – III | LL. B. Directory | Home