Ghazi Ilam Din Saheed Case: Qamr Zia Langrial Advocate

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 5

bnmqwertyuiopasdfghdfghjklzxcvbnm

qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
QAMR ZIA LANGRIAL ADVOCATE

opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh
jklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb
nmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyui
GHAZI ILAM DIN SAHEED CASE
AIR 1930 LAHORE 157
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh
jklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb
nmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwer
tyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas
dfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio
pasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj
klzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn
mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuio
pasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj
Ilam ud Din v. Emperor

A.I.R. 1930 Lahore 157

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 Lahore 157

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,
Lahore, D/- 22nd May 1929.

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 Hospital Road. Some little time
back he had given grave offence to the Muslim community by the publication of a pamphlet
entitled “Rangila Rasul.” He had been proceeded against under S. 153-A, I.P.C., in connexion
with this publication, and after a protracted trial, had been convicted in January 1927. His
conviction was, however, set aside by the High Court in May 1927.* [Rajpal v. Emperor, A.I.R.
1927 Lah. 590.] The pamphlet was a scurrilous production and had wounded the susceptibilities
of certain members of the Muslim community to such an extent that his acquittal was followed
by two abortive attempts to murder the author, with the result that it was found advisable to
afford him police protection.

It seems that he had recently gone on a visit to Hardwar and, during his absence, the guard was
removed. He returned from Hardwar on 4th April and whether the guard had not yet been
restored or had been temporarily absented himself (the point is immaterial) he was murderously
attacked in his shop at about 2 p.m. on 6th April.

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.

John stone, J.—I concur.

V.B./R.K. Appeal dismissed.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy