VIJAY THAKUR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of concurrent order of conviction passed by the courts below convicting these two appellants, viz. Vijay Thakur and Surjeet Khachi, along with third accused, namely, Rajinder Thakur under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing all of them to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of 5,000, etc. The appellants are also convicted for the offence under Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC and are given the sentence of five years and fine of 2,000 each with a default clause in case fine is not paid.

(2.) As correctness of the narration of this prosecution case recorded by the High Court is not in dispute, we may state the prosecution version by borrowing from the said judgment. It is as under:

(3.) After the completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed, whereby all the three accused persons were challaned. Case was committed by the concerned Judicial Magistrate to the Sessions Court after complying with the requisite procedural formalities. Charges were framed by the Sessions Court and the matter went for trial as all the three accused persons pleaded 'Not Guilty'. Prosecution examined various witnesses and the deposition of some of the material witnesses examined. After the conclusion of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The appellants denied all the incriminating circumstances/material put to them and depositions of the various prosecution witnesses as well as documents placed on record. The accused persons specifically denied that they had hired Maruti van, which was driven by the deceased or that they have travelled by that van on or about August 21, 2012. They also denied having taken lift in the truck of PW-30 from Narkanda to Sainj. Similarly, there was a denial by them that they took the van to an area in Patiala District, Punjab or to Kuthar or to Solan District in Himachal Pradesh or attempted to sell the van. They also pleaded that no such disclosure statements leading to the alleged discovered were made by them.