VIJAY SHANKAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the Appellant questions the correctness of his conviction Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and Section 449 Indian Penal Code and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him as confirmed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 87-DB/1999 dated 05.04.2006.

(2.) Case of prosecution is that deceased-Satish Kumar, brother of Sukhbir Singh (PW-10), was working as a Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police. Sukhbir Singh and deceased-Satish Kumar owned agricultural lands and also a poultry farm in village Dujana. To celebrate the festival of Holi, on 16.03.1995, deceased-Satish Kumar along with his family went to the village. His wife and children had gone to village Dujana and Satish Kumar stayed in poultry farm. Both the brothers celebrated the Holi by playing fireworks and they continued talking up to 2.00 a.m., Sukhbir Singh returned back to his house in the village leaving Satish Kumar in the poultry farm. The following morning i.e. on 17.03.1995, Kishore (PW-19) saw Satish Kumar lying injured on the floor and he informed the same to PW-10. Sukhbir Singh (PW-10) immediately rushed to the farm and took his brother in a maruti car to the Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak for treatment and the incident was communicated to the police. When the police party from Jhajjar Police Station went to the hospital to record the statement of Satish Kumar, Dr. K.S. Bhatia (PW-6) opined that Satish Kumar was not in a position to give a statement. Police then recorded the statement of Sukhbir Singh (PW-10) who stated that the Appellant-accused resident of village Dujana came to their farm the previous night at about 10.00/11.00 p.m. under the influence of liquor and abused his brother Satish Kumar raising objection for not allowing him to park his cycle and not allowing him to take liquor at their farm and that accused-Vijay Shankar threatened them saying that he would not let them celebrate Holi. Based on the statement of Sukhbir Singh, FIR No. 60/1995 of Jhajjar Police Station, was registered Under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. Dog squad was brought and the sniffer dog followed the trail to the 'baithak' of the Appellant. Vidya Rattan (PW-11) resident of village Dujana informed the police that during the intervening night of 16.03.1995/17.03.1995, when he had gone in search of his lost buffalo, at about 2.30 a.m., he had seen the accused coming out of the room of Satish Kumar. On 19.03.1995, the Appellant is said to have made an extra-judicial confession to Budh Ram (PW-12), a Member of Gram Panchayat of village Dujana. Injured Satish Kumar succumbed to injuries on 20.03.1995. After his death, FIR was altered to Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Dr. Subhash Juneja (PW-13) conducted post-mortem on the body of Satish Kumar and opined that the death was due to multiple injuries with its complications which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The accused was arrested on 19.03.1995 and based on his statement, clothes of the accused and knife were recovered and were sent to forensic science laboratory. After due investigation, chargesheet was filed against the Appellant Under Sections 302 and 449 Indian Penal Code.

(3.) To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined twenty witnesses and from the side of defence one witness was examined. Upon consideration of evidence, the Sessions Court held that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the Appellant Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and imposed fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default clause. The Appellant was also convicted Under Section 449 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default clause. Aggrieved by the verdict of conviction, the Appellant filed appeal before the High Court which by the impugned judgment confirmed the conviction and sentence of imprisonment, correctness of which is challenged in this appeal.