STATE Vs. DHARAM PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State seeks leave to appeal by the present petition against a judgment and order of the learned ASJ dated 23.07.2010 by which he acquitted the respondent of the charge of having committed offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

(2.) The prosecution had alleged that on 17.10.2004, Police Station Narela received information from one Mahender Singh of Village Bawana about the recovery of the dead body of Crl.L.P. 369/2011, Crl. M.A. 9063/2011 in Crl. L.P. 369/2011 Page 2 Ram Nath, at 08.35 AM. Ram Nath, a native of U.P., was working at his tubewell in the fields, was found dead on his cot. The information was duly recorded by a diary entry and the matter was handed-over to SI Manwar Patwal, who with other police staff and Mahender Singh went to the spot. The body was identified by Kali Charan, the complainant and the brother of the deceased, who deposed as PW-6. It was apparent from a look at the body that the deceased had been inflicted with injuries on the face, left cheek and neck, and several other wounds were also found; all of them were caused by some sharp-edged weapon. The police recorded the statement of Kali Charan, who indicated that for about 2 years, the deceased used to live near the tubewell of one Chaudhary Ishwar Singh, working as agricultural laborer in the fields and was also working for Chaudhary Mahender Singh. The distance between these two places was around half-a- kilometer. The prosecution alleged that on 17.10.2004, when PW-6 was passing through the tubewell, where the deceased was working, the latter was sleeping, covered with a bed sheet and when he went near, he discovered that Ram Nath had injuries and had already died. PW-6 informed that his younger brother, Het Ram and another person named Jagdish had reached the spot and informed him that the previous night, at 12.00 AM, when he (Het Ram) was returning after watching a movie, he saw the respondent going towards the field via a canal passage armed with an axe. He also stated that the deceased had complained about harassment by the accused. After conclusion of the postmortem examination and consideration of materials, the respondent, who had been arrested in the meanwhile, was charged with having committed the murder. He denied any involvement and claimed trial. The prosecution basically relied upon the testimony of several witnesses and also other materials, including the Postmortem Report and the recovery of an axe, said to be the murder weapon as well as the blood-stained clothes from the premises of the respondent/accused. After consideration of these and the submissions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, acquitted the accused.

(3.) Sh. Sanjay Lao, learned APP urges that the State ought to be granted leave to appeal in the present case since the Trial Court fell into error in not appreciating the full impact and appropriateness of the last seen evidence which had to be seen in the backdrop of the recoveries made from the respondent/accused's premises. It is submitted that the Doctor, who had examined the body and furnished the Postmortem Report deposed in Court that the axe in question produced during the trial could have been the murder weapon and the cause for the injuries of the deceased.Crl.L.P. 369/2011, Crl. M.A. 9063/2011 in Crl. L.P. 369/2011 Page 3