TUN TUN DASS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge dated 28.02.2011 in SC No. 11/2010. The appellant Tun Tun Dass was convicted for committing the murder of his sister Suman @ Seema on the night intervening 4/5.12.2009. Briefly, the prosecution alleged before the Trial Court that information was received in the early hours of the morning by PS Uttam Nagar about a stabbing incident. The appellant's name was given in the intimation, it was produced as Ex. PW-1/A, the PCR form. This was at 3.20 A.M. The concerned police man went to the spot and recorded the statement of the informant PW-10; the same formed the basis of the FIR. The statement of PW-10(Ex. PW-10/A) alleged that in the early hours of the morning, she was woken up by her niece Kajal, a young girl of five years, who told her that her mother was vomiting. PW-10, the sister of the deceased came downstairs and saw that her sister was lying in a poof of Wood. She also saw that the appellant (her brother) who used to reside in the same premises was in "perplexed" condition. According to PW-10, the appellant was perspiring had blood stains on his shirt and on seeing her, ran away. The statement of PW-10 (Ex. PW-10/A) was recorded at 7.00 A.M.; subsequently, an FIR was lodged.

(2.) After the conclusion of investigation, (during the course of which the appellant was arrested on 04.01.2010) Tun Tun Das was charged for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed the trial. The prosecution relied on the testimony of 25 witnesses and several other exhibits including post-mortem report as well as the recovery/ seizure memo. After considering this, the Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with direction to pay fine.

(3.) Ms. Sahila Lamba, the learned counsel for the appellant urges that the conviction recorded by the Trial Court in this case is extremely tenuous and was passed on flimsy grounds. She argued that the conduct of PW-10's niece (the daughter of the deceased) in waking her (PW-10) up is abnormal unnatural. It was also argued that Kajal, the deceased's daughter was not even examined; her statement even under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was not recorded during investigation. This constituted a serious infirmity in the prosecution's case. Being the first witness to actually see the deceased, her version was vital. The conviction, based solely on the testimony of PW-10 ought not to be sustained. According to the learned counsel, the prosecution could not conclusively prove that the appellant was responsible for the crime, and the only evidence led by the prosecution in the form of the deposition of PW-10 failed to incriminate the appellant.