MANOJ SHUKLA ALIAS PREM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment, the Court would be disposing of an appeal directed against the judgment and order of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 27.01.2011 in SC No.58/2010 by which the Appellant Manoj Shukla was convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

(2.) According to the prosecution, intimation was received by way of DD- 2A (marked as Ex. PW3/A) on 12.02.2006 at 8.28 AM that the body of an unknown person - who looked like a labourer- was lying near shop No.1496 Gali No.5, Wazir Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur. PW-22, I.O. and HC Bhim Singh (PW-5) reached the spot and took charge of the body as well as the blood stained earth and stone-like lump of cement which lay near the body. One Sarla Gupta claimed to be the employer of the deceased- he was identified as Suresh Kumar, her driver. On the basis of this information the FIR (Ex. Pw-16/A) was lodged. According to the police, 5 or 6 members of the public were at the spot; however no statement was recorded. The body was sent for post-mortem examination. It was alleged that PW-8, Jairam Pandey later reached the Police Station and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The police also recorded the statement of one Shyam Kishore; both these individuals claimed to have witnessed the incident which led to the death of Suresh Kumar. They both implicated the present appellant for the crime. The appellant was arrested on 19.07.2006 near the Delhi-U.P. border. After conclusion of investigation, he was charged with committing the offence. He entered the plea of not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) The prosecution relied on the testimonies of 22 witnesses to prove the allegations against the appellant. It also placed on record other materials such as the FSL reports, post mortem report and seizure memos pertaining to the recovery of articles from the accused as well as from the crime scene. Upon an overall consideration of these materials and testimonies of witnesses the Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him in the manner described earlier.