SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants impugn a judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) dated 11.08.2010 in S.C. No. 100/2010. They were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, besides fine and in default to undergo sentences.

(2.) The prosecution alleged that in the morning of 06.03.2007, information was received by Police Station Nand Nagri that one Kusum, wife of Sunil (the first appellant in this case) was admitted to G.T.B. Hospital on account of extensive burn injuries. The information was reduced to a D.D. entry (Ex. PW-4/A) at 11.00 AM and assigned for investigation to ASI Bhupinder Singh. The latter, along with another policeman, Ct. Omveer Singh went to the hospital and collected the MLC, which was produced as Ex. PW-18/A. That document stated that Kusum was taken to the hospital at 10.00 AM. The concerned official, i.e. the Tehsildar was requested to record Kusum s statement. On 06.03.2007, i.e. the same day, PW-1, Yogesh Pal Singh, the concerned Tehsildar recorded the statement of Kusum, marked as Ex. PW-1/A, in the hospital, on which he made the endorsement, Ex. PW-1/B. This was the basis of an FIR registered by the police against the present appellants and co-accused, Amar Singh, who was acquitted after trial. It is alleged that further investigations were conducted and all the accused were arrested. The appellants were charged with committing offences punishable under Sections 302/498A/34 IPC. They entered the plea of not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) The prosecution examined 21 witnesses to prove that the accused were guilty. The material witnesses relied upon by the prosecution were PW-1, the Tehsildar; PW-2, the mother of the deceased girl Kusum; PW-3 Sunder, the elder brother, and the PW-5 doctor who conducted the postmortem on the body. PW-7 Ram Lal, father-in-law of the deceased girl Kusum was also examined during the proceedings. After considering the materials on record, the Trial Court concluded that the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC had not been proved against the accused, and acquitted them. However, as regards the charge of having committed the murder, the present appellants were held guilty but Sunil s father, Amar Singh, i.e. the father-inlaw of the deceased, was acquitted.