ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present appeal is the impugned judgment dated 3rd April, 2001 and order on sentence, dated 4th April, 2001, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"), and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life together with payment of fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years with fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 307 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:-

(2.) To prove its case the prosecution in all examined 14 witnesses. After the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the incriminating evidence, as were put to him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. He also claimed that the injury on the person of the deceased-Badle and his son-Vijay were caused by one Rinku and not by him. The accused however, did not lead any evidence in his defence.

(3.) Addressing the arguments on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Avninder Singh, Advocate strenuously argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case while the actual culprit of the crime namely-Rinku got away from the case scot free. Submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that Mr. Yasin (PW-2) in his deposition clearly disclosed about the presence of Rinku at the time of the alleged incident but astonishingly, PW-1 not only denied the presence of Rinku at the time of the alleged incident but also denied his acquaintance with him. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that because of such a brazen denial on the part of PW-1, about the presence of Rinku at the time of incident, no reliance can be placed on his testimony to inculpate the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the appellant was arrested, when he was present in front of the house, and this fact would again show that the appellant was easily accessible to the police and had never tried to abscond and if he would have committed the crime, then certainly he would not have been present in his house. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the story of the prosecution that the appellant was carrying a dagger of a length of 28.6 cms. in his back trouser's pocket is highly unreliable as it is impossible to carry such a dagger in a back pocket of the trouser, for it cannot fit into the same. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the recovery of the weapon of offence, was also highly suspicious as no criminal after committing the crime would keep carrying the weapon of offence with him. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that no independent witness was joined at the time of the recovery of the dagger from the appellant.