SUNIL AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BELIEVING the testimony of Sushila PW -1, her son Tinku PW -2 and her neighbour Rekha PW -4, vide impugned decision dated April 24, 2014 the learned Trial Judge has held that the prosecution has successfully proved the fact that appellants Jai Kishore @ Sheru and Sunil along with two absconding co -accused named Raju and Munna, in furtherance of their common intention, using the handle Ex.P -1 of a hand -pump and a wooden stick Ex.P -2 caused injuries to the deceased Vijay, which proved fatal resulting in Vijay's death and caused simple injuries to Rekha. The learned Trial Judge has further held that the prosecution has successfully proved that pursuant to his disclosure statement appellant Jai Kishore got recovered the handle Ex.P -1 of the hand -pump and the appellant Sunil got recovered the wooden stick Ex.P -2. Convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC for Vijay's death and for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 IPC for causing simple injuries to Rekha, vide order on sentence dated April 26, 2014 the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine in sum of Rs. 10,000/ - (Rupees Ten Thousand only) , in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence of murder. They have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine in sum of Rs. 3000/ - (Rupees Three Thousand only) , in default to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days for causing simple injuries to Rekha.

(2.) MAKING a feeble attempt to try and discredit the testimony of the three eye witnesses, learned counsel for the appellants would urge that believing the testimony of the three eye witnesses and keeping into account the post - mortem report Ex.PW -10/A of the deceased, case made out against the appellants pertaining to Vijay's death is not for the offence of murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part -I IPC.

(3.) RELEVANT would it be to note that during cross -examination she admitted that she was booked twice for having violated the Excise Act. She denied the suggestion that the accused persons were objecting to customer coming to their house where they used to sell liquor. She admitted that in the past she and her brother used to sell liquor but denied that currently they are selling liquor.