RAJESH KUMAR AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed under Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of conviction dated 27.01.2000 and order on sentence dated 02.02.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 118/1998, by virtue of which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay Rs. 500/ - each as fine and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Ss. 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants have been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay Rs. 500/ - each as fine and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Ss. 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) In order to appreciate the rival contentions advanced by the parties and issues involved, it would be necessary to set out brief facts of the case which gave rise to the present criminal appeal. One Pradeep Sharma was running his milk shop at 2232, H.C. Sain Road and he had employed five persons Rajesh Kumar, Balram Singh, Sunil (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), Sabin Barua @ Gopi and Pankaj Gugai @ Mridul at his shop. All these employees used to stay at night inside the said shop. On 27.08.1997 all the employees stayed back when Pradeep Sharma closed his shop at night and during night, a quarrel took place among the appellants and the deceased over the bedding being spread as the deceased directed the appellants to spread bedding for him but they refused to carry out his wish and dictate. Thereafter, all went to sleep at their respective places. At about 02:00 or 02:30 a.m., the appellants got up and threw acid upon the deceased and on Pankaj and Sabin @ Gopi also when they intervened. All the three persons received injuries on their person. Someone informed the police on which police reached the spot and removed the injured to J.P.N. Hospital. Pradeep Sharma (owner of the shop) was also informed and he reached the hospital. DD No. 16A was recorded at the Police Station -Kotwali. On receipt of DD No. 16A, SI Dheeraj Narang reached the hospital and collected the MLC of all the three injured persons. The deceased was declared unfit for statement. SI Dheeraj Narang (Investigating Officer) recorded the statement of Sabin @ Gopi and got the present case registered under Ss. 307/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, Investigating Officer reached the spot along with Pradeep Sharma and arrested both the accused persons i.e. Rajesh Kumar and Balram Singh. The Investigating Officer also seized one plastic can containing some sulphuric acid, one mug, and a bucket and prepared their seizure memos. The burnt clothes of the accused persons were also seized. At the spot, the information was received regarding the death of the deceased and therefore Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added. Both the accused persons were got medically examined. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in court. Charge under Sec. 302/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against both the accused persons.

(3.) To bring home the guilt of the accused persons and to prove its case the prosecution has examined 18 witnesses in all. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein they denied their involvement in the commission of offence and claimed to be innocent. The accused persons took up a plea that the deceased was incharge of the shop of Pradeep Sharma and at one point of time threatened Pradeep Sharma to suffer the consequences on which Pradeep Sharma became alert and to balance the control of deceased on his business, he employed other persons i.e. Sabin Barua (PW -9) and Pankaj Gugai (PW -10). They further stated that Pradeep Sharma in collusion with PW -9, PW - 10 along with the police played a drama and had falsely implicated them. No evidence was adduced by the appellants in their defence.