UMESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per the prosecution, the appellant Umesh and co -accused Ramesh (a juvenile and sent for trial to the Juvenile Court), murdered the deceased also named Umesh.

(2.) The conviction of the appellant has been returned by the learned Trial Judge with reference to the testimony of Jagbir PW -1, found to be corroborated by the testimony of Jai Singh PW -2, Nand Kishore PW -4 and Leelu PW -5; as also on the reasoning that a khukri got recovered by the appellant being not sent to the doctor for opinion was irrelevant because the khukri was not the main weapon of offence. A reasoning which baffles us because the post -mortem report of the deceased shows that all the lacerated wounds could have been caused only by a blunt edged object, such as a palta (an implement used by confectioners to fry food stuffs in deep containers), which appears to have been used as a handy object in the commission of the crime because the place where the deceased Umesh was brutally assaulted happens to be the shop where Umesh was carrying on business as a confectioner.

(3.) It therefore turns on the testimony of Jagbir, Jai Singh, Nand Kishore and Leelu, all of whom have deposed in sync that the appellant was an employee of deceased Umesh and a day prior to, when in the early hours of the morning Umesh's dead body was noticed in his shop, the day prior being November 11, 1992 at 9.00 P.M., the appellant had come to the shop of Umesh demanding Rs.200/ - at which a quarrel ensued. During the quarrel the deceased slapped the appellant but was pacified. They left the shop but the appellant and co -accused Ramesh as also one Dashrath slept in the shop and the next day early morning around 5.00 A.M., an unknown person informed Jagbir Singh that his brother : the deceased, was lying in his shop in a pool of blood.