BALJEET SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant, alongwith Smt. Bimla, Smt. Rajoo and Rahul, was tried for the offences under Sections 302/212/34 of IPC on the allegation of murdering Jagdish on 22nd February, 1996 at about 05:45 P. M. near Jhuggi No. 170/78, Village Jharoda, Pakki Lane by inflicting knife injury on the person of Jagdish. Trial court has relied upon the evidence of wife of the deceased; Rakesh (PW-6), who claims to be an eye-witness, and other evidence on record to convict appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, but has extended benefit of doubt to co-accused of appellant. However, appellant's co-accused-Rajoo and Bimla have been convicted under Section 323 of IPC and have been sentenced by trial court to the period already undergone by them. Vide impugned order of 21st September, 2001, appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, trial court has ordered that appellant shall suffer simple imprisonment for three years. The facts, as noticed in impugned judgment, are as under: -

(2.) While entertaining this appeal, the sentence awarded to appellant was suspended vide order of 10th September, 2002 as by then, appellant had undergone six years of imprisonment. The stand of appellant before trial court was of denial and no evidence was led by appellant. The weapon of offence, i. e. bloodstained knife, has been recovered at the instance of appellant.

(3.) Learned counsel for appellant has rightly not assailed impugned judgment on merits, as upon perusal of evidence on record, we find that the prosecution case stands firmly established. However, it is yet to be seen as to what is the nature of offence committed. The precise submission of learned counsel for appellant is that instant case is of giving solitary blow to deceased and that appellant was not carrying any knife at the time of this accident and so, it cannot be presumed that appellant had an intention to cause death of Jagdish. Learned counsel for appellant submits that as per Nominal Roll of appellant, he had undergone sentence of 6 years, 9 months and 14 days as on 31st August, 2002. Our attention of this Court is drawn by learned counsel for appellant to order of 2nd December, 2002 whereby the amount of surety bond was reduced to Rs. 5,000/- and thereafter only, appellant had come out of jail and as per appellant's counsel, by then appellant had undergone imprisonment of more than seven years.