ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT and co-accused Umesh were sent to trial for the offence punishable under Section 302/392/34 IPC. The appellant was also charged for the offences punishable under Section 397 IPC and Section 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act.

(2.) VIDE impugned judgment and order dated 20. 7. 2007, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC as also the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC. He has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The co-accused has been acquitted.

(3.) IN convicting the appellant the learned Trial Judge has held that the evidence establishes that the pistol Ex. P-2 recovered from the appellant when he was arrested was the weapon of offence since the report Ex. PW-17/a of the ballistic expert confirmed that the fired cartridge Ex. P-4 recovered near the body of the deceased as also the bullet recovered from the skull of the deceased during post-mortem were fired from the pistol in question as the striation marks on the bullet recovered from the body of the deceased matched those on the test fired bullet and the firing pin marks and breach face on the used cartridge Ex. P-4 matched those on the counterpart of the test fired cartridge. The second incriminating circumstance held established against the appellant is his being apprehended while driving the Indica car Ex. P-1 bearing no. DL 4s AA 0085. The car belonged to Sudhir Yadav PW-12 whose driver Satish pw-2 had given the car to Jaipal, the deceased at around 10:00 PM on 29. 12. 2003. The appellant was apprehended in the car in the intervening night of 29th and 30th December 2003 at 2:00 AM. The third incriminating evidence against the appellant is the fact that the appellant led the police to the spot where the dead body of the deceased was recovered.