JITENDRA KUMAR @ BABLOO Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.05.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 153 of 2004 whereby the said court has convicted the appellant Jitendra Kumar @ Babloo under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC) and sentenced him imprisonment for life.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record. Prosecution story, in brief, is that Dinesh Chand (deceased) had a quarrel with accused appellant Jitendra Kumar @ Babloo on 11.07.2004 at about 06.30 p.m. near Dobhal Chowk, Dehradun within the limits of Police Station Raipur, District Dehradun. Soon thereafter, at 07.00 p.m. the accused appellant inflicted knife injuries on the person of Dinesh Chand. Injured Dinesh Chand was taken to Doon Hospital by PW3 Hirdyesh Kumar where PW6 Dr. K.C. Pant, Emergency Medical Officer admitted him as unknown person. Injured (Dinesh Chand) succumbed to the injuries on the very day at about 07.55 p.m. PW1 Krishan Kumar, brother of the deceased, lodged First Information Report (Exhibit A1) at Police Station Raipur against accused Jitendra Kumar @ Babloo in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Investigation was taken up by PW8 Inspector Chandan Singh Bisht. Dead body of the deceased was taken into possession by the police on 12.07.2004 at about 10.00 a.m. and inquest report (Exhibit A14) was prepared. Police further got prepared police form no. 13 (Exhibit A 15), sketch of the dead body (Exhibit A16), letter to Chief Medical Officer (Exhibit A17) requesting him for postmortem examination.

(3.) PW2 Dr. S.K. Gupta of Doon Hospital on 12.07.2004 at 04.00 p.m. conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Dinesh Chand. He opined in the autopsy report (Exhibit A2) that deceased had died due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of ante mortem injuries suffered by him. Investigating Officer interrogated the witnesses, arrested the accused and discovered the knife allegedly used in the crime and registered a separate case under Section 25/4 of the Arms Act against the accused.