GOPAL DUTT Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal filed against conviction, appellant Gopal Dutt has assailed the judgment and order dtd. 28/9/2013 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, EC Act, Nainital, in Sessions Trial No. 02 of 2008, arising out of Case Crime No. 923 of 2007, Police Station-Ram Nagar, District Nainital whereby the trial Judge has convicted the appellant for the offences under Sec. 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC" for brevity) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment of one year under Sec. 302 IPC and to undergo rigours imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment of three months under Sec. 201 IPC.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 23/4/2007, appellant and Beeru i.e. deceased went to Nursery Gate No. 064 for doing menial work. After performing their duties, they were coming towards Lalitpur in their respective bicycle. At about 09.00 p.m., Shri Rakesh Singh, son of Shri Prem Singh Negi and Shri Man Singh Thapa, son of Shri Lal Singh Thapa, both residents of Lalitpur, saw appellant Gopal Dutt and deceased were sitting by the roadside. Thereafter, appellant Gopal Dutt brought the bicycle of deceased to his house (house of complainant) and went to his house. On 24/4/2007, Shri Sanjay Kumar, son of Shri Santosh Kumar, resident of Lalitpur, found the dead body of the deceased near the house of Negi under Cutguleri tree being concealed inside the bushes. He also found that the dead body of the deceased was completely naked and a belt was tied around his neck and that his testicles were in swollen condition. He informed this fact to the complainant, who happens to be an elder brother of the deceased, who lodged the FIR before SHO, Police Station Ram Nagar, District Nainital. On receipt of such an FIR, the SHO registered the case and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined complainant, scribe of the FIR, two witnesses, who had seen the appellant and deceased together near Cutguleri tree on the road side. He sent to body for the post-mortem examination. He collected the material evidence from the site as well as prepared some documents. He also arrested the accused.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has neither examined any witness nor led any documentary evidence in order to prove its case.