LAWS(UTN)-2017-6-19

SAPAN DHALI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Decided On June 29, 2017
Sapan Dhali Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 04.06.2012 and order dated 05.06.2012, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge/First Fast Track Court, Rudrapur, U.S. Nagar in Sessions Trial No.143 of 2003, whereby the appellants-accused, who were charged with and tried, for the offences under Section 302 and 201 of IPC. The accused were convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- (each) and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. They were further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years under Section 201 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (each) and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months punishable. One of the accused was minor, thus, he was tried by the Juvenile Court.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that an FIR was lodged by PW 1 Panchanan Sarkar, S/o Dhirendra Nath to the effect that his son Jeevan Sarkar has left the house on 10.01.2003 at 5:00 PM but he did not come back. The family members searched for him. Thereafter, he came to know that the dead body of his son was found on 11.01.2003 near the adjoining jungle. His son was murdered and his body was dumped in a pit. Thereafter, investigation was carried out. The body was sent for postmortem examination. The postmortem examination was conducted by PW 5 M.S. Sharma. According to him, Jeevan Sarkar died due to asphyxia as a result of throttling. The prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses in its support. The statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C., 1973 They denied the case of the prosecution. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Learned counsel on behalf of the State has supported the judgment dated 04.06.2012 and order dated 05.06.2012.