MADAN LAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, preferred under section Ti74 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred as Cr.P.C.)/ is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.9.2006, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli, in Sessions Trial No. 11 of 2005, whereby appellant-Madan lal has been convicted under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred as I.P.C) and sentenced to imprisonment for life and also directed to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/-.

(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties, and perused the lower Court record.

(3.) THE Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli, at Gopeshwar, on receipt of charge-sheet, gave necessary copies, as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. and committed the case to the Court of Sessions, for trial. Learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli, on 7.7.2005, after hearing the parties, framed charge of offences punishable under sections 302, 354 and 436 I.P.C, against all the three accused, named in the charge-sheet i.e. appellant-Madan lal and his alleged associates Kamaluddin and Himmat Singh. All the three pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W. 1 Dr. San-jeev Kharkwal, who recorded the burn injuries in the hospital at Ghat, P.W. 2 Dr. Shailendra Kumar, who conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, P.W. 3 Rafiq Khan (complainant), P.W. 4 Wasir Khan, P.W. 5 Pushkar Singh, P.W. 6 Bhupati Raj Kumar (Naib Tehsildar, who recorded the dying declaration), P.W. 7 Safiq and P.W. 8 Anand lal, Patwari, who investigated the crime. The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. in reply to which the appellant has stated that he did not know Kherunisha (deceased). He pleaded that he has been falsely implicated due to enmity. Similar statements were made under section 313 Cr.P.C. by other two accused namely Kamaluddin and Himmat Singh. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. The Trial Court after hearing the parties, found that the charge as against Kamaluddin and Himmat Singh, are not proved beyond reasonable doubt, as their names did not figure in the dying declaration of the deceased and also in the statements of some of the witnesses, who reached at the spot after the incident. However, as to the appellant, the Trial Court found that though the charge of offences punishable under sections 354 and 436 I.P.C. are not proved beyond reasonable doubt, but'the charge of offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. is proved beyond reasonable doubt, against him. Accordingly, Madan lal (appellant) was convicted under section 302 I.P.C., and after hearing on sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for life and also directed to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default of payment of which the convict was directed to further undergo two years simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 21.9.2006, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli, in Sessions Trial No. 11 of 2005, this appeal is preferred by the appellant, from the jail.