ARJUN NATH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, has been received through Superintendent District Jail, Almora, filed on behalf of Arjun Nath (Appellant). He has challenged judgment and order dated 27.11.2001, passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, in Sessions Trial No. 04 of 1999, whereby he has been convicted under Section 302 and 394 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred as I.P.C.). Convict Arjun Nath has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and directed to payfine of Rs. 5,000/ - (under Section 302 I.P.C.), and rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and further directed to payfine of Rs. 5,000/ - (under Section 394 I.P.C.)

(2.) HEARD Shri Rajendra Singh, Amicus Curiae for the Appellant and Shri Harish Pujari, A.G.A. for the State and perused the lower court record.

(3.) THE Magistrate, on receipt of the charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of Sessions, for trial. Learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, after hearing the parties on 29.05.1999, framed charge of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 394 I.P.C., against the accused Arjun Nath, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this prosecution got examined P.W. 1 Umakant (who had last seen the accused and deceased on 08.11.1998 in Kafaligair and Kafalidhar respectively), P.W. 2 Dr. Chandra Mohan Singh Dhami (who conducted post mortem examination), P.W. 3 Sher Singh (who made search along with other villagers when the deceased did not return back to her house on 08.11.1998), P.W. 4 Basant Lai (to whom accused sold two gold earrings on next day of the incident), P.W. 5 Ramesh Chandra Punetha, Patwari (who prepared the inquest report and other necessary papers), P.W. 6 Ratan Singh (father of the deceased), P.W. 7 (husband of the deceased), P.W. 8 Shri Alok Verma (Judicial Magistrate, who recorded statement of accused under Section 164 Cr.P.C.), P.W. 9 Subhash Uttam, Sub -Divisional -Magistrate (who conducted identification of the recovered jewellery) and P.W. 10 Keshav Dutt, Supervisory Kanoongo (who investigated the crime). Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure In reply to which he alleged the same to be false. He retreated from the confession made before the Magistrate, by him.