SATYADEV Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment and order dated 14.02.2013, passed in Sessions Trial No. 272 of 2004 and Sessions Trial No. 273 of 2004, State Vs. Satyadev, (for short "the case) by the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and sentenced as hereunder:

(2.) Since common question of law and facts are involved in both these appeals, therefore, the same are being taken up together and decided by this common judgment.

(3.) Briefly stated, according to the prosecution, on 22/23.06.2003, the deceased Maam Chand was asleep in the courtyard of his house alongwith other family members and PW2 Sunil their brother-in-law. In the night, the appellant alongwith one more person called the deceased Maam Chand and took him alongwith them. It was around 12:30 midnight. At a distance of about 100 meter, in the field of Mool Chand, appellant shot the deceased Maam Chand dead. When the appellant took the deceased alongwith him PW1 Sukh Lal and PW2 Sunil also woke up. They followed them and witnessed the killing. According to the prosecution, about 20 days prior to the incident, the appellant had taken a loan of Rs.10,000/- from the deceased, but he was not repaying it. A report of the incident was lodged on 23.06.2003, in the morning at 8:30 by PW1 Sukh Lal and a case under Section 302 IPC was lodged against the appellant. Inquest of the deceased was prepared at about 9:30 AM on the same day. Thereafter, post mortem of the deceased was conducted. According to the doctor, death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage, as a result of ante mortem firearm injury. On 30.06.2003, appellant was arrested. He confessed his guilt and recovered the country-made pistol and cartridges, by which, he killed the deceased Maam Chand. A separate crime under Section 25 of the Act was registered. Investigation was carried out and the charge sheets under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Act were filed against the appellant. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial. On 06.08.2004, charges under Sections 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Act were leveled against the appellant, to which, he denied and claimed trial.