SANDEEP Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Jail appeal arises from a judgement and order dated 18.3.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut convicting and sentencing the appellant to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- under section 302 IPC and in default of payment of fine, the appellant has to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. Heard Shri Jitendra Kumar Sisodia, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Shri Arunendra Singh and Shri A.N. Mulla, learned Additional Government Advocates for the State.

(2.) According to the doctor plura, left lung and pericardium were punctured and the heart was cut on the left side and one litre of blood was present on thoracic cavity, The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries. The doctor further opined that the deceased could have died at 11 a.m on 2 09.1997. He further stated that injury No. 1 was sufficient for causing the death of the deceased.

(3.) It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the chain of circumstances for establishing the guilt of the appellant in this offence is not complete. There is only the evidence of the father of the deceased PW 1 Brij Pal Singh, who stated that he saw the appellant Sandeep with a knife. The statement to the police under section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ext. Ka 13) given by Smt. Bimla the mother of the appellant and the appellant cannot be read in evidence. She has turned hostile and has been cross-examined by the prosecution as she has denied being an eye witness in Court and disclaims having seen the appellant assaulting the deceased although she was present in the house. Both Brij Pal Singh and Smt. Bimla admit that there was no previous enmity of the two brothers. As nothing was recovered from the appellant nor has any extra judicial confession been made by him, on the basis of the sole testimony of PW 1 Brij Raj Singh of having seen the appellant armed with a bloodstained knife leaving the house when he arrived, who did not respond to his queries as to what had happened, and thereafter by finding the other son Arvind lying in the house with knife wounds, on this solitary circumstance it would be unsafe to record the conviction of the appellant.