CHANDAN SINGH MEHRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, preferred under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short Cr.P.C) is directed against the judgment and order dated 8.2.2010, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Champawat, in Sessions Trial No. 03 of 2008, whereby ap ­pellant-Chandan Singh has been convicted under section 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC), and sentenced to rig ­orous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and also directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-.

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

(3.) THE Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat, on receipt of the charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused as required under section 207 Cr.P.C., ap ­pears to have committed the case to the Court of sessions for trial. Learned Sessions Judge, on 28.1.2008, after hearing the par ­ties, framed charge of offence punishable under section 306 IPC to which accused Chandan Singh pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W.I Jagananth Singh (complainant and father of the deceased), P.W.2 Usha, a neighbour (declared hostile), P.W. 3 Meera, another neighbour, P.W. 4 Ranjeet Singh, also a neighbour, P.W. 5 Ram Dutt Sharma, witness of inquest re ­port, P.W.6 Smt. Munni Devi (declared hos ­tile), P.W. 7 Constable Bhoopal Ram Arya, P.W.8 Dr. D.S. Nagi, P.W.9 Dr. Naresh Chandra, both members of the team of Doctors who conducted post-mortem ex ­amination, P.W. 10 Janki Devi mother of the deceased, P.W.11 Sub-Inspector K.R. Tamta, who partly investigated the crime, P.W.12 Sub-Inspector Dhirendra Kumar, who took dead body of the deceased in his possession and got prepared inquest report (Ex. A3), P.W. 13 Constable Vimla Rawat also witness of the inquest report, P.W.14 Harish Chandra Sati, Dy. Superintendent of Police who also investigated the crime for sometime to see if the offence alleged to have been committed is covered under sec ­tion 304-B IPC, and P.W. 15 Sub-Inspector Naresh Chand, who concluded investiga ­tion in respect of charge of offence punish ­able under section 306 IPC. Oral and documentary evidence was put to the ac ­cused under section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which he stated that he did not abet the deceased to commit the suicide. He also pleaded that he has been falsely implicated. However, no evidence in defence was ad ­duced. The Trial Court after hearing the parties found accused Chandan Singh guilty of charge of offence punishable un ­der section 306 IPC. After hearing on sen ­tence, the trial Court sentenced the convict to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and also directed him to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of which the convict was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. Aggrieved by said judgment and or ­der da.ted 8.2.2010, passed by Sessions Judge, Champawat, in Sessions Trial No. 03 of 2008, this appeal is preferred by the con ­vict (in jail).