JUGENDRA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Dharampal Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Abhishek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned AGA-1 for the State and Sri Pramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the informant.

(2.) Present criminal appeal arises from the judgement and order of conviction dtd. 26/6/2019 and sentence dtd. 27/6/2019, passed by Sri Nand Pratap Ojha, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Aligarh in S.T. No.751 of 2016, (State versus Jugendra @ Juganu), arising out of Case Crime No.96 of 2016, under Sec. 302 IPC and S.T. No.752 of 2016, (State versus Jugendra @ Juganu), arising out of Case Crime No.97 of 2016, under Ss. 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Pisawa, District Aligarh, whereby, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000.00 along with default clause and also convicted for the offence under Sec. 3/25 Arms Act and sentenced for two years with fine of Rs.2,500.00 along with default clause.

(3.) The prosecution story emerged on the strength of FIR lodged on 10/7/2016 (Ex. Ka-17). That FIR was lodged on the basis of a Written Report dtd. 10/7/2016 (Ex. Ka-1) submitted by Rahul Raghav S/o Raja Ram Singh (examined as PW-1 at the trial). In that Written Report, it was reported that the present appellant married the sister of the first informant in the year 2002. However, the appellant; his father Harpal Singh; his mother Kamla Devi; elder brother Satish and; younger brother Attan were not happy with the marriage and used to trouble the deceased as also threatened to kill her. In that fact background, on 9/7/2016 at 12:00 midnight the above named five accused persons assaulted the deceased. The appellant shot the deceased with a firearm to which she succumbed. Such Written Report was submitted through the scribe Sanjay Raghav (not examined at the trial). On 10/7/2016 itself, two Recovery Memos were prepared. While one Recovery Memo of bloodstained clothes and plain clothes of the deceased was prepared, it was marked as Ex. Ka-19 at the trial. Further, upon the arrest of the appellant disclosed to have been made about 06:00 PM on 10/7/2016, on his pointing out further recovery of one country made pistol was made form inside the house of the appellant. That Recovery Memo is Ex. Ka-10 at the trial. The said recovery led to a second FIR being lodged against the appellant on 10/7/2016 itself, under Sec. 3/25 Arms Act, it is Ex. Ka-28.