DHIRENDRA KUMAR ALIAS DHIROO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. S. Rawat, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity as Cr. P. C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 14-12-1984, passed by learned Addi tional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Ses sions Trial No. 64 of 1983, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sen tenced to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302 Indian Panel Code, 1860 (for brevity as I. P. C. ).

(2.) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that Mani Ram lodged a report Ex. Ka. 2 on 02-04-1983 at about 9:05 a. m. at police station Cantt, Distt. Dehradun, al leging therein that his son Surat Singh was a contractor. On the day of Holi, in the year 1983, his son Surat Singh went to celebrate Holi at the resident of accused/appellant Dhirendra Kumar Sharma alias Dhiroo in the evening. In the night, the accused/appellant came to his house and wanted to drag Surat Singh out from the house. THE accused/ appellant told that Surat Singh while cel ebrating holi had knocked the doors of his aunt Km. Sunita in the night with evil intention when she was alone in her house. THEreafter, Smt. Raj Kumari, wife of Surat Singh and Mani Ram, father of the Surat Singh prevented the accused/ appellant from dragging Surat Singh. THE accused/appellant left the house of Surat Singh after giving him threats of dire consequences. It was further alleged that on 01-04-1983, Surat Singh went Dehradun but did not return home till night. THEreafter, the informant started to search out his son Surat Singh in the morning. Jagdish Singh told him that his son was lying dead near the bank of river adjoining to the field of Ratan Singh. His bicycle was also lying there. Hear ing this, the informant went to the place of occurrence and saw his son Surat Singh lying dead. When he inquired about this, he was informed by Lal Singh PW2 of village Jantanwala that in the last night at about 7:45 RM, his son the deceased Surat Singh and accused/ appellant came from Dehradun; the deceased took his bicycle from his bicy cle stand and they proceeded towards their village. THEreafter, the complainant Mani Ram was informed by Lakhi Ram PW4 and Bahadur Singh PW3 that they saw accused/appellant beating his son Surat Singh by stone at about 8:30 p. m. in the last night. He has further stated in the F. I. R. that his son was murdered by the accused/appellant. On the basis of F. I. R. Ex. Ka. 2, chick F. I. R. Ex. Ka. 14 was prepared and necessary entry was made in the G. D. THE investigation of the case was entrusted to S. O. Rajpal Singh PW11. S. I. Satendra Singh Sirohi PW9 arrested the accused/appellant on 02-04-1983 and prepared the inquest report. As there were marks of injuries on the person of the accused, the ac cused/appellant was sent to Doon Hos pital for medical examination. THE I. O. recorded the statement of the witnesses and prepared the site plan Ex. Ka. 17. After completing the investigation, the police submitted the chargesheet Ex. Ka. 24 against the accused/appellant before the court.

(3.) THE accused-appellant was ex amined u/s 313 Cr. P. C. and he has pleaded not guilty to the offence. He has stated that he has falsely been im plicated in this case. He has further stated in his statement that there was Yuvak Gram Kalyan Samiti in his village in which he was a member and his brother Vijendra Kumar Sharma DW1 was President. THEre was illicit distilla tion of liquor in that area, therefore, he made complaints with the police but the police did not take any action. THEre after, he reported the matter to District Magistrate. As such, the police person nel had enmity with him. He has further stated that a canal was being con structed in his village in which the con tractors were selling cement illegally. He made complaint in this regard and the cement was apprehended but the police did not take any action against the con tractors. THE contractors were annoyed with him, as such, he has falsely been implicated in this case with the collusion of police. He has further stated that he was not present at the place of occur rence on the date of incident.