MAHENDAR SINGH @ DHONI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Sri D.K. Srivastava, as Amicus Curiae, for the appellant; Km. Meena, learned AGA, for the State and perused the record.

(2.) This appeal has been presented through Superintendent, District Jail, Fatehpur, on behalf of Appellant- Mahendra Singh @ Dhoni, who is in jail, against the judgement and order dated 5.8.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1 Fatehpur in S.T. No. 278 of 2012 (State Vs. Mahendra Singh @ Dhoni), by which the appellant has been convicted for: (a) offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine to undergo further one year rigorous imprisonment; and (b) offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,500/- and in case of default in payment of fine to further undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment.

(3.) The prosecution case as per the first information report (Exhibit-1-FIR), which was lodged on 08.06.2012, at about 8.55 hrs, at P.S. Kalyanpur, district Fatehpur, as case crime no.111 of 2012, under sections 302/ 201/ 377 IPC, by Dilshad (PW1), brother of the deceased, is that the deceased (Rahul @ Chand), aged about 17 years, was employed as a helper at a Dhaba of Amit Shukla (PW3). On 4.6.2012, the informant, who is a resident of district Barabanki, had come to meet his brother. On 6.6.2012, at about 5 PM, the deceased left the Dhaba with the accused-appellant, a fellow worker at the Dhaba, for taking a bath at a nearby canal (Nahar) but when they did not return, despite passage of considerable time, PW3 was informed. Whereupon, with the help of others, search was made but to no avail. Thereafter, on 8.6.2012, upon sensing foul smell emanating from bushes near the Dhaba, at about 7:30 AM, the informant discovered body of the deceased in a decomposed condition with just an underwear on it. Soon thereafter, the informant informed the owner of the Dhaba. Thereafter FIR was lodged. In the FIR it was suspected that the appellant, after indulging in unnatural offence with the deceased, strangulated him to death and hid his body in the bushes.