RAJENDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Rajinder son of Leela is convicted under Section 307 IPC vide impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul dated 25.1.1995 and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for a period of 3 years. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, he has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) IT is worth mentioning here that along with the present appellant Basti Ram son of Sheo Narain was also booked. He, however, stands acquitted by the trial Court. State of Haryana has not preferred any appeal against his acquittal.

(3.) THE motive projected is that an altercation had taken place between the present appellant and Bhup Singh about an year prior to the occurrence on the question of passing along the boundary line of the fields. Doctor of Primary Health Centre sent ruqa to Police Station Ateli whereupon HC Vijender Singh PW-7 went to the hospital and recorded the statement Ex. PA of injured Bhup Singh. He made his endorsement Ex. PA/1 and sent the ruqa to the concerned police station for recording of the FIR whereupon the formal FIR Ex. PA/2 was recorded. Jai Narain (PW-8) took up the investigation of this case on 2.2.1994, went to the spot, prepared rough site plan Ex. PW-8/A. He also recorded the statement of certain PWs and took into possession the clothes of injured Bhup Singh. Opinion of the doctor regarding the nature of the injury was also obtained by this witness. He arrested the appellant on 10.2.1994 and on interrogation he suffered disclosure statement that he had kept concealed an axe in the mustard fields of one Hari Ram and could get the same recovered. In pursuance of his disclosure statement he got the iron axe Ex. P-1 recovered and the same was also taken into possession vide separate recovery memo. After the completion of the investigation, the appellant was challaned in this case whereas the co-accused Basti Ram was found innocent and put in column No. 2. He was subsequently summoned to face trial on an application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the State.