SUNDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this appeal, appellant Sunder has impugned his conviction by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar through judgment and order of sentence dated 02.12.2009 whereby he has been held guilty for the commission of offence under Sections 302, 201/34 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/ - for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 32,000/ - for the offence under Section 201 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(2.) THE present case has been registered on the statement Exhibit P -7 made by one Kartar Singh PW -5 a farmer, who on 20.05.2007 at about 5.00 P.M. while working in his fields along with Rajbir discovered the dead body of a woman with a noose around her neck wearing red embroidery salwar Exhibit P -35 and shirt Exhibit P -34 whose body was entangled in the weeds near the Ghat. On the basis of this statement recorded by Inspector SHO Azad Singh PW -8 and who after making his endorsement Exhibit P - 10 thereon sent ruqa through EHC Rajbir Singh PW -3 leading to the registration of the present FIR Exhibit P -32 by SI Mahinder Singh. It is during the course of investigations, the Investigating Officer got clicked photographs of the dead body and prepared inquest report Exhibit P -5. He sent the dead body along with police papers with a request Exhibit P -4 for postmortem examination. Rough site plan of the place Exhibit P -11 was prepared. Dr. Suman Menon PW -4 conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body and gave her report Exhibit P -6 and opined the cause of death was on account of asphyxia by way of ligature injury on the neck which was ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Thereafter, belongings of the dead body along with the noose were handed over to the police.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY , the investigations were handed over to PW -12 SI Khyali Ram and on the basis of the evidence so collected arrested accused appellant Sunder and Azad @ Bittu (juvenile whose trial has been separated). Accused Azad suffered his disclosure statement Exhibit P -23 and accused Sunder suffered his disclosure statement Exhibit P -24 regarding concealment of ornaments of the deceased, who thereafter led the police party and got recovered the articles. Sunder through demarcation memo Exhibit P -25 and Azad through memo of demarcation Exhibit P -26 got these articles recovered regarding which rough site plan Exhibit P -27 was prepared. Thereafter, these accused demarcated the places where they had thrown the dead body regarding which rough site plan Exhibit P -28 was prepared. It is in pursuance of statement of Sunder motor -cycle bearing registration No.HR -23B -0792 make Hero Honda used to ferry the dead body was taken into police possession along with its R.C. Exhibit P -29 through memo Exhibit P - 22. On the basis of disclosure statement accused Sunder got recovered gold bangles Exhibits P -8 and P -9, ear rings Exhibits P -17 and 18 and some sleeping tablets from his conscious possession which were taken into police possession through memo Exhibit P -16. Similarly, accused Azad on the basis of disclosure statement Exhibits P -13 and 14 got recovered the ear rings Exhibits P -17 and 18, bangles Exhibits P -8 and P -9, Tabiz of gold Exhibit P -19 from his exclusive possession which were taken into police possession through memo Exhibit P -15. Rough site plan of the place of recovery at the behest of Sunder Exhibit P -31 was prepared and accused Azad Exhibit P -30 was prepared. Police also took into possession Mirinda cold drink bottle Exhibit P -20 at the behest of accused Azad and sleeping tablets at the behest of accused Sunder Exhibit P -21. On the articles being dispatched to the laboratory and after receipt of the report of FSL Exhibit P -36, challan was submitted against the present appellant.