SARABJIT SINGH @ SONU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant challenges judgment dated February 26, 2009 convicting him under Section 302 of the IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. One lac and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two years. The fine, so imposed, has been ordered to be paid to the children of the deceased.

(2.) COUNSEL for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment convicting the appellant for murder is liable to be set aside as the evidence on record does not bring home the appellant's guilt. It is submitted that it is rather surprising that though the alleged occurrence took place at 6:30 a.m, no person from the locality has been cited as a witness particularly as the appellant is alleged to have entered the house armed with "Datar" and even after the commission of the offence, no one much less the eye witness made an attempt to apprehend the appellant. It is further submitted that though the report prepared by the Forensic Science Laboratory has opined that human blood is detected on the clothes, the datar etc. but as the blood group was not matched with the blood group of the deceased, the report is irrelevant and, therefore, cannot be used by the prosecution. It is also contended that though the occurrence is said to have taken place at 6:30 a.m., the police was only, informed at 9:15 a.m. but the statement of the complainant was recorded at 11:15 a.m. and the FIR at 11:40 a.m. The prosecution has failed to explain the delay in lodging the FIR. It is further contended that deposition of alleged eye witnesses should be discarded as PW -2 Meenakshi was 16 years old and PW -4 Lovish was 8 years old. A perusal of their depositions would reveal that they have contradicted one another and even otherwise are not reliable witnesses being minors. The deposition by PW -3 Dharamjit daughter of the land -lord is not believable as it is not believable that she would be present in the portion of the building rented out by deceased at 6:30 a.m.

(3.) THE next argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant is that as the appellant inflicted a single blow, and even as per the deposition of eye witness left the place of occurrence immediately thereafter, the case against the appellant, even if, accepted would fall within the ambit of Section 304 Part -I of the IPC. It is further submitted that the disclosure statements and recoveries were made in the presence of Davinder Kumar brother of the deceased but surprisingly he was given up by the public prosecutor as having been won over thereby casting a serious doubt as to the correctness of the evidence adduced by the prosecution.