PAPPU RAM @ PAPPU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.10.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby he convicted the appellant under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default thereof, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. However, the remaining accused, namely, Hukma and Fatta Singh were acquitted of the charges framed against them.

(2.) THE facts required to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal are that a case was registered against the accused on the basis of the statement made by Mohinder Kumar when he met the policy party headed by Sub-Inspector Gurchain Singh in the area of Patiala Gate, Nabha on 24.8.1995. Mohinder Kumar in his statement, Ex. PD, stated that he was working as a Salesman on Petrol Pump owned by Munshi Ram situated in village Dhingi on Malerkotla Road for the last about five months. He remained on duty there since morning till 8.00 p.m. After 8.00 p.m. Sarup Singh son of Chet Ram attended the Petrol Pump as a Watchman. He further stated that on 23.8.1995 at about 8.00 p.m., he left the Petrol Pump after handing over the charge to Watchman Sarup Singh. On the next day, when the complainant returned to his duties at 8.00 a.m., he saw watchman Sarup Singh lying on the cot with his face downwards. His arms had been tied with a cloth on his back and his ankles had been tied with the cot with a small rope. On close examination, complainant noticed a swelling on the neck of Sarup Singh and found him lying in the pool of blood and noticed a few injuries on his shoulders also. The watchman Sarup Singh was lying dead on the cot. Chet Ram, father of Sarup Singh, reached the place of occurrence, whom the complainant narrated the incident and reported the matter with the police. On the basis of this statement, formal FIR was recorded and the police party reached the spot. After completion of necessary investigation, accused were sent up for trial.

(3.) PROSECUTION , in order to prove its case, examined as many as ten witnesses, namely, Dr. Paramvir Singh, Medical Officer (PW-1), Mohinder Kumar, Salesman (PW-2), Chet Singh, Agricultural Labourer (PW-3), Ajaib Singh, Agriculturist (PW-4), Devi Singh, Dairy Owner (PW-5), Khushwinder Singh, Patwari (PW-6), Sukhdev Singh, Sub-Inspector/Station House Officer (PW-7), Darshan Singh Constable (PW-8), Gurchain Singh, Sub-Inspector (PW-9) and Harnek Singh, truck driver (PW-10) and closed its evidence.