SUMER CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Sumer Chand, who was tried with his co-accused Raju, Sham Lal, John Masih and Mohan Lal has been held guilty of intentionally causing death of Amit Kumar. The coaccused of the appellant, Raju, however, died during the course of trial. The other co-accused of the appellant were, however, held guilty under Section 323/34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months. Rajesh, who, as per prosecution version, also participated in the crime, being juvenile. As per information given to us by learned counsel for the parties, is facing trial before a Juvenile Court. The present appeal has been filed only by Sumer Chand against the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned AddI. Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar dated January 30, 1995. whereby the appellant has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/, or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one year, under Section 302 IPC.

(2.) Amit Kumar is stated to have received injuries at the hands of appellant and his co-accused on May 14, 1990 at 2 PM. The FIR with regard to incident came to be recorded at 4.20 PM on the same day on the statement made by P.W. 3 Anoop Kumar which statement was recorded by ASI Narender Kumar. P.W. 13. Initially, the FIR was registered under Sections 148/149/ 323 IPC. The special report with regard to incident reached the Illaqa Magistrate, Jagadhri on May 15, 1990 at 10 A.M.

(3.) Mr. Sibal, learned counsel for the appellant has confined his arguments to the nature of offence On that count, he vehemently contends that once the learned AddI. Sessions Judge has ruled o applicability of Section 149 or 34 IPC and has held every one guilty of his individual act, as also w is proved on records that Amit Kumar died of septicaemia, there was no question to hold the app guilty under Section 302 and at the most he could be pinned down under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code. Inasmuch as learned counsel for the appellant has limited his contention t nature of offence, there is no need to give detailed facts. However, the contents of the FIR an medical evidence, on which alone the aforestated contention of the learned counsel, has been need a necessary mention.