MUNNA ALIAS SANJAY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved, by judgment and order dated 17.02.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh in Sessions Case No.30 of 31.05.2000/25.07.1998, the present appeal was filed by appellant Munna alias Sanjay, since he was convicted by the trial Court for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine in the sum of Rs. 3000/- and in default of payment of fine he has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.

(2.) In brief, the story of the prosecution case was that the appellant and the co-accused, who used to live in colony No.5, Chandigarh, attacked deceased Lalu Ram son of Bhagwati Din originally resident of Village Ramgarh, District Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh, who used to work in show room of Subhash Arora in Sector 26, Chandigarh and used to sleep in the verandah of the shop at the relevant time. On 13.03.1998 at about 12 to 130 pm on the day of Holi festival the appellant Munna alias Sanjay, Naresh Kumar (now dead) and Vijay Kumar (juvenile) attacked the deceased Lalu Ram and inflicted grievous injuries on his chest, shoulder etc. with a sword and as a result he died on the spot. The deceased was seen shouting in loud voice and was running, who was being followed by all the three accused. Naresh Kumar obstructed his way and was caught by Vijay Kumar and thereafter appellant Munna @ Sanjay inflicted number of injuries by means of sword on chest, shoulder etc. The sword pierced through his ribs and due to these injuries he died on the spot. The occurrence took place in the presence of eye witnesses Ram Udhit and Ram Kumar. Ram Udhit was washing his clothes in the street while Ram Kumar was returning from the house of his friend. Thereafter, the FIR was registered and the police conducted inquest/punchnama and the dead body was sent for postmortem. Earth containing blood was taken in possession so also the Shirt, Banian, underwear and Jeans Pant were taken in possession and were sent to CFSL, Chandigarh along with sword, which was discovered at the behest of appellant Munna @ Sanjay. All the three accused persons, including Munna had confessed their guilt before Gulab Singh, Lamberdar of the village Burail, who produced them before the police. Finally chargesheet was filed in the Court after completion of investigation and the accused were sent on trial. Vijay Kumar was tried by Juvenile Court. Appellant-Naresh Kumar died during the pendency of the present appeal. The trial Court convicted the appellant Munna @ Sanjay as stated above. Hence this appeal. Arguments:

(3.) In support of the appeal filed by appellant-Munna @ Sanjay the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that though the trial Court has recorded the conviction on the testimony of PW-13 Ram Udhit and the evidence of PW-14 Gulab Singh, it had ignored the material contradictions and omissions in their evidence rendering their evidence untrustworthy. The trial Court committed a serious error in believing their evidence by ignoring the inconsistencies and the improvements in the prosecution case. He submitted that PW-12 Ram Kumar turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and therefore, what remained on the record was the solitary testimony of PW-13 Ram Udhit. The testimony of Ram Udhit was liable to be rejected as he himself stated that on the day of incident i.e. 101998 itself, he had disclosed the incident to the concerned inspector but his statement was not recorded by him and that his statement was recorded thereafter on 16.01998, as against the evidence, the concerned police inspector PW-15 Nanha Ram claimed to have recorded the statement on the same day i.e. 101998. He, therefore, submitted that there is major inconsistency in the evidence of these two witnesses. It was risky for the trial Court to accept the single testimony of the witness PW-13 Ram Udhit. The learned counsel for the appellant-Munna @ Sanjay then submitted that no independent witness was examined on the alleged discovery/recovery of the sword and as such the said discovery/recovery was liable to be rejected and could not be utilized against the appellant as evidence. The counsel for the appellant then submitted that the prosecution has not proved any motive in the present case and the benefit of doubt ought to be extended to the appellant.