SAT PAL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/accused prefers, the, instant appeal before this Court, against, the verdict of conviction recorded, upon, Sessions Trial No. 6-N/7 of 2016, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh. The appellant herein (for short "the accused") becomes convicted, for, charges framed against him, under, Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, and, in consequence thereof, he becomes sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, and, to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, and, upon his defaulting, in, liquidating the sentence of fine, he becomes further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

(2.) The genesis of the prosecution case, becomes embodied, in, Ex. PW-9/A, exhibit whereof, is an FIR lodged by one Mohi Ram, vis-a-vis, the occurrence. Complainant Mohi Ram, in his statement borne in Ex. PW-1/A, on, anvil whereof FIR, borne in Ex. PW-9/A, became registered against the convict, though does not narrate therein qua his being an eye witness to the occurrence, (i) however he makes echoings therein, vis-a-vis, upon his hearing outcries, his awakening from slumber, and, his noticing the accused throwing iron rod Ex.PC1, on the lintel, and, thereafter his fleeing, from, the site of occurrence. He also make narrations therein, vis-a-vis, his noticing blood oozing from the head of the deceased, and, his thereafter awakening Ravi, Ved, Kapil and Sanju. After the accused had fled from the site of occurrence, and, preceding wherewith, he threw iron rod on the lintel, the complainant discloses in his previous statement recorded in writing, vis-avis, his chasing the accused, at, some distance. Further more he has also disclosed that thereafter, his summoning civil ambulance, and, on arrival of the Civil Ambulance at the site of occurrence, hence about 1.30-2.00 A.M, his, therein accompanying deceased Shelender, up to, CH Dadahu. In addition, he also makes communications therein, vis-a-vis, on 26.8.2015, the accused at the afore hours, fleeing from the spot, without, his shoes, and, hence the accused leaving his shoes, on the lintel.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the accused, has challenged the validity of the impugned verdict of conviction, pronounced against the accused, on anvil(s) qua, (a) the Investigating Officer failing to lift the finger prints, of, the accused, from, the incriminatory iron rod, and, hence the afore omission(s) not firmly connecting, the, user by the accused of Ex. PC1, upon, the head of the deceased; (b) independent witnesses to the occurrence were enjoined to be associated in the relevant investigation, in as much, as, one Sanju, as, thereupon the defence would become enabled to lend succor vis-a-vis its' espousal qua the deceased while sleeping alongwith one Mohi Ram, the latter committing the offence, and, thereafter his inventing and concocting, the, factum of the accused committing, the, charged offence; (c) the recovery of iron rod (Ex. PC1) through memo embodied in Ex. PW-13/A being construable to be a legally flawed, and, legally fallible recovery, as, preceding therewith, no disclosure statement, of the accused became recorded, by the Investigating Officer, nor, in pursuance thereto hence effectuation of recovery of Ex. PC1 at the instance of the accused, became made, and, concomitantly thereupon its user at the instance, of, the accused, becoming vulnerable to skepticism; (d) reports of FSL respectively borne in Ex. PX, PY, and, in Ex.PW-14/A, not making, vivid pronouncements, vis-a-vis, the blood carried, on the exhibits sent thereat, for, examination hence being related to the blood group of the deceased or to the blood group, of, the accused, thereupon also the accused cannot be firmly connected, vis-a-vis, the charges framed against him.