DIWAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Sessions Trial No. 31/2001, 44/2004, decided on 30/31.12.2005, by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, as such sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - for the attempted murder under Section 307 and two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, with default clauses. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It was also ordered that injured Mahant Ram shall be paid whole of the fine amount as compensation. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the present appeal has been preferred by convict Diwan Chand, which was admitted for hearing on 2.3.2006. Vide order dated 6.3.2006, pending appeal he was granted bail to which he failed to furnish and on 31.12.2005 he was committed to Jail for serving out the sentence, but later, on 17.7.2006 as per the record, the fine amount of Rs. 12,000/ - was deposited by him and also furnished bail bonds. In short, the prosecution story, as emerges from the evidence on record, can be stated thus. PW2 Mahant Ram and the convict/appellant, hereinafter to be referred as 'the accused' are the real brothers. PW1 Leelawati is the wife of Mahant Ram aforesaid. The relations between both of them were strained. On 29.1.2001, at about 8.30 a.m., PW1 Leelawati and her husband PW2 Mahant Ram both were present in the newly constructed house. In the meanwhile, Kanta Devi, wife of the accused came crying to them. Mahant Ram aforesaid asked as to why the accused gave beatings to his wife. On this, the accused became furious, inflicted a fist blow on his face and hit Mahant Ram on his head with a wooden frame, which caused bleeding injury. At that time PW3 Veena Devi, his daughter -in -law was an eye witness.

(2.) THE police had prepared the site plan and took into possession the blood stained clothes of the injured. Police found the complicity of the accused in the alleged offences, as such after collecting the relevant material presented the Challan in the Court against the accused for his trial.

(3.) TO prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses. The accused was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the circumstances which were put to him. When called upon to enter into his defence, he did not lead any evidence. At the end of trial, he was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.