STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. AJAY SHAKTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal is filed against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge Hamirpur in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2008 titled Ajay Shakti and another Vs. State of HP. BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE:

(2.) IT is alleged by prosecution that on dated 10.12.2004 at about 8.30 PM near Sankat Mochan temple police station Sujanpur H.P accused persons in furtherance of common intention had committed theft of Rs.6,700/ - (Six thousand seven hundred) from the property of complainant Baldev Singh after having made preparation for causing hurt. It is alleged by prosecution that on the same date, time and place accused persons have wrongfully restrained complainant Baldev Singh from proceeding further on his way. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter accused persons in furtherance of common intention had voluntarily caused hurt to complainant Baldev Singh and beaten him. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter accused persons in furtherance of common intention threatened complainant Baldev Singh to do away with his life. It is alleged by prosecution that FIR Ext PW4/A was registered against accused persons and spot map Ext PW12/A was prepared and MLC of complainant Baldev Singh Ext PW12/B was obtained. It is alleged by prosecution that jacket took into possession vide seizure memo Ext PW4/A and cash to the tune of Rs.6,700/ - (Six thousand seven hundred) was also took into possession vide seizure memo Ext PW7/A. It is alleged by prosecution that sample of seal on a piece of cloth Ext PW12/C and Ext PW12/D also obtained and statements of prosecution witnesses recorded as per their versions. It is alleged by prosecution that complainant Baldev Singh was medically examined by medical officer Rajinder Kumar CHC Hamirpur who issued MLC Ext PW7/A and X -ray Ext PW7/B was obtained. It is alleged by prosecution that radiologist report Ext PW7/C and dental X -ray report Ext PW7/D were also obtained. Charge was framed against accused persons under Sections 382, 341, 506 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) PROSECUTION examined as many as thirteen witnesses in support of its case. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_104_LAWS(HPH)12_2014.htm</FRM>