MAUJI RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, in Sessions trial No. 27-N/7 of 1991, dated 24-9-1992. The accused has been convicted for an offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2000.00, in default of patent of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The facts of the case may now be summarised.

(2.) On 9-8-1991, deceased Lal Singh (hereafter 'the deceased') was sitting with Mohar Singh (PW 1) and Basti Ram (PW 2) in the courtyard of Basti Ram and Bishan Singh. At about 5 p.m., accused Mauji Ram (hereafter 'the accused') came there with a darat. While the deceased was in the process of lighting his beedi, the accused hit him with a darat on the neck. The deceased received cut injury in the neck, fell down and died. He was overpowered by Mohar Singh and Basti Ram. Darat was snatched from him and he was tied with a Pillar. Many People came there. Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat was called to the spot and the Police was informed telephonically and thereafter First Information Report was registered. The police reached the spot, arrested the accused and took into possession articles connected with the offence. It also recorded the statements of the witnesses and after doing other codal formalities and completing the investigation, the accused was prosecuted for the aforesaid offence.

(3.) In this case, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses for substantiating its case against the accused, whose case is that the case against him is false and has been initiated due to enmity. One the basis of the evidence placed before it, the trial court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, therefore, he is liable to be convicted for an offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code and punished accordingly. The accused has serious grievance against the impugned judgment. He has pleaded for its reversal through the present appeal.