SATNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is instituted against the judgment and order dated 3.6.2010, rendered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Una, H.P. in Sessions trial No. 13 of 2009, whereby the appellant -accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that on 14.6.2009 at 00:15 AM, Narinder Pal son of Udham Singh informed telephonically to the Police Station, Gagret that one person was lying near the culvert on Upper Gagret road. The person was unable to speak and was writhing in pain. He was being taken to Gagret Hospital for treatment. SI Mohinder Singh, the then Addl. SHO, PS Gagret alongwith the staff proceeded to the First Referral Unit, Gagret. The statement of Sushma Devi (wife of the deceased) under Section 154 Cr.P.C. vide Ext. PW -1/A was recorded. She disclosed that her husband used to make steel trunks and boxes. He was working in the shop i.e. Sharma Trunk House, Gagret, owned by Sh. Ram Kumar Sharma for the last 14 -15 days. Sh. Hussan Lal used to leave the house daily around 8:00 AM in the morning and return home around 8:00 PM. He did not come back to the house as usual on 13.6.2009. At about 8:30 PM, the deceased made a phone call to her. She enquired from him as to why he was late. The deceased remarked that he would be reaching home soon. At about 12 midnight, she was informed by Smt. Reshma Devi, Member, Gram Panchayat, Upper Gagret that her husband was admitted in the hospital. She reached the hospital alongwith the neighbours. She saw injury inflicted with some sharp object on the back of the head of Sh. Hussan Lal. Another injury caused with sharp edged weapon was seen on the left ankle of the deceased. The injured succumbed to his injuries before reaching the hospital. She suspected that her husband had been murdered by some unknown persons by causing injuries with some sharp edged weapon. FIR No. 84 of 2009 was registered on the basis of rukka. The accused made disclosure statement, on the basis of which Tokka/Takua (the weapon of offence) was recovered from the bushes. The clothes of the accused were also taken into possession. The finger prints of the deceased and accused were also forwarded to the Bureau. The Bureau opined that all the prints were either faint, smudged, blurred or superimposed. The same were unfit for comparison. On completion of the investigation, challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

(3.) MR . Adarsh Sharma, Advocate for the accused has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused. On the other hand, Mr. Ramesh Thakur, learned Asstt. Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State, has supported the judgment and order of the learned trial Court dated 3.6.2010.