PREM TAMANG Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is instituted against the judgment and order dated 19.5.2014 and 22.5.2014, respectively, rendered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kullu, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 39 of 2014 (2012), whereby the appellant -accused (hereinafter referred to as accused), who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to further undergo imprisonment for two years.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that on the midnight of 2.8.2012 at around 1:00 AM at Manali, near Johnson Lodge, a loud noise came out from the Dhara (temporary hut), where the Nepali families were residing. Complainant Chander Mani (PW -5), alongwith Suresh was sleeping in the adjoining Dhara. They came out from their Dhara and found that accused Prem Tamang and one Ravi, resident of Nepal, were quarrelling with each other inside the Dhara of Prem Tamang, accused. Complainant and Suresh intervened but both of them continued to quarrel. Injury was caused to Ravi. He fell down and blood started oozing from the head of the deceased. He died on the spot. The accused committed the murder of Ravi by hitting his head with wooden bar. The accused ran away from the spot. The police was informed about the occurrence through telephone, on the basis of which, FIR Ext. PW -4/A was recorded. The police reached the spot. The statement of PW -5 Chander Mani under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded vide Ext. PW -5/A. The spot map was prepared. The police took into possession the blood stained soil and control sample of soil Ext. P -11 with the help of cotton swab Ext. P -9 by packing the same in a plastic jar (dibbi) Ext. P -8 and took the same into possession vide memo Ext. PW -5/B. Wooden bar Ext. P -6 was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW -5/D. The post mortem of deceased was got conducted. The report Ext. PW -8/A was obtained. On completion of the investigation, challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

(3.) MR . Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate for the accused has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused. On the other hand, Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State, has supported the judgment and order of the learned trial Court dated 19.5.2014 and 22.5.2014, respectively.