JAINEM Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all these appeals arise out of the very same impugned judgment, they are being disposed of as such.

(2.) Appellants-Convicts Jainem, Fateh Mohammad and Roshan Deen, hereinafter referred to as the accused, stand charged and convicted for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Trial Court found the testimony of spot witness Gulam Bibi (PW-1) (a child, aged 12 years) to be inspiring in confidence and duly corroborated by Ismile (PW-2) and Noor Hussain (PW-3).

(3.) Though initially, it was argued that the testimony of child witness was absolutely uninspiring in confidence and that the spot witnesses were unreliable, for having made several improvements and exaggerations, but however, during the course of hearing, under instructions, Mr. Anoop Chitkara, learned counsel for the accused, fairly confined the challenge in the appeal with respect to conviction under Section 300, punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the learned counsel, trial Court erred in convicting the accused under the said Section, for the evidence led by the prosecution could only establish and offence conviction under the provisions of Section 299, punishable under Section 304 (second part) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC).