NARESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals (Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 1986, Naresh Kwnar v. State and Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 1986, Prem Dutt and others v. State) arise out of the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Solan and Sirmaur districts in case No. 6 N/7 of 1986 decided on 30-9-1986 hereby accused Naresh Kumar and Madan Pal were convicted under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Prem Dutt and Sukhdarshan Singh under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were also convicted under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Incase of the appellant Naresh Kumar and Madan Pal, the sentence awarded was one years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment of six months. Appellants Prem Dutt and Sukhdarshan Singh were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and a default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for one year. They were also to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment thereof to undergo six moths imprisonment under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. They feel aggrieved by this judgment. However, they have filed two appeals. Both these appeals are being taken up together for decision by a common judgment.

(2.) The prosecution case, to brief is that Kumari Kamlesh (P.W.-2) is the sister of Prem Dutt and Sukhdarshan Singh accused. She had developed some intimacy with the deceased Lachhman Singh. This fact was known to these accused. On 1-2-1986 she had gone out of her house without telling anyone and her brothers apprehended that she had gone to see the deceased. They called the deceased to their house, a quarrel developed between them as to the whereabouts of Kumari Kamlesh during which these accused hit the deceased with an iron pipe and an axe. The deceased died at the spot and in order to terminate this evidence, these accused alongwith Naresh Kumar, Madan Pal appellants and Mama Devi, Fulma Devi, Surma Devi and Sawnu Ram (Acquitted by the Trial Court) concealed the dead body. Therefore, they were charged for committing an offence under Section 304 Part 11/34 and Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Naresh Kumar and Madan Pal were charged under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The defence of the accused is denial of the allegations. The accused have produced Khiali Ram (D.W.-1) in their defence.

(3.) Sh. M.G. Chitkara, learned Counsel appearing for the accused has strenuously urged that the judgment of the Trial Court deserves to be set aside as the same is not based on legal evidence. Further it is contended that whatever evidence is on record of this case, the same is not worthy of credence, besides being sufficient to record a finding of guilt against his clients. On the other hand, Sh. M.S. Guleria, Asstt. Advocate General, argued that the offence has been clearly established against the accused and the conviction is legally sustainable. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the counsel appearing for the parties, it is desirable to scan the evidence on the record.