GIAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT-Gian Singh S/o Isher Dass R/o Village Maitran Govindpura, Tehsil Ramban, District Doda (in short to be referred to as 'accused' after suffering conviction under Sections 304 part-II and 201 of the Ranbir Penal Code with rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 304 Part-II and two years imprisonment under Section 201 RPC vide impugned judgment dated 17.01.2002 of Additional Sessions Judge, Ram ban has filed the instant appeal. It needs to be mentioned here that his substantive sentence was suspended by this Court in April, 2002 and thereafter when the main appeal was taken up for final hearing, it was brought to the notice of the Court that he is in custody since March, 2006 in another case bearing F.I.R. No. 94/2004 registered under Sections 302/348/34 RPC in Police Station Ramban and is facing trial in that case. According to Mr. Thakur, during the trial of the present case, he also remained in custody right from the date of his arrest up to the stage of suspending his sentence. Therefore, virtually he has undergone his entire period of substantive sentence. He, however, assails the impugned judgment on merits. Otherwise also after its admission, the entire case calls for its re-appreciation.

(2.) DECEASED in this case is one Nasiboo W/o Sunder and mother of PW Mool Raj? the first informant. Date of occurrence is of 30.11.1999 whereas the matter was reported for the first time with the concerned Police Station, Ramban on 18.12.1999 by PW Mool Raj, resulting into registration of F.I.R. bearing No. 117/1999 under Sections 302/201 RPC.

(3.) MR. Thakur submits that the case of the prosecution is stumbling badly right from the very beginning. He submits that it is the prosecution case itself that the heirs of the deceased were informed by the accused on the next date of occurrence itself narrating the entire incident, they were convinced and cremated the dead body. Therefore, coming forward with a new story that too after the lapse of 18 days by ascribing a specific role to accused of giving a danda blow on the head of the deceased is neither here nor there. Lodging of the report at belated stage itself demolishes the entire case of the prosecution now coined up.