HARJEET SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sentenced to Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, under Section 302 RPC, besides to Imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 452 RPC, And to, two years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, for committing the murder of Kuldeep Kumar Badyal, Principal Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, the appellant, Harjeet Singh, the appellant, has filed this appeal seeking setting aside of his conviction and sentence, ordered vide judgment of March 18,2008 and order of March 19,2008 respectively, of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, herein after to be referred as the 'trial court', for short. Facts necessary for disposal of the appellant's Criminal Appeal and Confirmation Reference no. 4/2008 of the trial court, may be stated, in brief, thus:- FACTS: PW1, Rajinder Singh, the Vice Principal of the Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, delivered his complaint to the Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu through PW 12, Madan Lai, which reads as follows:- To The Station House Officer, Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. Sir, Respectfully, I have to state as :-

(2.) FIR no. 54/1999 was, accordingly, registered on the aforementioned complaint, under Sections 307, 452, 332, 34 RPC and 4/25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. After completion of the investigation, a Final Police Report, was laid with the Chief Judicial Magistrate Jammu, indicating commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 333,452, 34 R.P.C read with Section 4/25 of the Arms. Act, by the appellant and under Sections 302,452, 333, 34 RPC by one Deep Inder Singh, in committing the murder of Kuldeep Kumar Badyai, with a Butcher's hatchet, called "Toka" in local dialect. Finding prima facie case for trial, the appellant and Deep Inder Singh were charged, for commission of the offences indicated hereinabove, by the trial court. Denying the charge, the appellant and his co- accused claimed trial. In order to sustain the charge, the prosecution examined 33 out of 39 witnesses listed in the Final Police Report. Denying the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence, the appellant and his co- accused put up the plea of total denial of the incident opting not to lead any evidence in defence. After appreciating the prosecution evidence and the material placed on the records, the trial Court acquitted Deep Inder Singh but convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated at the threshold. Questioning the judgment and order of the trial Court, the appellant's learned counsel urged as follows:- APPELLANT'SCOUNSEL'S SUBMISSIONS:

(3.) The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the evidence and the material produced in the case by the prosecution was sufficient enough to sustain the appellant's conviction and sentence, notwithstanding the prosecution witnesses' resilience from a part of their statements made under Section 161 Cr.P.C, regarding, identification of the appellant. According to the State counsel, the statement of PW-1, supported by EXPW-RS, his written FIR, has proved, beyond any reasonable doubt that it was the appellant and appellant alone, who was responsible for the murder of the Principal. There was no need to hold any Test Identification Parade during investigation of the case, because according to the evidence led in the case, it has been proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt that PW-1 had seen the appellant thrice on the day of the occurrence in the school and had thereafter identified him in the Court as the same person who had attacked the Principal in his office, says the learned counsel. Absence of motive, according to the counsel was not fatal to the prosecution case, in view of the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in this respect. According to him, the statement of the Investigating Police Officer is worthy of credence and cannot be dis- believed merely because he happens to be a police officer, in the absence of any infirmity appearing therein. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the statements of the witnesses and the other material available on the records. DISCUSSION We do not want to burden this judgment by reproduction of the statements of all the prosecution witnesses, resume whereof is contained in the judgment of the trial court, and shall refer to the statements of the witnesses, wherever necessary to deal with the appellant's Appeal and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at the Bar.