DEVI SINGH @ DEVI DAYAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by Devi Singh @ Devi Dayal assailing his conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Behror vide judgement dated 25.2.2004 passed in Sessions Case No.78/2003 and he was convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000, in default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo simple imprisonment of six months.

(2.) The facts of the case are that on 16.7.2003, a written report was submitted by one Sheesh Ram to Ramanand Sharma, Head Constable, Police Station Shahjanpur stating therein that while he was going to Neemrana Petrol Pump to purchase the diesel for his stone crusher on motorcycle around 3.15 PM, he found two persons sitting near the agriculture field of Subedar Birbal. One of them was wearing kurta-payajama of almond colour and other person was wearing kurta-payajama of blue colour. Both were taking to each other. They seemed to be in the state of intoxication. When he returned back from the same way in the evening around 4.30 PM, he found the dead body of the person wearing almond colour kurta-payajama. There was injury visible on the left side temporal bone of his head and a stone was lying nearby. Another person wearing blue kurta payajama was missing. It appears that someone has murdered him by causing injury by stone on his head.

(3.) On receipt of the aforesaid written report, regular first information report no.149/03 was registered for offence under Section 302 IPC and investigation commenced. The police after investigation filed challan against the accused-appellant for offence u/s.302 IPC before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Behror. The case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Behror wherefrom it was transferred for trial to Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Behror. Charge for offence u/s.302 IPC was framed. The accused-appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution produced 24 witnesses and exhibited 34 documents to substantiate its case, whereas the defence did not produce any witness however exhibited two documents. The trial court on conclusion of the trial convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner as indicated above.