RUPESH KUMAR @ PINTU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21/3/2012 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No.27/2010 by which learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced accused -appellant Rupesh Kumar @ Pintu for the offence under Section 302 of IPC for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/ - and to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment in event of default and acquitting co - accused Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Nayak.

(2.) In nutshell, the story of the prosecution is that complainant Shanti Devi wife of deceased Chandra Prakash was at her residence with her son Kishan Lal and other kids, On 7/9/2009, at about 7:45 p.m. Ravi Nayak and Pintu @ Rupesh came there on a strange kind of motorcycle and after calling her son Kishanlal threatened him by saying that why he causes quarrel and displeasure at his home, we retorted that it was our personal affair, meanwhile, pillion rider of the motorcycle, Rupesh Kumar @ Pintu stabbed her son Kishanlal in the stomach, who felt down bleedingly and both fled away. She got her son Kishan admitted in Government Hospital, Sriganganagar with the help of some neighbours for the treatment, who succumbed to his injuries. Ravi Nayak and Rupesh @ Pintu wittingly stabbed her son Kishan in his stomach and have killed him. The FIR was registered at No.248/2009 under Section 302/34 coupled with Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and after investigation charge -sheet was filed against Rupesh Kumar @ Pintu under section 302/34 of IPC coupled with 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Nayak was charge - sheeted under Section 302/34 of IPC and were subsequently charged for these offences by the trial Court. Prosecution produced as many as fifteen witnesses and exhibited thirty seven documents, six articles were also produced and exhibited in the trial Court.

(3.) Heard both the sides, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that all the important witnesses of the prosecution have turned hostile, even the witnesses relating to the alleged recovery have also not supported the story of the prosecution nor they have supported alleged recovery, despite the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant - accused. Learned counsel has further argued that the kind of the weapon i.e. knife, which has stated to have been recovered, does not match with the alleged weapon, which has produced by the prosecution, moreover, the piece of cloth, which is said to be the covering of the alleged knife, is also devoid of blood stains, which makes the entire story of the recovery of blood stained knife untrustworthy. Learned counsel for the appellant, while relying the verdict in case of Prakash vs. State of Karnataka, (2014) 12 SCC 133 has argued that the recovery of alleged knife has been made after lapse of several months, which too creates doubt on the truthfulness of the alleged recovery. Learned counsel has also submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish its case because all the witnesses of the prosecution have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution story, even recovery witnesses have turned hostile, notwithstanding the trial court has erroneously passed the impugned judgment of conviction, which is not sustainable at all in the eye of law, so the appeal may be accepted and the impugned judgment may be quashed and the accused -appellant be acquitted. On the contrary, learned public prosecutor has submitted that there is no error in the findings of the learned trial court. The investigating Officer has proved the recovery of the knife, which has been found blood blotted and the FSL report has also corroborated the same. The conviction can very well be based on the testimony of the Investigating Officer and the learned trial court has not committed any error. Appeal is not worthy to be accepted, so it be dismissed and the order of learned trial court be upheld.