Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(iii) PW2 in his statement alleged that at about 2:45 P.M. he was present at his tea-shop and saw that two boys were fighting with each other and one of them was having tube-light in his hand. That boy had given a blow of tube-light at the neck of another boy, consequently, bleeding started from his wound and he fell down in front of factory No. 6AA. Thereafter, public persons apprehended the assailant, who disclosed his name as Salman. In the mean time, someone informed the police at 100 number, consequently, PCR van reached there and took the injured to the hospital. On his statement, PW8 made an endorsement (Ex. PW8/B) and sent PW13 to lodge an FIR. Thereafter, further investigation was assigned to Insp. Mahesh (PW17). It was alleged that during investigation, PW17 had seized the blood stained clothes of accused and also inserted Section 302 of Indian Panel Code as injured succumbed to his injuries. Dead body was got preserved for 72 hours for the purpose of identification. Despite best efforts, identity of deceased could not be ascertained. On March 24, 2012 inquest was conducted and dead body was sent for post-mortem. Exhibits were sent to FSL.

2. After completing investigation, challan was filed against the accused before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Panel Code (IPC in short).

3. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure, case was committed to the Court of Sessions on June 23, 2012. Thereafter, case was assigned to this Court on July 4, 2012. Accordingly, case was registered as Sessions Case No. 29/2012.

State Vs. Salman

4. Vide order dated July 27, 2012, a charge for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of Indian Panel Code was framed against the accused to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution has examined as many as following 20 witnesses:-

PW1 Sh. Harish Kumar, foreman of factory, material witness PW2 Sh. Gulab Singh, eye witness PW3 HC Charan Singh, duty officer, proved DD No. 16A PW4 HC Wazir Singh, duty officer, proved the FIR and DD No. 23A PW5 HC Devi Dutt, In-charge PCR, took the injured to the hospital PW6 Constable Anuj, duty constable at LHMC PW7 Const. Satender, formal witness, delivered the exhibits at FSL, Rohini PW8 ASI Ajit Singh, first investigating officer PW9 Constable Ravi Dhaiya, PCR official, proved PCR Form-Part I PW10 Sarfaraz, made a call to police control room PW11 Constable Dinesh, photographer PW12 Dr. Mukta Rani, Assistant professor, proved the autopsy report PW13 Constable Ashok, joined the investigation with PW8 PW14 SI Pankaj, In-charge Crime Team State Vs. Salman PW15 HC Om Parkash, MHCM PW16 Insp. Mahesh Kumar, draughtsman, proved the scaled site plan PW17 Insp. Mahesh Kumar, investigating officer PW18 Dr. Yogesh Yadav, proved the MLC of injured PW20 Sh. Parshuram Singh, Asstt. Director (Physics), proved the FSL report PW20 Ms. Sunita Gupta, Sr. Scientific Officer (Biology), proved the FSL report

40. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that present case squarely falls within the Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, thus accused is liable for the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part-I) of Indian Panel Code.

41. Pondering over the ongoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has succeeded to prove the guilt of accused beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part-I) of Indian Panel Code, thus, I hereby State Vs. Salman hold the accused Salman guilty thereunder.