Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh dated 16 th March 2009, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the accused/appellant­Ram Niwas, which was filed challenging the judgment and order dated 11 th/12th January 2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat, thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to a fine of Rs.5,000/­, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 302 IPC and to suffer imprisonment for three years and to a fine of Rs.2,000/­ in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2.5 The complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) lodged a report with the Police station at 4.45 p.m. On the basis of the statement of the complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9), a First Information Report (“FIR” for short) came to be registered at 5.00 p.m. 2.6 Upon completion of the investigation, a charge­sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sonepat. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, it came to be committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat.

2.7 Charges came to be framed for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. The accused/appellant­Ram Niwas pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat passed orders of conviction and sentence, as aforesaid. Being aggrieved, the accused/appellant­Ram Niwas preferred an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The same came to be dismissed. Hence the present appeal.

3. We have heard Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned Advocate­on­ Record appearing on behalf of the accused/appellant­Ram Niwas and Mr. Birendra Kumar Choudhary, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana.

4. Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned counsel, submitted that from the perusal of the postmortem report, it is clear that it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the dead­body on which the postmortem was conducted was of deceased Dalip Singh. He submitted that Dr. Sanjeev Malhotra (P.W.5) has admitted that the face of the dead­body of which he had carried the postmortem was not recognizable. He therefore submitted that in the absence of the prosecution proving that the dead­body was of deceased Dalip Singh, the conviction was not sustainable. He further submitted that the evidence of the complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10), which is relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat as well as the High Court, is totally unreliable. He submitted that the conduct of the said witnesses is totally unnatural. He submitted that from their evidence, it is seen that after they had seen the dead­body, they went all the way to their village Bhawar and returned back in the evening. He submitted that when the Police Station was at a distance of about one and a half kilometers from the place of the incident, their conduct in not going to the Police Station immediately and informing about the incident creates a serious doubt about the prosecution case. He therefore submits that the accused/appellant­Ram Niwas is entitled to be acquitted of all the charges charged with.