LAWS(HPH)-2008-3-27

VIJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Decided On March 24, 2008
VIJAY KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the Appellants against the judgment of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, dated 30.11.2005, vide which the Appellants were held guilty under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each and a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - each. In default of payment of fine, the Appellants were to further undergo imprisonment for six months.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that on 12.7.2004, at about 9.00 a.m., PW -13 Shami Verma, resident of Mashobra, was present at BCS at Khalini -Dhalli Bye -Pass. She saw PW -5 Kumari Ishita there crying with burn injuries, who had jumped into a water tank nearby. She took out PW -5 Kumari Ishita from the tank, gave information to the Police Post, New Shimla, that a girl with burn injuries is present near her residence and this information Ext.PR was recorded by the Incharge of the Police Post, New Shimla, who deputed a police officer on wireless set to go to the spot. PW -36 Shakuntla Sharma went to the spot, shifted the girl to the hospital and recorded her statement, on which the case was registered. It came up during investigation that when PW -5 Kumari Ishita was going to college, two boys came on a scooter and threw some acid over her from a jug and ran away from the spot. The case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed as against both the Appellants who were tried by the learned trial Court leading to their conviction, as detailed above.

(3.) THE first point raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellants was that the injured PW -5 Kumari Ishita had not identified the Appellants at that time who threw acid upon her. It was submitted that the prosecution version is based upon circumstantial evidence but the chain of circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to connect the Appellants with the commission of the crime and the evidence led is not reliable to hold that the prosecution case was established beyond any reasonable doubt.