BIMLA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein, along with five others, was charged for offences punishable under Sections 302, 325 and 323 read with Section 34, IPC before the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari for having committed the murder of one Jaipal Singh on 10th of August, 1992. The learned Sessions Judge after the trial came to the conclusion held that one of the accused by named Ashok was not guilty of the offence charged against him and acquitted him while he convicted the other accused including the appellant herein for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and directed them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a find of Rs. 2000/- each. He further convicted the said accused under Section 325 read with Section 34, IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each. He also convicted the said accused for an offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34, IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for a period of three months each. He directed all the substantive sentences to run concurrently. The convicted accused preferred an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh which appeal came to be dismissed consequent to which this appeal was preferred. This Court while entertaining the appeal granted leave to appeal to this appellant only while dismissing the SLP of other accused. Therefore, the present appeal before us is confined to the case of appellant Bimla Devi only.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is that in an incident which took place on 10th August, 1992 at about 7 p.m. this appellant along with other named accused assaulted the deceased in which this appellant alleged to have assaulted the deceased with a Bankri causing an injury on the left ear portion of Jaipal. The other accused persons assaulted the deceased with various weapons on other parts of the body, consequent to which the said Jaipal died. According to the prosecution, the incident in question was witnessed by Abhey Singh (PW-1) who is the brother of the deceased, Shish Pal (PW-2) the uncle of the deceased and one Ramji Lal who is not examined. The FIR in this case was lodged by PW-1 Abhey Singh at about 5 a.m. on 11th August, 1992. It is based on this complaint of PW-1 after investigation charge-sheeted the accused persons including the appellant. As stated above, the trial Court while acquitting the accused Ashok, convicted all others including the appellant which conviction and sentence has been upheld by the High Court.

(3.) Shri P. N. Lekhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contended that so far as this appellant is concerned the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its charge and the Courts below have seriously erred in accepting the unsubstantial evidence of PWs-1 and 2 to convict the appellant. He pointed out that in the FIR that is lodged by PW-1 the eye-witness there is no overt act attributed to this appellant at all except saving all the accused persons have killed Jaipal, while the said FIR mentioned clearly about the other accuseds overt act. He also contended in the report of the inquest proceedings which was held at the earliest point of time at Col. 12 which describes the weapons used in the assault no injury attributable to Bankri was noticed and though the Bankri was recovered on 13-8-1992 and sent to the chemical examiner no stains of blood were found on such Bankri. He also pointed out that the medical evidence if read as a whole it is seen that no injury that could be caused by the use of Bankri with its blunt side could be noticed on the body of the deceased. In such circumstances, the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the appellant and the Courts below have mechanically proceeded to record conviction of the appellant.