MANOJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
U.C. Dhyani, J. -
(1.) CRIMINAL Law was set into motion at the instance of complainant PW1 Narendra Singh s/o Bhorum Singh, resident of village Narsan Kala, P.S. Manglore, District Haridwar in the instant case. The complaint (Ext.Ka -1) was scribbled by one Pradeep Kumar. The backdrop of crime was that informant's son Parul looted motorcycle along with two accomplices on 23.04.2008 in jungle Gramkhera Jat and came to co -accused Sushil s/o Mahendra. They had quarrel in the evening around 8 -9 p.m. Monu s/o Jaspal of village Brahmpur Jat (Haridwar) was found in injured condition near tube well of Kharak Singh in village Lalchandwala along with looted motorcycle. Monu was admitted in hospital by the police. Informant's son Parul was missing since 23.04.2008. On 02.05.2008, the day complaint was written, Parul's dead body was found in decomposed condition in a nala near fields in village Lalchandwala. Parul was killed by Sushil and his companions might be involved in the same. The dead body was lying on the spot, according to the informant. On the complaint of Narendra Singh, chik FIR (Ext. Ka -10) was lodged in P.S. Khanpur, District Haridwar on 02.05.2008 at 11:55 pm. The distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station was 5 Kms. The First Information Report was registered as case crime no. 26 of 2008 under Section 302 IPC.
(2.) AFTER completing investigation, a charge -sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323 and 201 IPC was submitted against the accused -appellants Sushil Kumar, Sandeep and Manoj Kumar. When the trial began, charges for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC were framed against the accused appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As many as 13 prosecution witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution. Statements of the accused persons were taken under Section 313 Cr.P.C. One witness DW1 SI B.L. Bharti was examined on behalf of the defence. After conclusion of the trial, accused appellants Sushil Kumar, Manoj Kumar and Sandeep were convicted for the offences punishable under section 302/34 IPC and section 323/34 IPC in Sessions Trial No. 323 of 2008 on 18.07.2009. All the three accused were awarded rigorous imprisonment for life and were directed to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/ - each, in default of payment of which they were directed to further undergo a year's imprisonment as regards the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. They were also awarded one year's rigorous imprisonment in connection with the offence punishable under section 323/34 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently by the trial court. Aggrieved against the aforesaid conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar, accused/appellants preferred present appeals.
(3.) WHEN PW1 Narendra Singh entered into the witness box he supported prosecution story and said that on 23.04.2008 his son went to Lalchandwala along with two boys. Narendra Singh had talks with his son on telephone. His son told him that he was with Sushil (co -accused) in Lalchandwala. He did not return in the evening. The next day informant came to know that Monu, who accompanied Parul to Lalchandwala, was found in unconscious state by police, who took him to hospital. Informant met Monu on 25.04.2008 in hospital and enquired about his son Parul. Monu told that Sushil and his companions assaulted Parul and him (Monu). Monu said that he became unconscious. Informant made a search for his son Parul along with his relatives. On 02.05.2008 dead body of Parul was found in village Lalchandwala, a report whereof was got scribbled by one Pradeep on the same day. PW1 Narendra Singh proved complaint (Ext.Ka -1).;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.