HEMANT SHARMA @ MONA & OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2012-8-70
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on August 22,2012

Hemant Sharma @ Mona And Others Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Barin Ghosh, J. - (1.) The father of the victim, who died before the trial commenced, lodged a First Information Report on 27th May, 2000, where he indicated that the victim went along with Rajesh and his companions at about 08:30 p.m. of 26th May, 2000, where after, victim did not return home and, later, in the morning of 27th May, 2000, his dead body was located. This First Information Report led to arrest of the appellants herein. Appellants Hemant Sharma @ Mona and Mohan Singh @ Moni pointed out two stones with blood and, on such pointing, those were recovered. Appellant Vijendra Sagar @ Sanni allegedly disclosed the whereabouts of broken beer bottles with bloodstains and a telephone wire and, on the basis of such disclosure, broken beer bottles with bloodstains and telephone wire were recovered.
(2.) In course of investigation, postmortem of the dead body was conducted, when it transpired that the death has taken place by reason of anti mortem injuries, inflicted by blunt objects. The Postmortem Report also held out that the dead body had incised wounds. The recovered bloodstained stones, bloodstained broken beer bottles and the telephone wire as well as the t-shirt, trouser and undergarments of the deceased, which too contained bloodstains, were sent for chemical examination to FSL, Agra. FSL, Agra, reported that the blood contained in all those items, received by them, was disintegrated and, accordingly, FSL, Agra, could not ascertain whose blood that was and whether blood on each such item was from the same source. The investigation, accordingly, was completed, whereupon, a charge-sheet was filed and, on the basis of the charge-sheet, each of the appellants was charged of having committed an offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.) In order to prove the fact that the deceased was lastly in the company of the appellants, prosecution brought in two witnesses, namely, Rajesh (PW1) and Nirmal (PW4). PW1 was the person, who was named in the First Information Report as last seen in the company of the deceased along with others. PW1 did not help the prosecution. He was declared hostile. PW4 is the brother of the victim. PW4 deposed that, on 26th May, 2000, he and the victim were in their shop. They closed the shop. At about 08:30 p.m., victim went away with Rajesh. Later, at about 09:30 - 10:00 p.m., victim went with Rajesh and the appellants. He also deposed that he returned home on 26th May, 2000 in the night alone. When he was asked by his father about whereabouts of the victim, he held out that the victim is in the company of Rajesh and the appellants. He further held out that, when in the night the victim did not return home, he and his father went to the house of the appellants to locate the victim. In other words, PW4 purported to hold out that the victim was last in the company of the appellants and Rajesh.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.