SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
LAWS(UTN)-2012-9-17
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on September 06,2012

SUNIL KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

U.C. Dhyani, J. - (1.) ONE Subhash Chandra lodged a complaint (Ext. Ka -1) in police station Kotwali, Kashipur (Udham Singh Nagar) on 01.08.1999, alleging that on the said date when he came to take lunch in his house at 02:25 P.M., his adopted son Sunil came there in an infuriated state and started hurling abuses at informant's wife Shashi. Informant's wife Shashi tried to console him, but to no avail. Appellant Sunil inflicted several blows of knife on victim saying that he will finish her off today. On raising alarm by the informant, Rajesh came on the place of incident, who saw Sunil fleeing away from the spot. Victim Shashi fell on the ground and died immediately. The motive to commit crime was attributed to an incident which took place a week ago. Appellant Sunil was ousted by the informant from his house. He was residing separately in a rented accommodation. When appellant threatened informant and his wife of dire consequences, informant tried to pacify him. In the intervening night of 31.07.1999 and 01.08.1999, appellant broke open the locks of shop of informant. When the appellant came in the shop in the morning of 01.08.1999, the informant reprimanded the appellant for said act.
(2.) ON the basis of above report, a chik FIR was lodged on 01.08.1999, at 03:30 P.M. against the appellant. Occurrence took place on the same day at 02:30 P.M. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station concerned was two furlongs and, hence, there appeared to be no delay in lodging the first information report. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was submitted by the investigating Officer against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 504 of IPC. When the prosecution opened the case before the trial court, a charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC was framed against the accused/appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3A. Prosecution examined five witnesses namely, P.W. 1 Subhash Chandra, P.W. 2 Rajesh Kumar, P.W. 3 Dr. Surendra Singh (Medical Officer), P.W. 4 Sub Inspector Madan Narain Joshi and P.W. 5 Inspector Mohd. Anees (Investigating Officer). In defence, D.W. 1 Annu Chaudhary was produced on behalf of the accused/appellant.
(3.) AFTER the prosecution evidence was closed, incriminating evidence was put to accused/appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which he said that the evidence adduced against him was false. The accused also said that he did not commit the murder and he was innocent. After hearing both the sides, learned trial court on 16.05.2001, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The convict raised a plea of juvenility before learned trial court, but the same was not accepted. Aggrieved against the order of conviction, the convict preferred an appeal before this Court, which was disposed of on 13.05.2003, whereby the matter was remanded to the trial court after setting side the impugned judgment and order dated 16.05.2001, with a direction upon the trial court to decide the case expeditiously in the light of the observations made in said judgment. After hearing the parties in compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, learned trial court, vide judgment and order dated 30.06.2004, convicted the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, whereby he was awarded imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - was also imposed. Further aggrieved against said order, present criminal appeal was preferred by the convict on 30.07.2004. This Court, vide order dated 30.09.2004, passed on bail application moved on behalf of the appellant, granted bail to the appellant, during the pendency of appeal. A jail appeal was also filed by the convict through the Jailer, District Jail, Haridwar, which was received by this Court on 08.09.2004. Since both the appeals were preferred against the same judgment and order of the learned trial court, the same are being decided together by a common judgment;


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