Decided on September 24,2013

OMPAL Appellant


- (1.) Challenge herein is to the judgment and order of conviction under Section 302 IPC rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge/Ist FTC, Roorkee, District Haridwar on 19.8.2004. The Sessions Trial No. 442/96, against the appellants Ompal, Dharampal and Yogesh pertaining to the offences under Section 302, 297 IPC, and another Sessions Trial No. 441/96, which was only against the accused appellant Yogesh for the offence under Section 25/27 Arms Act, were adjudicated together. The learned Trial Judge did not find the charge under Section 25/27 Arms Act proved against the accused Yogesh and, accordingly, absolved him from the said charge. However, the accused appellants, having been found guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC in Sessions Trial No. 442/96 pertaining to Crime No. 134/96, PS Manglore, were appropriately sentenced.
(2.) The prosecution case, as disclosed in the FIR Ex. Ka-2 lodged within three hours of the incident, is that on 13.6.1996 at about 10.15 AM, the deceased Rajendra Singh and his wife Smt. Beermati were on a bullock cart. They were coming to the village from their agricultural field after fetching the fodder (grass) for the animals. The informant Mahendra Singh, real brother of the deceased, was also proceeding towards the village and he was at some distance behind the cart. When the said cart was approaching near the village, two of the accused, namely, Sahensarpal and Yogesh suddenly appeared from inside a nearby agricultural field. Sahensarpal, at the strength of rifle in his hand, and Yogesh, armed with the revolver in his hand, showed gestures to stop the deceased who was driving the bullock cart. Seeing the accused persons coming towards the cart showing such gestures, the deceased sensed the trouble. He left the cart and took to his heels towards the village. Both Sahensarpal and Yogesh chased Rajendra Singh. Having covered the distance of 100-130 yards, Rajendra Singh was confronted with other two accused persons, namely, Ompal and Dharampal, brothers of Sahensarpal, who appeared from the side of thoroughfare nearby the house of a villager Zile Singh. Ompal and Dharampal, who were armed with the country-made pistols, challenged the deceased asking him as to where he was striving to escape and threatened to teach him a lesson for pursuing the various criminal cases against them. Meanwhile, Ompal exhorted his brother Sahensarpal to shoot Rajendra Singh. At this, all the four accused persons opened fire from their respective lethal weapons. Hearing the noise of fire, other villagers, namely, Sanjeev, Mukesh, Rishipal and several others, who happened to be present in the surrounding vicinity, came at the spot to rescue Rajendra Singh, but none could muster the courage to rescue the victim having seen the firearms in the hands of the accused persons. Sahensarpal opened another fire as a sign of warning to all the persons present there and said that if anyone would come forward, he shall also meet with the same fate. After murdering Rajendra Singh, accused Ompal inserted a wooden peg in his anus. Thereafter all the accused persons chased the informant Mahendra Singh saying that he was successful in saving himself on the earlier occasions and would also be finished that day. However, somehow he could save his life by running fast and taking shelter in the village. All the four aforenamed accused persons, threatened to kill the complainant in future and escaped towards south in the agricultural farms. The chick report is Ex. Ka-20.
(3.) Police came into action. As the victim had died on the spot, the inquest report Ex. Ka-11 was prepared there itself. Inquest proceedings commenced at 13.10 hours and the same could be reduced into writing by 18.25 hours on that very day. In the opinion of the members of inquest, Rajendra Singh died on account of injuries caused on his throat and temple. Nonetheless, they all recommended for the post-mortem. The wooden peg, which was about 5 inches long and inside the anus of the deceased, was also seen by the members of the inquest.;

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