- (1.) PRAFULLA C. Pant, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 374 read with Section 389 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr. P. C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 26-0/-2006, passed by Sessions Judge, Champawat, in Sessions Trial No. 12 of 2004, whereby accused/appellants, Shankar Singh, has been convicted un der Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as I. P. C.) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and directed to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of which further one year's imprisonment was di rected to be served out. The trial court further convicted the accused Shankar Singh (appellant) under Section 506 (II) I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo im prisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. In default of payment of fine of Rs. 1000/ - the convict is ordered to undergo rig orous imprisonment for further period of one month.
(2.) WE heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Gov ernment Advocate for the State. Prosecution story in brief is that on 23-04-2004 at about 4. 30 RM. , com plainant Bishan Singh (P. W. 1) had gone to find out the details of his election duty. When he came back, he heard cries in his house. He rushed towards his house and saw that accused / appellant Shankar Singh was brutally hitting with stone on the head of Kailash Singh (nephew of the complainant ). When Saruli Devi (P. W. 2) tried to save Kailash Singh, accused / appellant Shankar Singh caught hold of her neck and injured her. Kailash Singh succumbed to the injuries suffered by him in the inci dent. The accused / appellant Shankar Singh was apprehended at the spot. On. the basis of the First Information Report lodged with the Patwari Circle Wardakhan, District Champawat, where it was registered as Crime No. 1 of 2004. In Uttarakhand Hills certain patwaries are given police powers. The Investigating Officer took the dead body of deceased in his possession, prepared inquest report (Ext. A-10), memorandum of blood stained clothes (Ext. A-7), site plan (Ext. A-3), sketch of dead body (Ext. A-12), Police Form No. 13 (Ext. A-13) etc. He interrogated the witnesses. After investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against the accused / appel lant Shankar Singh for his trial in re spect of offence punishable under Sec tion 302 and 506 (11) of I. P. C. The Magistrate on receipt of the charge sheet registered it, and after giv ing necessary copies as required under Section 207 Cr. P. C. to the accused, committed the case to the court of Ses sions for trial. Learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties framed charge of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 506 (II) I. P. C. on 04-08-2004. Accused Shankar Singh pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P. W. 1 Bishan Singh, complainant, P. W. 2 Saruli Devi, an eyewitness, P. W. 3 Kalyan Singh, an other eyewitness, P. W. 4 Dr. K. S. Mehta, who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Kailash Singh and prepared report (Ext. A-9), P. W. 5 Ramesh Singh, witness of inquest report and P. W. 6 Bahadur Singh Mehta. The oral and documentary evidence was put to accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , in respect of which he alleged the same to be false. However, no evidence in defence was adduced on behalf of the accused / appellant Shankar Singh. Af ter hearing the parties, learned Sessions Judge found the accused Shankar Singh guilty of offence punishable under Sec tions 302 and 506 (11) of I. P. C. He was heard on sentence and thereafter sen tenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and directed to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/ - under Section 302 I. P. C. , and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-under Section 506 (11) I. PC. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 26-0/-2006, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Champawat, in Sessions Trial No. 12 of 2004 this appeal is filed by the convict Shankar Singh. After admitting the ap peal lower court record was summoned by this Court.
(3.) BEFORE further discussions, it is pertinent to mention here the ante mortem injuries found on the dead body of deceased (Kailash Singh) by Dr. K. S. Mehta (P. W. 4), which are recorded in Ext. A-9. The same are being reproduced below- (1) Frontal bone absent from whole of forehead (size 10cm x 6cm) from eyebrow to hairline. Brain matter absent in skull cavity (brain matter and bony pieces present in a separate white bag ). Blood clot present over skull and cavity. (2) Crush injury face involving from upper lip to absent area what ever eyebrows, nose adjacent, area of nose in between eyes fea tures of nose upper lip and eyes disfigured. Multiple laceration upper jaw beneath fractured; blood clot and blood present. (3) Lower lip lacerated. Inner aspect size 2cm x 1cm all inner teeth absent. (4) Multiple abraded contusions in the back. " The Medical Officer in his report opined that cause of death of the de ceased was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries. P. W. I, complainant Bishan Singh has stated that on the date of incident, he was returning after making inquiry as to his election duty for the parliamentary elections scheduled to be held in April 2004. When he reached near his house, he heard cries and rushed towards the spot. It was 23-04-2004 at about 4. 30 P. M. . , when he reached and saw that accused/ appel lant Shankar Singh was giving blows with stone on the head of Kailash Singh (nephew of the complainant ). The wit ness has further narrated that head of Kailash Singh was brutally broken to pieces by the accused Shankar Singh. The statement of this witness gets cor roborated from P. W. 2 Saruli Devi, an injured and eyewitness aged 60 years. She has stated on oath that on 23-04-2004 at about 4. 30 PM. she was in her house and saw accused Shankar Singh caused injuries on the person of Kailash Singh, who was crying for help. Shankar Singh was sitting on the chest of Kailash Singh at the time he was giving blows with stone. This witness has further stated that she tried to intervene. On this accused / appellant Shankar Singh tried to press her neck and threatened her to kill. P. W. 3 Kalyan Singh is also an eye witness, who has corroborated the state ment of above two eyewitnesses. Narra tion of prosecution story by the three eyewitnesses is natural and trustworthy. Nothing has come out in their cross-ex amination, which discredits their testi mony or creates any reasonable doubt in it. There are no material contradic tions in the statements of the witnesses.;