Ram Krishna Gautam - (1.) This jail appeal under Section 383 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."), has been filed by convict-appellant Satyendra @ Chinu, through Superintendent of Central Jail, Fatehgarh, against judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.04.2010 passed by Sri Vijay Bahadur Yadav, Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in Sessions Trial No.310 of 2006 under Section 302/34 IPC arising out of Case Crime No.52 of 2006, P.S.Rajepur, District-Farrukhabad as well as in Sessions Trial No.311 of 2006 arising out of Case Crime No.53 of 2006 under Section 4/25 Arms Act 1959, P. S. Rajepur, District-Farrukhabad whereby accused-appellant Satyendra @ Chinu has been convicted for offence of murder punishable under Section 302/34 IPC (Sessions Trial No.310 of 2006) and for offence punishable under Section 4/25 Arms Act (Sessions Trial No.311 of 2006). He has been sentenced with life imprisonment, alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC (Sessions Trial No.310 of 2006) and in default of payment of fine, he has to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of six months. Under Section 4/25 Arms Act (Sessions Trial No.311 of 2006), he has been sentenced to six month's rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine Rs.2000/- and in default in payment of fine, he has further to undergo imprisonment for three months with direction of concurrent running of sentences.
(2.) Grounds of appeal as argued by learned counsel for appellant are as under : (I) There was no motive for commission of offence of murder by accused. (II) The very foundation of prosecution, First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as "F.I.R.") was suspicious and it was ante timed for which there was sufficient evidence of manipulation and embellishment, but Trial Court failed to appreciate it. (III) Co-accused Santosh Singh is not named in F.I.R. or in statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. or in statement of witnesses though he has been acquitted by Trial Court vide impugned judgment and there is no appeal by State against his acquittal, hence, the very testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding accused Santosh was not accepted by Trial Court whereas same has been accepted for accused-appellant. (IV) Presence of prosecution witnesses, Amar Pal, Bhola Nath and Prempal and their being eye witnesses were full of doubt because their testimony are not in co-relations to each other, though each of them were related witnesses and their testimony was unreliable. (V) Prosecution failed to examine independent witnesses of vicinity to support and corroborate prosecution version nor there was any explanation for this non examination of those independent witnesses. (VI) The occurrence was said to be of midnight with no source of light. The alleged source of light i.e. torch was neither seized by Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred to as "I.O.") nor produced and proved before Court in trial, hence, there was suspicion regarding source of light. (VII) False implicating of alleged recovery of knife on the basis of disclosure made in confessional statement of accused was there and it was not proved beyond doubt, even then Trial Court failed to appreciate it. Investigation was faulty and full of suspicion, but the Trial Court did not appreciate it. (VIII) Sentencing too was improper.
(3.) From perusal of record of Trial Court as well as impugned judgment, prosecution case, as surfaced on record, is that F.I.R. of Case Crime No.52 of 2004 under Section 302 IPC was got registered at Police Station-Rajepur on 05.02.2006 at about 8.30 A.M. for occurrence of 11.00 P.M. in night of 04/05.02.2006 occurred near house of Ram Mohan and Brijpal Singh situated within village-Rai, within area of Police Station-Rajepur, at about 9 km from police station, upon report of Informant Amar Pal son of Chhotey Lal Kahaar, resident of Village-Rai, Police Station-Rajepur, District-Farrukhabad, against Satyendra @ Chinu son of Yadunath Singh, resident of same village with one other, that they have murdered Jaukhi alias Swami Dayal, Informant's brother, by assaulting by knife, with this contention that Informant Amar Pal on 04.02.2006 with his brother Jaukhi alias Swami Dayal was at his home and was to take meal when Satyendra alias Chinu came and took him. At about 11.00 P.M., a rescue call was heard from near the houses of Ram Mohan and Brijpal Singh. Informant, his uncle and nephew Prempal son of Ochh Lal along with his cousin Sunil Kumar son of Ganga Ram rushed thereat and found that Satyendra alias Chinu and one other, in which Chinu was armed with knife and other was with lathi, were assaulting Jaukhi alias Swami Dayal while Chinu was saying that further accusation of taken money was illegally levelled by Jaukhi alias Swami Dayal. Informant and others intervened and tried to apprehend those assailants, but they ran towards river. Jaukhi was serious. He was gasping, hence, was taken at home where he succumbed to above injuries at 2.00 A.M. in the night. Owing to fear, matter could not be reported in the night. It was reported in the morning. Dead body was lying at home and this report, under thumb impression of Amar Pal son of Chhotey Lal Kahaar, resident of Village-Rai, Police Station-Rajepur, dated 05.02.2006, under Scribe Bhola Nath son of Bachchu Lal resident of same village, was submitted. This case crime number was investigated. Then accused Satyendra @ Chinu son of Yadunath Singh was taken with a view to recover weapon of offence, from Police Station at 6.10 A.M. On 09.02.2006 by I.O. along with police team in continuation of confessional statement made by him and disclosure made therein by making entry at Report No.7 at about 6.10 A.M. of G.D. Entry of police station concerned. Then Satyendra alias Chinu took police team in front of house of Mannu Singh and from there, near potato field of Shyam Babu son of Rampal, under heap of refuse, he got the knife recovered where it was kept under hide. This knife was recovered with blood stains. This recovery was of 7.00 A.M. and said to be the same knife by which murder of deceased was committed by accused. Despite efforts, no public witnesses came forward to witness recovery. Recovery memo was got prepared on spot. Specimen seal was prepared. Knife was kept under seal and by presenting this recovery memo at police station, case crime number for offence under Section 4/25 of Arms Act was got registered at police station.;