Harbans Lal, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment/ order of sentence dated 29th November, 2003/3rd December, 2003 rendered by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused -Ram Chander to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ -or in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THE factual matrix of this case is that Sukhdevi complainant/ wife of the deceased Jagdish was residing in a hut near Bharat Gas Agency, Panchkula alongwith her husband, who was earlier rickshaw puller by profession and now he had started selling groundnuts on a Rehri in Sector 21, Panchkula. She herself used to work as a maid -servant. Tara, sister of the deceased Jagdish was residing with her family in Devi Nagar, Panchkula, on the other side of river Ghaggar. On 28th November, 2001, Tara was present in the hut of Jagdish, who had returned home at about 8.00 PM. He had just been served with his meals in a Thali. Meanwhile, accused Mukesh (juvenile being tried by the Juvenile Court) entered the hut. He kicked the Thali lying in front of Jagdish and asked him to accompany him. To the query of the complainant, Mukesh proclaimed that he (Mukesh), Jagdish, Nisar (proclaimed offender) and Ram Chander had indulged in gambling in which Jagdish had won his (Mukesh) watch and also Rs. 700/in cash and that they wanted to continue the game. So, they wanted Jagdish to accompany them. Jagdish refused to go with him. He was forced to accompany them. When Mukesh alongwith Jagdish stirred out of the hut, Nisar and Ram Chander were already waiting outside. Thereafter, they all three took Jagdish with them. Jagdish did not return home in the night. In the next morning Sukhdevi started making inquiries about her husband. She went to the shop of Babu Ram where Jagdish sometimes used to sleep. Babu Ram did not know about the whereabouts of Jagdish. Sukhdevi accompanied by her Nanad Tara and others continued searching for her husband. They found a dead body lying in a gutter. One V -shape Chappal was lying outside the gutter. The same was identified by Sukhdevi to be of her husband. Shiv Charan son of Babu Ram had also reached the spot. He disclosed that at about 8.30/9.00 PM on the previous night, he had seen Nisar, Ram Chander and Mukesh giving beatings and calling him bad names. Thereafter, Sukhdevi alongwith Babu Ram went to the Police Post, Sector -2, Panchkula and made a statement, on the basis of which F.I.R. was registered. Gorakh Pal, Sub Inspector went to the spot. The dead body was taken out from the gutter and the same was got photographed, inquest proceedings were conducted, whereafter, Inspector Rajiv Deswal came at the spot. He took up the investigation. The autopsy was got performed on the dead body. The rough site plan was prepared. Mukesh and Ram Chander were arrested from the huts situated in Sector -4, Panchkula. Pursuant to their respective disclosure statements, they got recovered stones, which were allegedly used as weapons of offence, as also the blood stained clothes. After completion of investigation, charge -sheet was laid in the committing court. On commitment, the accused Ram Chander was charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. To bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined PW1 Tara, PW2 Constable Darshan Singh, PW3 Sukhdevi Complainant, PW4 Manohar Lal Draftsman, PW5 ASI Gian Chand, PW6 Shiv Charan, PW7 Dr.Jyoti Kaushal, PW8 Head Constable Nasib Singh, PW9 Constable Mohinder Singh, PW10 ASI Om Parkash, PW11, SI Gorakh Pal and PW12 Inspector Rajiv Deswal. On 6th November, 2003, the prosecution evidence was shut out by order of the Court with the observations that only one witness, namely, Arun Kumar photographer remains to be examined and his summons have been received back with a report that he has gone somewhere after selling his shop and today it was the last opportunity and hence, the evidence of the prosecution is closed by order.
(3.) ON close of the prosecution evidence, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has come up with the following plea: I was not at all present at the time of alleged quarrel with the deceased. I am not at all concerned with the alleged murder of Jagdish. I had not gambled with Jagdish nor I met him on the alleged day. I am a rickshaw puller and have been falsely involved by the wife of the deceased without any reason. I am innocent. Nothing has been recovered from me. The police have got my thumb impression forcibly on the alleged disclosure statement.;