STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SURAJ PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject-matter of challenge in both these appeals is the judgment and order dated 22nd January, 2009 rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal 172-DB of 2006, whereby it has affirmed the conviction and sentence of accused No.1 Dharminder, accused No. 4 Rani, his mother and accused No.5 Nazar Singh under Sections 302, 419, 404, 201, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. While acquitting accused No. 2 Suraj and accused No.3 Bhalla Ram of the charge under Section 302/120B IPC it affirmed their conviction under Sections 419, 404, 201 IPC. Whereas Criminal Appeal No.2056 of 2009 has been preferred by the State against the exoneration of accused No. 2 Suraj and accused No. 3 Bhalla Ram from the charge under Section 302/120B IPC, accused No. 4, Rani is in appeal before this Court against her conviction under the above provisions of law. Accused No.1 and Accused No. 5 have not preferred any appeal.

(2.) We have heard Mr. V. Madhukar, learned Additional Advocate General for the State as well as Mr. A.P.S. Deol, learned senior counsel for the accused.

(3.) The prosecution was set in motion in the wee weapon and then had put himself on fire by sprinkling kerosene oil and had burnt him to death. In specific terms, the informant opined that no one was to be faulted for the death of Dharminder Singh and that it was a case of voluntary self immolation. He expressed his opinion that in the circumstances, no legal action need be taken and that the information was being lodged so as to apprise the police of the incident.