SANDEEP Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal assails the judgment and order dtd. 19/2/2022 passed by the learned Trial Court convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Ss. 302/397/411/201 IPC and order on sentence dtd. 13/4/2022 sentencing the appellant for life imprisonment for offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC and a fine of Rs.3,000.00 (simple imprisonment for three months in default of payment of fine); rigorous imprisonment for seven years for offence punishable under Sec. 397 IPC; simple imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Sec. 411; rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence punishable under Sec. 201 IPC and a fine of Rs.1,000.00 (simple imprisonment for three months in default of payment of fine) and being held guilty for offence punishable under Sec. 174A (for having absconded during trial), being sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. All sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) As per the case of the prosecution the complainant Panne Lal received a call on 25/4/2010 at 4:30 p.m. from his cousin Deen Dayal who mentioned that his shop DD Jewellers was open and that his brother Ashok Kumar was reportedly not there and if Panne Lal could go to the shop and find out. When Panne Lal reached the shop and went inside he found Ashok Kumar in an injured condition with blood oozing from his neck and a wound on the head. The injured was shifted to Park Hospital where he expired. Subsequently, the crime team was called and FIR No.104/2010 was registered at PS Tilak Nagar against an unknown person for robbery and murder of Ashok Kumar under Ss. 397/302 IPC. Pursuant to an investigation, charges were framed and the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 33 witnesses, statement of the appellant was recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and no defence evidence was led.

(3.) The appellant has contended through learned counsel appearing on his behalf and grounds taken in the appeal that the case of the prosecution was flawed in relying upon the two last seen witnesses PW-3 and PW-4 who stated that they had seen the deceased on the date of the incident in the company of a boy about 20-25 years of age whose name they did not know but was talking to the deceased at the shop of the brother of the deceased. As per both the witnesses, the person sitting with the deceased was talking normally to him and was introduced by the deceased as 'Sonar Bhai'. However, the appellant always worked as a driver and that fact was never disputed by the prosecution. The appellant further alleged that PW-3 and PW-4 claimed to have identified the appellant on 26/5/2010 where he was brought in custody however the statements to that effect were not recorded by the Investigation Officer. These witnesses were not called for identification of the appellant and claimed to have seen the appellant on 26/5/2020 per chance in the police station. It was contended that there was no eye witness in the present case despite the shop being in a busy market area and a gurudwara right in front of the shop. Reliance cannot be placed on the suspicion of PW-11 Deen Dayal, owner of the shop who stated that he suspected the appellant for this crime.