ARUN KUMAR, J.:–The appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the sole appellant passed on 19th November, 2010 and order of sentence dated 20th November, 2010 of life imprisonment by Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C.- Vth, Ara.

2. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

3. The prosecution case in brief as narrated by Santlal Ram, the informant as well as the victim of the case in his fardbeyan given before the police in the Government hospital, Sandesh is that in the night of 7.9.1983 at 10.30 P.M., he was sleeping in his Bailthara after having his dinner. He woke up on hearing sound of foot steps on dry lives. In the meanwhile, Hari Narayan Singh, co-villager stabbed with knife in his abdomen as a result of which intestine bulged out from the abdomen. On alarm raised by the informant, his son Dharmendra Kumar (P.W.2), Jugul Ram (P.W.1) and many other co-villagers turned up but the accused managed to escape. The informant identified the accused in the light of burning lamp. The incident took place as a few days back, the accused Hari Narayan Singh had purchased some articles from informant’s shop and a sum of Rs.10/- was due. As the informant reminded the appellant for the money, he entered into verbal dual and threatened him with dire consequences.

4. On the basis of the oral statement of the informant, police lodged Sandesh P.S. Case No.104 of 1983 under Sections 307 and 324 of I.P.C. However, the informant Santlal Ram died on 13.9.1983 in the Sadar Hospital, Ara during course of treatment and consequently Section 302 of I.P.C. was added. Postmortem of the deceased was done by Dr. I.B. Sinha (P.W.4) and on conclusion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the sole accused under Section 302 of I.P.C. The cognizance of the offence was taken by Chief Judicial Magistrate and case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. Charge was framed under Section 302 of I.P.C. against the accused Hari Narayan Singh who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On consideration of materials on record the trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the informant in F.I.R. has stated that several villagers turned up after the accused stabbed him, but not a single independent witness has been examined in this case. He further submitted that Dharmendra Kumar (P.W.2) in his cross examination stated that no quarrel took place between his father (the deceased) and the accused Hari Narayan Singh. He further stated that he reached the place of occurrence along with Jangi Ram and Jugul Ram as such there would be no eye witness to the occurrence. Moreover it was a dark night and according to this witness, the village Chaukidar was first person, who informed the police station regarding the occurrence but, he has not been examined by the prosecution. The Investigating Officer of the case too has not been examined; causing prejudice to the accused because attention of contradictions creeping in evidence of prosecution witnesses could not be drawn to the I.O. The police has also not seized lamp in the light of which the accused was identified by the informant (the deceased).

6. The case of defence is that the informant was assaulted by unknown thieves but seizing the opportunity the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case due to enmity. This stand of defence is apparent from the suggestion given by the defence to prosecution witnesses during cross examination. Learned counsel further submitted that appellant was juvenile on the alleged date of the occurrence as Dharmendra Kumar (P.W.2), son of the informant has admitted in paragraph-12 that 1-2 years ago since the day of occurrence, accused was student of a primary school.

7. Per contra, Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sinha, learned A.P.P.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document