The main legal point established in the judgment is that the offence committed by the appellant fell within the purview of Section 304 Part I of IPC, and the court referred to the case of Jagbir Singh and Others vs. State to modify the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 8 years. The court also held that the sentences should run concurrently, as there were no aggravating circumstances justifying consecutive sentences.

G.S. SISTANI, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) filed against the judgment dated 08.08.2013 passed by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Case No.79/2012, arising out of FIR No.120/2012, Police Station Mahendra Park, whereby the Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”). Challenge is also laid to the order on sentence dated 19.08.2013, by virtue of which the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC; in default of payment of the fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The appellant has been further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC; in default of payment of the fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The Trial Court held that both the sentences would run consecutively, i.e. firstly the appellant has to undergo the sentence awarded under Section 307 of IPC and thereafter the appellant has to undergo the sentence awarded for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that Satpal (hereinafter referred to as „the deceased?) was a shopkeeper at Azadpur Subzi Mandi. On 03.05.2012 at about 8:158:30 AM, when he was present at his Fad (shop) along with his brother Sanjay Kumar (PW12), four men came there and tried to snatch money from their customers and when the deceased objected to the same and tried to stop them, one of them took out an icepick/sua and gave a blow on the neck of the deceased by saying “saale tu humein roknae wala kaun hai aaj teri kahani khatam kar dete hai”. As a result of the blow, the deceased fell on the ground and the assailants ran from the spot towards the Railway Station. A large number of public persons who witnessed the incident chased the assailants upto some distance but were prevented as the assailants started throwing stones at them which resulted in the injuries to Lal Chand (PW15). The deceased was taken to the hospital by his younger brother Sanjay where he was declared brought dead. The police immediately came to the spot and from the CCTV Footage identified the assailants, out of whom; one of them was identified as Bunty (the appellant herein).

3. The FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of Sanjay Kumar. On 04.05.2012, the Investigating Officer along with SI Sanjeev and other police officials reached at Shalimar jhuggies where they saw the appellant coming from the Railway track area from where the appellant was apprehended by the Police. During interrogation, the appellant disclosed his involvement in this case and thereafter he was arrested. Pursuant to his disclosure statement, the appellant got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. ice-pick/sua from the boundary wall, at the right side of stairs of Adarsh Nagar Railway Station. On 16.5.2012, the Test Identification Parade of the appellant was conducted which was refused by him.

4. To bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 26 witnesses in all. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. whereby he denied all the incriminating evidence against him. The appellant pleaded innocence and claimed to be falsely implicated in the present case. The appellant stated that all the recoveries were imputed on him and nothing was recovered from his possession or at his instance. It was further stated by the appellant that he was a poor person and a rickshaw puller by profession. The appellant examined no witness in his defence.

5. Ms. Saahila Lamba, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of the Trial Court is based on surmises