Point of Law: Theory of accidental fall or of injuries being caused in a sudden quarrel under effect of liquor, is totally untenable - There is no material on record to hold that incident was perpetrated after a sudden quarrel between accused appellant and the deceased

JUDGMENT :

MEHTA, J.

1. The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide Judgment dated 21.08.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.09/2013:

2. Being aggrieved of his conviction and the sentences awarded, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.

3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted herein below:

4. PW-1 Kesra Ram (uncle of the appellant Sandeep Kumar and the deceased Manish) lodged a written report to the SHO, Police Station Rajiyasar on 14.11.2012 alleging inter alia that his brother Mohanlal had two houses which were situated opposite to each other. In one of those, Mohanlal resided with his son Manish and Sandeep. The informant alongwith his family were residing since last two months. His nephew Sandeep, the accused herein, lived a vagabond life and was harrowing his father and his brother for about last 6 months for grabbing the entire chunk of agricultural land. About six months ago, he had tried to eliminate Manish by giving him Samosa stuffed with shredded glass pieces. About 15 days ago, he tried to kill Manish by throttling him with a rope but Manish woke up and raised an alarm on which, Ramkumar came there and saved the victim. Thereafter, Sandeep’s sleeping area had been shifted to a storage for fodder which was built behind the house. On the evening preceding the date of incident, at about 7 O’ Clock, Sandeep and Manish were sitting towards their old house. At about 10.00-10.30 pm., the first informant and his wife, who were at their own house, heard screams on which, they came out and saw that Sandeep was dragging Manish by his feet and was bringing him towards the lane. On seeing the first informant, Sandeep blurted out that he had killed Manish. Mahaveer son of Bhagwana Ram had also seen Sandeep killing and dragging the dead body of Manish. The first informant and Mahaveer warned Sandeep on which, he abandoned the dead body of Manish and ran away. The complainant gave information to his brother Bhagwana Ram, Phoosa Ram and Dayalu Ram and checked Manish on which, they saw that he was bleeding from his head, face & body. The cot lying in the Kotha was also stained with blood. Manish’s pant was lying near the cot and his mobile was missing. It was alleged that Sandeep had killed Manish in order to eliminate him so that he (the accused) could acquire the entire agricultural land.

Before registration of the FIR, a telephonic information was given to the Police Station Rajiyasar at about 02.30 am. and on the basis thereof, the SHO reached the place of incident where the above complaint came to be submitted to him by Kesra Ram (PW- 1). The SHO undertook the routine steps of investigation. Blood stained rope of cot, blood stained pieces of mud wall, two slippers, a blood stained wooden stick and a trouser and a belt which the informant told was of his nephew Manish, were seized. A blood stained piece of Chunni was also seen lying on the spot which was also seized. The dead body of Manish was sent to the Medical Jurist for carrying out autopsy. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The accused appellant was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P/13) on the very day of the incident i.e. 14.11.2012 at about 08.05 pm. The clothes and the slippers worn by him at the time of his arrest were seized and sealed. After being arrested, the accused gave a voluntary information to the I.O. under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P/43) regarding concealment of a wooden stick and a mobile inside the Kotha constructed on the agricultural field. Another information (Ex.P/44) was given regarding conc