1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against Additional Sessions Judge, Rambans Judgment of November 20, 2007 and Order of November 28, 2007 whereby, convicting the appellant for committing murder of Shankari Devi, he has been sentenced to Rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 302 RPC and to Rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 342 RPC and in default of fine to further imprisonment for three months.

2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramban too has made reference for Confirmation of the sentence awarded to the appellant.

3. Projecting appellants innocence, it is urged by appellants learned counsel that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in accordance with law and had contravened the provisions of Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in omitting to put incriminating circumstances allegedly appearing in the prosecution evidence against the appellant for his explanation, before using these circumstances for sustaining appellants conviction, thereby causing serious prejudice.

4. The omission, according to the learned counsel, was fatal to the prosecution case and the impugned judgment and order was thus liable to be set aside and quashed.

5. Conceding trial Courts omission to comply with the requirements of Section 342 Cr.P.C, learned State Counsel had nothing more to urge during the consideration of the appeal because according to the learned counsel, appellants conviction may not be sustainable because of the defective examination of the appellant under Section 342 Cr.P.C.

6. We have considered the submissions and perused the trial Courts judgment and the order impugned in the appeal. The prosecution story, as unfolded in the Final Police Report, filed by the Officer Incharge of Police Station Ramban, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ramban is, that Shankari Devi, the deceased, though married to Bhag Singh, about twenty years ago, did not have cordial marital relationship with him which got strained, a little after their marriage whereafter she started putting up separately. They had no issue. It was about 7/8 years ago that Bhag Singh adopted appellant-Dhoop Singh, his brother Manohar Lals son, who started putting up with him and cultivating his land. The strained relationship between Shankari Devi, on the one hand, and the appellant and his adoptive father Bhag Singh, on the other hand, led to litigation in the Civil Courts and on the day of occurrence too, the parties had attended the Court of Sub-Judge, Ramban in connection with a suit for permanent prohibition injunction. Shankari Devi is stated by the prosecution to be an eyesore for the appellant and Bhag Singh who wanted to take possession of the land which was in possession of Shankari Devi. Accordingly appellant-Dhoop Singh, in conspiracy with Bhag Singh, had, taking benefit of the darkness, beaten Shankri Devi with the handle of his Pickaxe, and thereafter tied her with a rope with the pillar of his house where she had later succumbed to the injuries at about 3 a.m of October 30, 2001.

7. Pursuant to the committal of the Final Police Report, vthe appellant, was charged by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramban, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/342/34 RPC.

8. Denying the charge, the appellant claimed trial. Proceeding under Section 512 Cr.P.C, the trial Court recorded evidence in the case, in the absence of Bhag Singh, who had absconded.

9. In order to prove its case, the prosecution had relied upon the testimony of PW-2 Vijay Singh, PW-3 Bhag Singh, PW-Sudarshana Devi, PW-5 Kan Chand, PW-6 Kesab, PW-7 Bir Singh, PW-8 Paras Ram, PW-9 Mohan Lal, PW-10 Charan Dass, PW-11 Kartar Singh, PW-12 Hoshiar Singh, PW-13 Ram Nath, PW-14 Bharat Singh Patwari, PW-15 Sansar Singh, Patwari, PW-16 Davinder Singh, PW-17 Raj Kumar, PW-18 Dr. Harish Parihar, PW-20 Dr. Naresh Khajuria and PW-12 ASI Parlad Bhagat.

10. Although the trial Court has given the resume of the statements of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document