JUDGMENT Per: U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. PW2 Yatendra Singh, father of the deceased, wrote a complaint (Ex.Ka-1) on 01.10.2004 to Patti Patwari, Patti Badalpur Talla, Sindrikhal, District Pauri Garhwal, which was registered as Case Crime No.7/2004 on 01.10.2004 at 9:30 AM under Sections 302/201 IPC against accused-appellant Raj Kumar @ Rajnu. The incident took place on 30.09.2004 at 4:00 PM. A chick FIR (Ex.Ka-5) was lodged on 01.10.2004 at 9:30 AM. The distance between the place of incident and the office of Patti Patwari, Patti Badalpur Talla was 10 kilometers and hence, there appears to be no delay in setting the criminal law into motion. 2. After investigation of the case, a charge-sheet (Ex.Ka-10) was submitted against accused-appellant Raj Kumar @ Rajnu for the offences punishable under Sections 302/201 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial commenced and prosecution opened it’s case, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302/201 IPC were framed against the accused-appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. PW1 Km. Jyoti, PW2 Yatendra Singh, PW3 Smt. Shaila Rawat (Pradhan), PW4 Sultan Singh Rawat, PW5 Dr. Indra Singh Samant and PW6 Anil Negi (Patwari) were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused-appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which he said that he was falsely implicated in the case, in as much as, the informant wanted to grab the landed property of his (appellant’s) father. No evidence was given in defence. 4. After considering the evidence on record, accused Raj Kumar @ Rajnu was convicted under Section 302 IPC and was directed to undergo imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs.20,000/-, vide judgment and order dated 07.05.2010. In default of payment of fine, the convict was directed to further undergo imprisonment for one year. Aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order, present criminal jail appeal was preferred by the convict. 5. In the complaint (Ex.Ka-1), PW2, father of deceased, wrote that on 30.09.2004 at 4:00 PM, when Deepak Singh (victim) reached home after attending school, the accused-appellant called Deepak Singh alongwith his sister PW1 Km. Jyoti for taking cucumber. Both of them were taken by the appellant to his home. 5. In the complaint (Ex.Ka-1), PW2, father of deceased, wrote that on 30.09.2004 at 4:00 PM, when Deepak Singh (victim) reached home after attending school, the accused-appellant called Deepak Singh alongwith his sister PW1 Km. Jyoti for taking cucumber. Both of them were taken by the appellant to his home. When the members of the family of PW2 enquired about Deepak Singh, PW1 said that accused-appellant took him to his house and it was possible that he might have killed him. 6. When Km. Jyoti (sister of the victim) entered into the witness-box as PW1, she supported the prosecution story. Her voir-dire was conducted by learned Trial Judge before examining her. After being satisfied that PW1 was capable of understanding things, she was permitted to enter into the witness-box. PW1 said that on 30.09.2004, she was studying in Class IV in Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Bor Gaon. Her younger brother Deepak Singh (victim) was studying in Class I. They (PW1 & her younger brother Deepak Singh) reached their home at around 4:00 PM. None was present at home. Accused Raj Kumar called PW1 and her brother for taking cucumber. PW1 and her younger brother proceeded to the house of accused-appellant. Accused Raj Kumar told PW1 to go and pluck cucumber from the backyard of appellant’s house. She brought cucumber from the backyard. In the meanwhile, PW1’s grandfather called her and she went to her home. After sometime PW1 enquired from the accused about her brother. Raj Kumar (accused) said that her brother has gone. PW1 again went to her house. Her grandfather again enquired from PW1 about her brother Deepak Singh. PW1 again replied that accused Raj Kumar @ Rajnu told that Deepak Singh has gone. PW1’s grandfather then enquired from the accused-appellant, who in turn, said that Deepak Singh has gone. PW1 and her elderly family members thereafter started making a search for Deepak Singh. PW1 was subjected to a brief cross-examination, but nothing came out in such cross-examination, so as to treat the evidence of PW1 with suspicion. The testimony of PW1 was acceptable. 7. PW2 was the father of PW1 and Deepak Singh. He also supported the prosecution case. He set the criminal law into motion by lodging the complaint (Ex.Ka-1) well within time. PW2 said that his daughter and son were studying in Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Bor Gaon. The testimony of PW1 was acceptable. 7. PW2 was the father of PW1 and Deepak Singh. He also supported the prosecution case. He set the criminal law into motion by lodging the complaint (Ex.Ka-1) well within time. PW2 said that his daughter and son were studying in Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Bor Gaon. He went to bring his children from school on 30.09.2004 at around 3:30 PM. PW2 found that a scuffle took place between the accused-appellant and the Headmaster of the school. PW2 enquired about the scuffle. The Headmaster told PW2 that accused-appellant was a thief, who was stealing pencils of the students. PW2 scolded Raj Kumar, as a result of which, an altercation took place between Raj Kumar and PW2. In the meantime, PW2’s children reached home. PW2 stayed for sometime in school. Raj Kumar (accused) went to his house. When PW2 reached his house, other members of his family were making a search for Deepak Singh, his missing son. PW1, his daughter, told the incident to PW2. All the villagers assembled. They enquired from Raj Kumar @ Rajnu regarding the whereabouts of Deepak Singh. Raj Kumar initially took excuses, but on the persuasion of the villagers, he said that he killed Deepak Singh by strangulation and concealed his dead body beneath the bush. Accused-appellant thereafter took PW2 and villagers to the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying. Patwari came in the morning and did the needful. PW2 wrote complaint (Ex.Ka-1). PW2 also said that the Patwari prepared the site-plan (Ex.Ka-2), which bears the signature of PW2 also. PW2 was also cross-examined, but nothing fruitful came in such cross-examination in favour of defence. PW2’s evidence too was therefore, acceptable. The same lend assurance to the prosecution story. No suggestion was put to PW2 that the dead body was not recovered at the instance of accused-appellant. 8. PW3 was the Gram Pradhan of the village. She fully supported the prosecution story. She said, among other things, that when the villagers requested Raj Kumar @ Rajnu to disclose the whereabouts of Deepak Singh, he (accused) gave excuses in the beginning, but on persuasion of the villagers, he (appellant) confessed that he killed Deepak Singh and concealed his dead body in a khad (pit). PW3, being the Gram Pradhan, informed Patwari about the incident, who prepared the inquest report (Ex.Ka-3), which also bears the signature of PW3. PW3, being the Gram Pradhan, informed Patwari about the incident, who prepared the inquest report (Ex.Ka-3), which also bears the signature of PW3. The Gram Pradhan asked the accused as to why he killed a little child? The accused replied to PW3 that since Deepak Singh’s father slapped him in the school, therefore, he killed Deepak Singh for the sake of revenge. Nothing came out in the cross-examination of PW3 to doubt or suspect the testimony of Gram Pradhan (PW3). She (PW3) was an independent prosecution witness, whose testimony cannot be treated with suspicion. 9. The prosecution story was further supported and strengthened by PW4, who was an ex-army personnel and was also an independent prosecution witness. He also said, among other things, that having come to know about the incident, as narrated to him and the villagers by PW1, accused-appellant was apprehended and was requested to disclose the whereabouts of Deepak Singh. The accused-appellant was initially reluctant to disclose the facts. On great persuasion, the accused-appellant divulged at about 3:15 AM that he killed Deepak Singh and kept his dead body in a khad (pit). The accused-appellant then took PW4 and other villagers to the place where the dead body was kept. PW4 was also a signatory to the inquest report (Ex.Ka-3). In the cross-examination, PW4 said that there was no question of accused-appellant running away, in as much as the villagers kept him confined to their custody. A few slaps were also given to the accused-appellant by the villagers, which fact was corroborated by the medical officer when he said that the accused-appellant also sustained injuries. The testimony rendered by PW4 fully corroborated the evidence of his predecessors in the witness-box, thus leaving no scope for doubt in the correctness of the prosecution story. 10. PW5 conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased on 02.10.2004 at 10:30 AM. The Medical Officer found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased: (i) Lacerated wound of size 5 cm x 2 cm, bone deep over left side of vertex of head, 10cm above left ear with underlying bone fracture. (ii) Abraded contusion of size 4 cm x 4 cm, 6 cm above right ear over right temporal area. (iii) Contusion of size 5 cm x 5 cm just lateral to left eye, bluish in colour. (ii) Abraded contusion of size 4 cm x 4 cm, 6 cm above right ear over right temporal area. (iii) Contusion of size 5 cm x 5 cm just lateral to left eye, bluish in colour. (iv) Abraded contusion of size 10 cm x 5 cm over anterior aspect of neck horizontal in direction, colour black. Hyoid bone fracture, thyroid cartilage, cartilage of larynx and rings of trachea fractured. Congestion, mucous present inside trachea of injury no.(iv). 11. PW5 also proved the postmortem report (Ex.Ka-4). According to the Medical Officer, the cause of death of deceased was asphyxia as a result of strangulation and ante-mortem injuries. No suggestion was put to PW5 that the postmortem report was wrongly prepared. 12. The accused-appellant was also examined by the medical officer on 01.10.2004. The injury report (Ex.Kha-1) indicated that he sustained contusions, abraded contusion and multiple abrasions on different parts of the body to indicate that he was assaulted by the angry villagers for his misdeed. The injuries, thus sustained by him, according to the medical officer, were caused by hard and blunt object, were 1-2 days in duration and were simple in nature. 13. PW6 conducted the investigation of the case and after being satisfied that the accused-appellant committed murder of Deepak Singh, submitted a charge-sheet (Ex.Ka-10) against him. PW6, while preparing the site plan (Ex.Ka-2), has shown place ‘A’ where the dead body was concealed beneath bush by accused-appellant. The habitation and fields were also shown in the site plan. PW6 prepared such site plan on the disclosure of the dead body by the accused-appellant. When accused-appellant discovered the dead body, other prosecution witnesses accompanied him. The accused-appellant could discover the dead body only when he concealed the same beneath bush. He discovered the dead body only when he killed the victim. An unknown person, who had no connection with the crime, could not have asked the villagers to come to the place where the dead body was concealed. It was only on the pointing of the accused-appellant that the dead body of the victim was discovered. 14. PW6 also made a request to the Chief Medical Superintendent to examine the injuries sustained by the accused-appellant. It was clearly mentioned in such written request dated 01.10.2004 that the accused-appellant was beaten by the irritant mob. It was only on the pointing of the accused-appellant that the dead body of the victim was discovered. 14. PW6 also made a request to the Chief Medical Superintendent to examine the injuries sustained by the accused-appellant. It was clearly mentioned in such written request dated 01.10.2004 that the accused-appellant was beaten by the irritant mob. It was also mentioned that accused-appellant also sustained injuries in an attempt to get himself released from the confinement of villagers. Such fact, as is said, receives support from the fact that the medical officer found some injuries on the person of accused-appellant. 15. There was no material contradiction in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. There was no inconsistency in the ocular version given by the prosecution witnesses. In other words, the testimony tendered by the prosecution witnesses was consistent. The dead body was disclosed at the pointing out of accused-appellant. Unless the accused-appellant knew the location of the dead body, how could he tell that the same was lying there. If one does not know the location of the dead body, how can he pinpoint the place where the dead body was kept? He discovered the dead body of the victim only because he killed the victim. No suggestion was given to the medical officer that his opinion did not concur with the ingredients of postmortem report. It was stated by accused-appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he was falsely implicated in the case to grab the property of his father. The said plea was devoid of substance, in as much as even if the accused-appellant goes inside the jail, the land will remain in his father’s name and after his father’s death, in the appellant’s name. 16. The prosecution was successful in proving the case against the accused-appellant beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. Learned trial court discussed and appreciated the prosecution evidence correctly. Learned trial court, therefore, committed no mistake in holding that the prosecution was able to prove it’s case against the accused-appellant beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. We also assessed the prosecution evidence independently to come to the conclusion that the prosecution story was proved against the accused-appellant to the hilt. No interference is, thus, called for in the impugned judgment and order. 17. Criminal jail appeal preferred by the accused-appellant is, therefore, dismissed. We also assessed the prosecution evidence independently to come to the conclusion that the prosecution story was proved against the accused-appellant to the hilt. No interference is, thus, called for in the impugned judgment and order. 17. Criminal jail appeal preferred by the accused-appellant is, therefore, dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-appellant by the trial court is hereby affirmed. The accused-appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the remaining part of his sentence awarded to him by the Trial Court and thus affirmed by this Court. 18. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Superintendent of Jail concerned where the appellant is currently serving out the sentence. 19. A copy of this judgment alongwith lower court record be sent to the Court below for ensuring compliance of this order.