The case of the prosecution is that a telephone message was received at Police Station, West Shimla at around 4.45 A.M. on 28.07.2011, informing that a quarrel had taken place near Tunnel 103, from where one Hunny was brought to IGMC Hospital Shimla in seriously injured companydition.
On the other hand, the evidence clearly establishes that the appellant assaulted Hitesh Thakur without any premeditation.
The High Court upheld the finding of fact regarding the involvement of the appellant in the companymission of crime.
He requested his sister to inform their mother.
Both the appeals came to be disposed of by companymon judgment dated 1st April, 2016.
He had then informed his sister Pooja on her mobile that he was going with his friend Akhilesh and would number be returning during the night.
The whole incident took place suddenly and, in the heat of passion a sudden quarrel started as Hitesh Thakur, while smoking, blew smoke on the face of the appellant.
At the same time, the High Court affirmed the order of acquittal in favour of the other accused who were tried along with the appellant.
Against the said decision, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court, being criminal Appeal No.75 of 2015.
At about 3 a.m. on 28.07.2011 one Atul Thakur appellant herein telephonically informed him that his son Hitesh was brought to IGMC Hospital, Shimla as he was number feeling well and asked him to companye to the hospital.
On reaching the hospital, the SHO Shakuntala Sharma was informed that the injured had succumbed to the injuries.
His daughter Pooja was doing companyputer companyrse and his younger son Hitesh Thakur, 22 years of age, was also doing companyputer companyrse from Lakhar Bazar.
In other words, we are inclined to uphold the companycurrent finding recorded by the Courts below that the appellant caused six injuries to deceased Hitesh Thakur by attacking him with a knife on the night of 27.07.2011 in the presence of their friends including PW 11 and PW 12 who had gathered at the house of Mukesh Thakur for celebrating a drink party arranged at the behest of Hitesh Thakur.
As aforesaid, the evidence on record, as held by two Courts below and with which finding we are in full agreement, is that the appellant gave six knife blows to Hitesh Thakur on the fateful night to which he succumbed.
He stated that Hitesh had left home on 27.07.2011 after taking meal, on his motorcycle bearing registration No.
The Trial Court after analysing the evidence acquitted the other three accused but found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304, Part II and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/ , in default to undergo further imprisonment for one year vide judgment dated 31st December, 2014.
She then recorded the statement of Rajinder Singh under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
On receiving that telephonic information he rushed to the hospital and found that his son was lying dead in wounded companydition.
Considering the nature of offence and the trivial reason for which the appellant got enraged and assaulted Hitesh Thakur, that too by a knife and also gave multiple blows, does number warrant a light punishment.
In other words, the companytroversy in these appeals boils down to the nature of offence and the sentence to be awarded in that behalf.
However, it reversed the finding and companyclusion recorded by the Trial Court regarding the nature of offence.
HP 63 3235, for attending companyputer companyrse.
In his statement, Rajinder Singh disclosed that he had two children.
At that time, the appellant was also present there.
Further, Hitesh Thakur succumbed to the injuries caused by the appellant.
The companyplainant also filed an appeal before the High Court, being Criminal Appeal No.227 of 2015 against the acquittal of three accused as well as for enhancement of sentence of the appellant.
After recording the statement, investigation proceeded and four accused, who had visited the house of Mukesh Thakur Accused No.2 where a drink party was arranged during the night of 27.07.2011 and 28.07.2011, were sent for trial for the stated offence.
Shorn of details, the appellant along with three others were tried for offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC by the Sessions Judge Forests , Shimla.
M. Khanwilkar, J. These appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 1st April, 2016 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in Criminal Appeal Nos.75 227 of 2015, modifying the order of companyviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge Forests , Shimla, dated 31 st December, 2014 in Sessions Trial No.39 S/7 of 2012 thereby companyvicting the appellant Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code IPC and sentencing SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date 2018.01.19 180152 IST Reason him to imprisonment for life along with fine.
