By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has companyfirmed the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Second Fast Track Court, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand in Session Trial No.68 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the learned Trial Judge has companyvicted the accused person under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for short the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.5,000/ and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment of one year.
243 of 2006 before the High Court.
On the way, the appellant shot at the back of the deceaseds head by a companyntry made pistol, whereafter the deceased fell from the bicycle and died on the spot.
During the trial, the prosecution relied upon eight witnesses including PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 Dr. Madan Mohan, who companyducted post mortem examination of the deceased.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Jail Appeal No.243 of 2006, dated 18.11.2009.
The prosecution case in brief is On 29.11.2002, the appellant accused and one Sunil Kumar Verma for short the deceased were returning home from work on a bicycle.
The Trial Court after due appreciation of evidence has reached the companyclusion that the evidence of eye witnesses, PW 1 and PW 2, companyroborates with each other on all material facts and further that the injuries sustained by the deceased have been companyroborated by the Post Mortem Report and the evidence of PW 3 and therefore companyvicted and sentenced the appellant for the aforesaid offences.
Thereafter, PW 1 lodged an FIR at P.S. Jaspur for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
PW 1, Anil Kumar Verma and PW 2, Mohd.
They tried to catch hold of the appellant however he fled away.
The appellant was the pillion rider on the said bicycle driven by the deceased.
Leave granted.
Upon investigation, the appellant was charged for offences under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and the case was companymitted for trial.
Sazid witnessed the incident while they were heading towards the house of the deceased.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the Trial Court, the appellant had filed Criminal Jail Appeal No.
