Shimla, June 21,
The Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Rakesh Kainthla upheld the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of Prem Singh for the murder of his wife, Sonu Devi. The appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Solan, dated September 16, 2021, was dismissed, affirming the rigorous punishment imposed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Case Background
On March 31, 2015, Sonu Devi was brought to the Community Health Center, Kunihar, in an injured condition. An entry was recorded at the local police station, and the police initiated an investigation. The medical examination revealed a sharp weapon injury on the right side of Sonu Devi’s skull. Despite treatment, she succumbed to her injuries, leading to the arrest and prosecution of Prem Singh for murder.
In the trial.couet proceedings the prosecution presented 19 witnesses, including eyewitnesses and medical experts, to establish Prem Singh’s culpability. The eyewitnesses, including the daughters of the accused and the deceased, provided consistent testimonies corroborating the occurrence of the crime. The forensic evidence further strengthened the prosecution’s case, with the DNA analysis matching the blood on the murder weapon (an axe) with Sonu Devi’s blood.
Prem Singh’s defense argued that the testimonies were fabricated due to a personal enmity with one of the witnesses, Shakeel Ahmed, and suggested that the victim’s death was caused by medical negligence rather than the injuries inflicted by him. However, the trial court found these claims unsubstantiated and convicted Prem Singh, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of ₹20,000 .
Hearing the appeal, the Division Bench meticulously reviewed the trial court’s judgment and the evidence presented. The court concluded that the prosecution had effectively established Prem Singh’s intent and actions leading to Sonu Devi’s death. The Bench dismissed the appeal, underscoring that the nature of the injury and the circumstances warranted the life sentence imposed by the trial court.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla, delivering the judgment, stated, “The testimonies of the witnesses corroborated each other, and there was nothing in their cross-examination to show that they were deposing falsely. The minor contradictions in the testimonies were not sufficient to discard them” .
Empower Independent Journalism – Join Us Today!
Dear Reader,
We’re committed to unbiased, in-depth journalism that uncovers truth and gives voice to the unheard. To sustain our mission, we need your help. Your contribution, no matter the size, fuels our research, reporting, and impact.
Stand with us in preserving independent journalism’s integrity and transparency. Support free press, diverse perspectives, and informed democracy.
Click [here] to join and be part of this vital endeavour.
Thank you for valuing independent journalism.
Warmly,
Vishal Sarin, Editor
