KAMESHWAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant Kameshwar against the impugned judgment of the learned trial Judge dated 18.12.1996 convicting the appellant on charges under Section 302 and 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC as also the charges under Section 452/394 and 397 IPC and the consequent order on sentence of the even date awarding life sentence to the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, life sentence and fine of Rs. 1000.00 for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC, RI for the period of 7 years and fine of Rs.1000.00 for the offence under Section 394 IPC, RI for the period of 7 years for the offence under Section 397 IPC besides RI for the period of 3 years and fine of Rs. 500.00 for the offence under Section 452 IPC.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, case of the prosecution is that PW4 R. Ganeshan, husband of PW1 Revati Ganeshan, was serving as Manager (Faculty), Regional Staff Training College, Canara Bank at New Delhi. They were living in a flat on the first floor of 26, Rajindra Park, allotted to them by the bank. It was a furnished flat and its maintenance was the responsibility of the bank. They had a wet grinder and on two or three occasions, it was repaired by Micromax Marketing Pvt. Ltd. As per practice, after the repairs, the representative of the company would revisit and get the voucher/service report signed by the Geneshans and then the company would claim the service charges from the bank. Appellant Kameshwar is claimed to be an employee of Micromax Marketing Pvt. Ltd.

(3.) THE learned Trial Court, on conclusion of trial, relying upon the testimony of PW1 Revati Ganeshan and the other witnesses convicted the appellant and his co-convict and sentenced them accordingly.