SUKHPAL @ SONU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against a judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judged dated 9.12.2010 and the order of sentence dated 14.12.2010 by which the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment besides payment of fine.

(2.) The prosecution's allegations briefly were that on the night of 17.5.2007, the appellant went to PS Shalimar Bagh; he claimed to be a resident of 9, Shalimar Bagh when he used to live with his wife Geeta. The Appellant was a tenant in the premises and used to work as a driver. He had married Geeta in the year 2000 and had two sons. The Appellant is further alleged to have said that on 16.5.2007 at about 06:00 PM, he returned home and did not find his wife. He is alleged to have become aware that she had gone to Sheeshmahal, Haiderpur, where he went in search of her, but could not find her. He returned later and found Geeta at home. The appellant is alleged to have enquired from her where she had gone, to which, she was unable to give any satisfactory reply; he allegedly then decided to kill her and around 08:00 PM, he took her to a vacant ground situated by the side of railway track, at DA Block, Shalimar Bagh. Near the boundary wall of that ground he pressed her neck, as a result of which, she became unconscious and fell down. He then strangulated her with a chunni. It is also alleged that he claimed to have gone to Rani Bagh and then to the Police Station and made a complaint on which D.D. No.6A was recorded; that document also bore his signature. The prosecution further claimed that the case was assigned to Inspector Rajnish Parmar who took the Appellant to the spot; he led the police party to the concerned vacant ground near DA Block, Shalimar Bagh and took them by the side of the boundary wall, pointing out to the dead body of Geeta. The Crime Team was called; photographs were taken. The accused was arrested at 06:00 AM. The postmortem on the body was conducted; according to the Doctor, the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ligature strangulation. After conclusion of the investigation, the Appellant was charged with committing the offence. He entered the plea of not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) IN the course of the proceedings, the prosecution relied upon the testimony of 19 witnesses and also placed on record several documents and exhibits. The Trial Court, upon an overall consideration of these materials and on the basis of submissions of the parties, rendered its findings convicting the appellant, and sentencing him as described previously in this judgment.