LAWS(DLH)-2022-8-61

SATISH KUMAR KHURANA Vs. STATE

Decided On August 22, 2022
Satish Kumar Khurana Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present appeal under sec. 374(2) read with sec. 383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC'), the appellant Satish Kumar Khurana, assails judgement of conviction dtd. 1/5/2019 and order on sentence dtd. 7/5/2019 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (NDPS), Dwarka Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 440781/16 titled 'State vs. Satish Kumar Khurana' emanating from F.I.R No. 225/2012 registered at P.S.: Bindapur under Sec. 324/307/302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC').

(2.) By way of the impugned judgement the appellant was convicted for committing the murder of one Sanjay Goel s/o Ram Avtar Goyal ('victim/deceased') by inflicting deadly injury using two knives and a meat 'chopper'. By way of the sentencing order the appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under sec. 302 IPC alongwith fine of Rs.50,000.00, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for 03 months; and further, to rigorous imprisonment for 03 years for offence under sec. 307 IPC alongwith fine of Rs.20,000.00, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for 02 months; in addition to rigorous imprisonment of 01 year for the offence under sec. 324 IPC alongwith fine of Rs.10,000.00, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for 01 month. Affording to the appellant the benefit of sec. 428 CrPC, all sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is that on the evening of 21/7/2012 between 6:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., the appellant, who owned and ran a store under the name and style of 'Prerna Fashion' at the Sriram Complex located at Arya Samaj Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, entered the complex and started attacking the victim with two knives [Exb. PW-8/I and Exb. PW-8/K] and a meat 'chopper' [Exb. PW-8/L], which caused multiple serious injuries to the victim and ultimately led to his death. It is the prosecution case that the appellant attacked the victim for speaking ill of the appellant's wife.