PRAVEEN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of an appeal instituted on 27.05.2014 by the appellant/convict Praveen whereby he has assailed the impugned judgment dated 25.04.2014 of the then learned ASJ-04 North District, Rohini Courts, whereby the appellant was convicted for the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as Penal Code ), 1860, in relation to the allegations levelled against him as averred in FIR No. 114/12, Police Station (P.S.) Alipur. Vide the consequential order on sentence dated 29.04.2014, also assailed hereby, the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 2000.00 for the commission of the offence punishable under Sec. 302 Penal Code and in default of payment of that fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months with directions that the benefit of Sec. 428 of the Crimial P.C. 1973 would be given to the appellant. The proceedings of the date 29.04.2014 before the learned trial Court indicate that the fine of Rs. 2000.00 has been deposited.

(2.) Notice of the appeal was issued to the State. The trial court record was requisitioned and has been received and perused. Arguments were addressed by Mr. K. Singhal, learned counsel for the appellant and by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Aashaa Tiwari for the State.

(3.) On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the charge of allegations framed against the appellant on 18.10.2012 to the effect that on 08.04.2012 at about 3:25 p.m.at the Soni Fruit Juice Corner at Village Palla, Delhi-110056 within the jurisdiction of P.S. Alipur he had committed the murder of Saleem (since deceased) by inflicting injuries on his head with a Pharsa and had committed an offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC, had not even been remotely established through the entire evidence led by the State. It was further contended on behalf of the appellant that the testimonies of the alleged eye-witnesses PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 were concocted and that they could not be believed in as much as the presence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 at the spot was not established. Inter alia, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that though it had been alleged by the State that the recovery of the weapon of offence i.e. Pharsa Ex.P-1, which was blood stained was effected from the appellant from his house pursuant to the disclosure statement Ex.PW-1/K made by the appellant, the testimonies of PW-13 and PW-14 and the complainant do not establish the same. It was further submitted on behalf of the appellant that even if it be remotely accepted that the accused i.e. the appellant/convict had inflicted the Pharsa blows on the person of the deceased, he did so on provocation and that the act committed by the accused/(i.e. the appellant herein)convict/appellant was not a pre-meditated assault on Saleem and that the ingredients of the alleged commission of the offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC, 1860 cannot be held to have been substantiated.