VASUDEV Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has been tried for committing murder of his wife on 28th August, 2012 at the house and vide impugned judgment of 7th April, 2015, he has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and vide impugned order of 9th April, 2015, he has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine with default clause.

(2.) As per the prosecution case, on 28th August, 2012 at about 09:45 A.M., police had reached appellant's house and had found that a girl child aged 3 years was sleeping in the front room and in the inner room, appellant was sitting besides the dead body of his wife. The concerned SDM (PW-5) had made enquiries from appellant, who had disclosed that on the night intervening 27/28th August, 2012, he had a quarrel with his wife regarding sale of his vehicle and his wife was favouring the said purchaser, therefore, he strangulated his wife with a Chunni/Dupatta. The entire prosecution version stands noted in the opening paragraphs of impugned judgment and so needs no reproduction. Apart from evidence of the SDM (PW-5), there is medical evidence and evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW-24) on record. The crux of the prosecution case is tabulated in paragraph No.31 of impugned judgment. The appellant had chosen not to lead any evidence in defence and trial court while relying upon prosecution evidence has convicted appellant for the offence in question, as noted hereinabove. The stand of appellant before trial court, as noted in paragraph No.33 of impugned judgment, is as under:-

(3.) Learned counsel for appellant at the outset submits that appellant had committed the offence in question without there being any premeditation and had no intention to murder his wife. It is submitted on behalf of appellant that out of anger and frustration, the offence in question has been committed. It is also submitted that appellant has a minor child to support and so, the offence committed by appellant falls under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and not under Section 302 of IPC. It is pointed out by appellant's counsel that as per Nominal Roll of appellant, he has undergone sentence of more than six years and during his incarceration in jail, he has been doing work of Yoga Sahayak and meditation and so, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the sentence awarded to appellant deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone by him.