LAWS(DLH)-2018-11-151

BUDHAN KHAN Vs. STATE

Decided On November 20, 2018
BUDHAN KHAN Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.PC') challenges the judgment and order on sentence dated 30.03.2017 and 03.04.2017 respectively passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, North West District, Rohini, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 51705/2016, FIR No. 620/2014, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Section 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act registered at Police Station - Kanjhawala whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC with fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The appellant was further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 27 of Arms Act with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. It was further directed that all the sentences would run concurrently.

(2.) The fulcrum of the case of the prosecution is that the appellant murdered his wife Mamta on 13.08.2014 and the said act was allegedly witnessed by their son Master Sabesh.

(3.) On 13.08.2014 at about 3:51 a.m., a telephone call was received from a female caller informing the Police Control Room that her mother had been shot dead by her father. The police came into action and PW13 SI Sunil Dagar along with Constable Sandeep reached the spot i.e. C-72, Meer Vihar, Delhi and found a dead body of Mamta, wife of the appellant. Crime Team was summoned, who photographed the spot. The appellant was arrested, who did not deny that Mamta was his wife.