SOHAN LAL ALIAS SONU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against his conviction under Section 302 IPC vide judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 30. 7. 1996 and the order of sentence dated 31. 7. 1996 for the murder of Khub Ram, whereby he has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of which to undergo SI for one month.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is based on the testimony of Vinod Kumar, PW3, who has deposed that the deceased was his childhood friend. Some altercation had taken place between the deceased and the appellant about a year back when the deceased had joked with a girl named Baby living in the J. J. Colony, which led to some quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. In subsequent meetings also there was some quarrel on this account. On the fateful day of 26. 4. 1992, when the deceased and PW3 were going to the dhobi to get their clothes ironed, they met the appellant on the way and there was exchange of abuses between the deceased and the appellant whereupon the deceased slapped the appellant. The intervention of PW3 cooled down the situation. However, when the deceased and PW3 were returning after getting their clothes ironed and reached near house No. 376, J. J. Colony, Madipur at about 5. 15 p. m. , the appellant again came out of the gali and the appellant and the deceased started abusing each other. The brother of the deceased also reached there and inquired about the matter. It was at that time in the altercation, the appellant took out a kirpan like churri from the right side of his pant and gave a blow on the left side of the ribs of the deceased and ran away. The deceased was rushed to ddu hospital, where he was declared as brought dead.

(3.) IN the course of hearing, learned counsel stated, on instructions from the appellant, who has been produced in the Court, that the appellant admits his guilt of having caused the fatal injury which resulted in the death of the deceased and does not dispute the facts in that behalf. The only plea to be advanced is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge fell into an error while convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC, as the case was one which is covered under Section 304 IPC.