MOHD. SAHID Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case of uxoricide.

(2.) In this jail appeal, the convict/appellant has assailed his conviction under Sec. 302 and 458 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (hereinafter referred to as Penal Code for brevity) and sentence of imprisonment of life and fine of Rs.5000.00 under Sec. 302 of the Penal Code and ten years rigorous imprisonment under Sec. 458 of the Penal Code and fine of Rs.3000.00 in default of which he has to undergo additional three months imprisonment.

(3.) The defence took a plea of simple denial and false implication by the prosecution witnesses. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses viz., PW1 Smt. Rani (informant), PW2 Laxmi Raj Chauhan, Tehsildar, PW3 Dr. S.K. Jha, PW4 Smt. Maya Devi, PW5 Sachidanand Petwal, PW6 Bhagwati Prasad Purohit, PW7 Dr. Jyoti Vohra (Orthopaedic Surgeon) PW8 CP Anil Kumar, PW9 S.I. Yogendra Singh Gusain. Important among them is PW2 Laxmi Raj Chauhan, Tehsildar who has recorded the dying declaration of the deceased i.e. Ex. A3, in the presence of PW3 Dr. S.K. Jha who was attending the patient. PW1 Rani is the informant in this case. PW7 Dr. Jyoti Vohra has conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased. PW5 Sachidanand Petwal and PW6 Bhagwati Prasad Purohit who reside nearby, have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW9 is the Investigating Officer. One witness i.e DW1 Jeenat was examined in defence of the prosecution case. One witness has been examined on behalf of the court i.e. CW1 Dr. Iqbal. Relying mainly on the dying declaration recorded by PW2, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and, therefore, proceeded to convict the appellant under Ss. 458 and 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced him as stated above.