GOPAL RAM Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pw1 set the criminal law into motion by lodging an FIR against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 306 IPC. After the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant for the selfsame offences. The case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. Learned Sessions Judge took cognizance and framed charge for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 366 IPC against the accused-appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(2.) Prosecution got examined PW1 Pooran Singh (complainant); PW2 Ajab Singh; PW3 Dr. Krishna Kumar Singh; PW4 H.C. Jagdish Ram; PW5 Dr. Rajeev Upadhyaya; PW6 Dhayn Singh; PW7 Khimuli Devi; PW8 Sher Ram and PW9 S.I. Balbir Singh. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he stated that the witnesses are telling a lie. No evidence was adduced in defence.

(3.) After considering the evidence on record, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bageshwar, convicted accused-appellant under Sections 306, 366 IPC. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 306 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the convict was further directed to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. A compensation of Rs. 30,000/- was also awarded to the parents of deceased. If the compensation was not paid, the convict was further directed to undergo one year's additional rigorous imprisonment. The convict was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 366 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the convict was further directed to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, vide judgment and order dated 30.07.2013. Aggrieved against the same, present criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant.