TEJ PAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal, filed on behalf of the accused-appellant, is directed against the judgment and orders dated 5th March, 2013 passed by Sri M.P. Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Bijnor in Sessions Trial No. 859 of 2010 [State of U.P. vs. Jai Prakash and others] whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 304 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years with fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine he was further directed to undergo six months' simple imprisonment.

(2.) Heard Sri C.P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Abdul Majid, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-respondent and perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal has submitted that in the present case there was only two eye witnesses, both have turned hostile. According to him, first informant Indrapal Singh P.W.1 is not an eye witness of the occurrence. There was no credible evidence against the present appellant to convict him but the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence and erroneously convicted the present appellant and has awarded him maximum penalty provided under Section 304 IPC. According to him, even if prosecution case is taken to be true it was a family dispute, aberration of the appellant was momentarily, there was no intention to cause death of the deceased, appellant is a young person, ignoring all these facts the learned trial Judge without assigning any reason has awarded sentence of ten years' rigorous imprisonment.