DOORI LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This appeal has been directed against judgment and order dated 02-07-2002, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nainital in S. T. No. 212 of 2000, whereby the appellant has been con victed & sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under sec tion 304 Indian Panel Code, 1860 (for brevity as I. P. C. ).

(2.) THE facts of this case in nutshell are that the complainant Naubat Singh lodged a report at about 12:30 p. m. in the intervening night of 6th and 7th October, 2000 in the police station Kaladhungi alleging therein that when he came to his house at about 9:00 p. m. on 06-10-2000, he found that the accused / appellant Doori Lal was quarreling with his wife Smt. Saranwati. THE accused / appellant was hurling abuses upon his wife Smt. Saranwati. THE informant's wife Smt. Saranwati was doing lipie on her courtyard. THE accused / appellant Doori Lal who was the neighbour of the informant objected as to why, she was doing lipie over the part of the land (courtyard) which be longed to him. Smt. Saranwati asserted that the said land (courtyard) on which she was doing lipie belonged to her. THE accused / appellant got annoyed and brought a wooden stick (danda) and wanted to strike a blow on Saranwati but the danda hit his mother-in-law Smt. Bhudhiya. THE deceased Smt. Bhudhiya became unconscious at the spot by sustaining the aforesaid injury. Pooran Lai, brother-in-law of the inform ant was immediately called and they arranged a bullockcart to take Smt. Bhudhiya to the hospital. When Smt. Bhudhiya was on her way to the hospi tal, she succumbed to her injury. THEre after, the dead body was taken to the police station and report of the incident was lodged. THE investigation was con ducted by the police. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Of ficer submitted the chargesheet before the court concerned.

(3.) AFTER recording the entire evi dence, the accused / appellant was ex amined u/s 313 Cr. P. C. and the appel lant denied the entire evidence and pleaded not guilty to the offence. The appellant stated that he has been impli cated in the case due to enmity.