A.P. SELBUM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 29.8.2008 and order dated 1.9.2008, rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Ambala, in Session Case No. 23 of 14.11.2007. Appellant A. P. Selbum was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that PW7 Mukesh Kumar lodged a report, Ex. PA, with ASI Sube Singh to the effect that he was resident of Lal Kurti Bazar, Ambala Cantt. He was running a watch repair shop at Lal Kurti Bazar. He had let out two rooms on 2nd floor of his residential house. One room was let out to A. P. Selbum (accused) and the other to A. P. Yadav. Both of them were in Army. Accused was residing with his wife Krishna Marry and a daughter. Accused was habitual of drinking. The accused under the influence of liquor used to quarrel with his wife. He used to advise him not to maltreat his wife. On 22.8.2007 at about 10.00 P.M., accused came to his house and started abusing his wife. He was about to beat his wife. His wife started crying. On hearing noise, complainant Mukesh Kumar along with his mother Ramesh Rani went upstairs. The accused was seen abusing his wife. Mukesh Kumar and his mother after making them silent, came down. At about 10.30 P.M., Co-tenant A. P. Yadav called Mukesh. He told that the accused had bolted the door from inside and their daughter was crying and he should reach upstairs. Mukesh Kumar and his mother immediately rushed upstairs. The accused had bolted the door from inside. The door was got opened. He noticed that Krishna Marry, wife of the accused, was hanging. Their daughter was weeping while sitting on the floor and the accused was sitting by the side of the bed. FIR, Ex. PB, was registered. The photographs were taken. The dead-body was taken to Civil Hospital for post-mortem examination. The investigation was completed and challan was put up after completion of all the codal formalities.

(3.) The prosecution examined a number of witnesses in support of its case. The statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the case of the prosecution. He examined two witnesses in his defence. He was convicted and sentenced, as noticed above. Hence, the present appeal.