MANOHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been instituted against the judgment and order dated 01.04.2004 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Amritsar, in Trial no. 160 of 2003 whereby the appellant was charged with and tried for offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'). The appellant was convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 22.01.2002 at about 11.00 A.M. ASI along with HC Harjinder Singh and other police officials were patrolling in street no. 2, Guru Arjan Dev Nagar. They heard cries of 'killed' 'killed' from the house of accused. They rushed to the house. They saw accused causing injuries with kirpan to his wife Sukhwinder Kaur. Accused fled away from the spot. ASI took Sukhwinder Kaur in injured condition to police post. Thereafter, Sukhwinder Kaur along with her son Manjit Singh was sent to the Civil Hospital, Amritsar. On the next day, ASI went to the hospital to record her statement. Her son met him. After giving medical aid to Sukhwinder Kaur on 22.01.2002, she was taken to her house. He further told him that on 23.01.2002 Sukhwinder Kaur had felt pain in her stomach. She was brought to Guru Nanak Hospital. However, she died on the way. ASI gave information on telephone about the occurrence to SHO Swaran Singh. SHO recorded statement Ex.PW7/A of ASI Prabhjit Singh. On the basis of which, FIR Ex.PW7/C was registered. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. Investigating Officer went to the spot. He took into possession blood stained earth as well as simple earth from the spot. It was sealed. Investigation was completed. Challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

(3.) Prosecution examined a number of witnesses. Statement of appellant was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the case of the prosecution. One witness was examined in defence. The appellant was convicted and sentenced as noticed hereinabove. Hence, this appeal.