RAMESH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-Ramesh has filed the present appeal before this Court to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in case FIR No. 126 dated 20.06.2010 registered under Section 304 IPC at Police Station Sadar Gohana.

(2.) Vide judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, the appellant was held guilty for committing an offence punishable under Section 325 IPC instead of Section 304-II of Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. It was also mentioned by the learned trial Court that the period during which the accused appellant remained in judicial custody during trial or investigation will be set off from the sentence awarded.

(3.) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been challenged by the appellant by raising various grounds. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record. He further submits that no case was made out against the appellant even under Section 325 IPC as there was no intention on the part of the appellant to cause injury or to cause death. It was by-chance that the injury was caused with brick. Learned counsel also submits that there was a dispute between the parties over a house and it is a case of false implication due to litigation. Learned counsel also submits that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the statements of DW-1 Om Parkash and DW-2 Hoshiar Singh, who deposed that the daughter of the complainant was sleeping on a cot and a brick was thrown by Monkey on her head. It was also stated by them that the father of the deceased refused to bury the deceased and by doing so, the appellant was falsely implicated. Learned counsel also submits that there were serious contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses. There was no intention on the part of the appellant to cause injury as he was empty handed. At the end, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has undergone actual custody of more than one year and nine months against total sentence of three years and appeal is of the year 2012. The sentence of the appellant was suspended vide order dated 02.04.2012 and since then, he is on bail. Learned counsel also submits that the appellant would be satisfied, in case, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and he is ready to compensate the complainant party in monetary terms.