LAWS(P&H)-2019-5-390

NARESH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On May 10, 2019
NARESH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is instituted against the judgment and order dtd. 27/10/2016 and 28/10/2016 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, in Sessions Trial No. 329 of 2/1/2015, whereby the appellant, who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC"), has been convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that Geeta Devi wife of Naresh, aged 30 years was admitted with burn injuries in Jindal Institute of Medical Science, Hisar, at 08.30 P.M. on 12/10/2014. Her medico legal examination was conducted vide MLR Ex. PF. Since ventilator was not available, she was admitted in Sukhda Hospital, Hisar, at 05.00 A.M. on 3/11/2014. An application Ex. PA was moved by police to Duty Magistrate for recording statement of Geeta Devi under Sec. 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Police also moved an application Ex. PG seeking opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of the patient. The doctor gave his opinion Ex. P1 to the effect that the patient was fit to make statement. Thereafter, the Magistrate recorded the statement Ex. PB/1 of Geeta Devi. On the basis of the statement, ruqa was sent. FIR Ex. PM was lodged. Police reached the spot. Police inspected the spot. Police prepared rough site plan. Police took into possession one match box, one red strip towel, one plastic bottle, green colour of bisleri emitting smell of petrol. Investigation was carried out and challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

(3.) Prosecution examined number of witnesses. The statement of appellant was also recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the case of the prosecution. The appellant examined three witnesses in his defence. The appellant was convicted and sentenced as noticed hereinabove. Hence the appeal.