PARVESH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been instituted against the judgment and order dated 01.03.2016 and 03.03.2016 rendered by the Sessions Judge, Faridabad, in Sessions case no.65 of 25.08.2014 whereby the appellant, who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under Section 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.1,10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that Smt. Rajni wife of deceased Brijesh had lodged the complaint. Her husband Brijesh had given Rs.50/- to their neighbourer Parvesh for getting recharged his phone on 29.05.2014. However, instead of getting his phone recharged, Parvesh consumed liquor. On return of Parvesh to his house, when her husband asked Parvesh about amount of Rs.50/- given to him for recharging the phone, Parvesh picked up quarrel with her husband. During altercation, her husband slapped him twice. At that time, Parvesh threatened her husband with dire consequences. The matter was patched up. She further alleged that on 30.05.2014 at about 8.30 P.M. she and her husband were shifting their luggage due to change of house. Her husband was walking ahead of her. When they came in the street, Parvesh armed with a danda was already present there. He exhorted that he would teach a lesson. Parvesh inflicted a danda blow to her husband. Thereafter, he took out a knife and inflicted the knife blow on the neck of her husband. Second blow was given on the left thigh of her husband. Her husband collapsed on the road. Parvesh threw the danda and fled away from the spot along with the knife. Brijesh was shifted to B.K. Hospital, Faridabad. FIR was registered. Challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

(3.) Prosecution examined a number of witnesses. The statement of accused was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He had denied the case of the prosecution. The appellant was convicted and sentenced as noticed hereinabove. Hence this appeal.