VIPIN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present criminal appeal has been preferred by convict/appellant against the judgment dated 31.5.2007/8.6.2007, passed in Sessions Case No. 51 -G/2005, whereby the convict/appellant has been convicted of the offences under Sections 302, 452 of the Indian Peal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act in reference to FIR No. 49/2005 dated 28.3.2005 and thereby the convict ­ appellant has Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/ - for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. For commission offence under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, the convict ­ appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/ -. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The convict ­ appellant has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/ - for commission of offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. It was also directed that out of the total amount of fine, a sum of was to be given as compensation to the Rs.20,000/ - complainant and remaining amount of fine was to be deposited in the Government treasury.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.3.2005 at about 9.15 P.M., Smt. Simro Devi/victim/(deceased) while she was watching television, along with Parveen Kumar (adopted son of victim), Reshma Devi and Veena Devi, at that time accused Vipin Kumar came to the house of victim and asked her by her name to open the door, on which she replied that due to night she would not open the door and asked the accused to come in day time, the accused became furious and threatened the victim to break open the door. Victim called from inside one Chhano Kumar, on which the accused asked her as to whether said Channo Kumar was her father, when the victim opened the window of her room from inside, complainant Parveen Kumar observed the convict/appellant standing outside, with a gun in his hand. The complainant identified the accused in the electric light of bulb in verandah. Victim tried to prevail over the accused, but the accused did not pay any heed to her advice and had fired gun shot through the net of the window which hit on the neck/throat of victim, consequently, the victim succumbed to the injuries. The complainant Parveen Kumar opened the door and found that accused was loading his gun again, however, Parveen Kumar and Veena Devi scuffled with the accused and tried to snatch the gun, by that time the pet/dog of victim also came running there and in the mean time Veena Devi was successful in snatching the gun from the accused, thereafter the accused ran away. Parveen Kumar and Rakesh Kumar informed about the incident to Sh. Lok Bahadur, son -in -law of deceased telephonically, who came in the morning of 28.3.2005, and gave information to Amin Chand, Pradhan and, who, subsequently informed the police. Accordingly, rapat Ex. PW -14/A, was entered and FIR Ex. PW -11/A was registered. Post mortem of the victim was conducted by PW -7 (Dr. Puran Chand). After completion of investigation, the accused was charged for the aforesaid offences.

(3.) PW -1 (Rakesh Kumar), PW -2 (Piungla Devi), PW -3 (Parveen Kumar), PW -4 (Smt. Veena Devi), consistently supported the prosecution case.