SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For having committed the offence of culpable homicide, by having done to death his wife Smt. Kamlesh Kumari, appellant was charged under Section 302, IPC. After having been found guilty, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, and in default of the payment whereof, he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year.

(2.) Charge against the appellant was that on the intervening night of 22/23-10-2001, at village Padhori, he committed the murder of his wife Smt. Kamlesh Kumari and thus committed an offence under Section 302, IPC. He pleaded not guilty to this charge and claimed trial.

(3.) At the time of hearing of this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the presence of appellant at his residence in village Padhori is not at all established on the night intervening 22/23-10-2001. Similarly, Ex. PDD FIR in this case was not only outcome of deliberations but in the face of documentary and oral evidence, was ante-timed with a view to fix up the appellant. Relations between deceased and the appellant were cordial, which fact stood clearly established from the evidence on record. All these pleas were controverted by Shri Pathik, learned Additional Advocate General. According to him, deceased was living in appellant's house. He was ill tempered and would belabour the deceased after consuming alcohol every now and then. Further according to Shri Pathik appellant would return from the place of his posting i.e. Jukhala after consuming liquor in the evening every night and would beat her. According to him, there is overwhelming evidence to establish this aspect of the case. Not only this, wife of the appellant having died at his house, it is for the latter to explain what was the cause of her death and how she died. There being no reliable evidence/explanation by the appellant in this behalf, his conviction and sentence deserves to be upheld, per Shri Pathik.