TEK BAHADUR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 23.1.2015 rendered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (I), Shimla, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 7 -S/7 of 2013, whereby the appellant -accused (hereinafter referred to as accused), who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that the accused along with his family members i.e. Roopmati (his wife) and three children, was living in the ground floor of the house of Vinod Kumar son of Lok Pal Mokta. He was working in the orchard of Vinod Kumar. The accused used to give beatings to his wife under the influence of liquor and he also suspected her character. The complainant Vinod Kumar heard noise of weeping of children of accused. He came down from his house and saw that accused armed with darat was wandering in the courtyard proclaiming that he would cut all the family members. Smt. Roopmati (since deceased) was lying in the verandah. Kumari Shobha, minor daughter of accused aged about 13 years, was sitting by the side of Roopmati. She was weeping. The accused hit darat on the neck of his wife. Vinod Kumar took the danda and asked the accused to drop the darat. The accused dropped the darat. The accused was overpowered by Vinod Kumar with the help of his brother Manoj Mokta. The neighbour Aditya Parkash Mokta, Member Rajinder Singh and Pardeep Mokta were also called to the spot. Roopmati died on the spot due to the injury sustained by her. The police was informed. The police reached the spot and recorded the statement of Vinod Kumar under Section 154 Cr.P.C vide Ext. PW -3/A, on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW -10/A was registered at PS Jubbal. The weapon of offence i.e. darat Ext. P -3 was taken into possession during investigation. The I.O. also prepared the rough sketch of the darat. Soil and sample soil were also lifted from the spot vide memo Ext. PW -2/A. The inquest reports Ext. PW -12/A and PW -12/B were prepared. Blood stained jacket worn by the accused at the time of the incident, was also taken into possession. Supplementary statements of Vinod Kumar, Kumari Shobha, Rajinder, Pardeep Manoj Kumar and Aditya Parkash were also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The accused was arrested. The post mortem of the dead body was got conducted in Civil Hospital Jubbal. The post mortem report is Ext. PW -1/C. The statement of Km. Shobha under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by JMIC (2), Rohru, as per Ext. PW -8/D. The identification of the spot was also carried out. The case property was taken into possession. On completion of the investigation, challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

(3.) MR . Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate for the accused has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused. On the other hand, Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State, has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 23.1.2015.