PRAVEEN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused/appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by judgment dtd. 5/6/2014 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Behror, Distric Alwar, whereby appellant has been convicted for offence under Ss. 302 and 498-A of IPC and has been sentenced to life imprisonment for offence under Sec. 302 IPC and fine of Rs.20,000.00 and in non-payment of fine further to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and for offence under Sec. 498-A IPC, he has been sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000.00 and on non-payment of fine, to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Succintly stated the facts of this case are that on 7/10/2012, complainant-Ram Singh lodged a written report at Police Station Neemrana, District Alwar, whereupon police registered an FIR No.251/2012 for offence under Ss. 498-A, 304-B and 120-B of IPC. Police after investigation filed charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for offence under Ss. 498-A and 302 of IPC. Trial Court framed charges against the accusedappellant for the aforesaid offences. Appellant denied the charges, on which prosecution examined 18 witnesses and exhibited 33 documents. Accused-appellant was examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the prosecution case. On behalf of the defence, DW-1 (Devdutt Sharma) and DW-2 (Udai Singh) were examined and 16 documents were exhibited. Trial Court after hearing both the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant vide judgment dtd. 5/6/2014. Aggrieved by which, the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) It is contended by counsel for the appellant that the appellant went to show his wife at the hospital and while returning, they met with an accident, on which the seat belt got stuck in the neck of appellant's wife which resulted in her demise. It is contended that the learned trial Court called for the towel-saf/ (Ex.P-26) at the time of dictating the judgment and considering that the strangulation could be done by Ex.P-26 (sa/7) and convicted the appellant. It is contended that the deceased had sustained injury on the left side of the neck. There was no ligature mark on the right side, on the front of the neck and on the back of the neck.