BABLU RASTOGI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J. -
(1.) A complaint (Ext. Ka -2) was written by the informant PW5 Dinesh Kandari on 12.04.2007, at 06:20 P.M., addressed to the Station Officer, police station Muni -Ki -Reti, District Tehri Garhwal, which was registered as case crime No. 307 of 2007 against accused -appellant Bablu Rastogi in respect of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. After the investigation, chargesheet (Ext. Ka -5) was submitted against the accused in respect of selfsame offence. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. When the trial began and prosecution opened it's case, charge in respect of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC was framed and, in the alternative, charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC was also framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(2.) PW 1 Km. Rashi Rastogi (victim), minor daughter of appellant; PW2 Pan Singh Kandari, father of victim; PW3 Sudhanshu Mishra, brother -in -law of victim; PW4 SO Surendra Singh Bhandari, Investigation Officer; PW5 Dinesh Kandari, informant and brother of victim and PW6 Dr. Naval Kishor Mishra, Medical Officer were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which he said that he was falsely implicated in the case. Accused also said that the victim died of bursting of stove. No evidence in defence was adduced. After considering the evidence on record, learned trial court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years alongwith fine of Rs. 10,000/ -, in default of payment of which, convict was required to undergo six months' further rigorous imprisonment, vide judgment and order dated 03.09.2008. Aggrieved against said judgment and order, present criminal appeal was preferred by the convict.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the accused -appellant submitted that the appellant has served out a substantial part of sentence awarded to him and therefore he has nothing to say on the merits of the case. Learned counsel contended that the appellant is in jail for more than six years and he has come to the Court with the sole prayer that the sentence awarded to the convict -appellant be reduced.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.