JUDGMENT :

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J.

CRM-12390-2011 in CRA-S-493-SB-2011

Application is allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions.

Annexure A- is are taken on record.

The Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.

CRM-49914-2011 in CRR-2134-2011

Application is allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. Main cases Both the aforesaid cases viz Criminal Appeal as well as Criminal Revision are being decided by a common order since they arise out of the same impugned judgment of conviction dated 29.01.2011 and order of sentence dated 31.01.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, in Sessions Case bearing No.02 dated 23.05.2008/02.06.2008, arising out of FIR bearing No.49 dated 27.03.2008, registered under Section(s) 452, 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar.

2 CRA-S-493-SB-2011 has been filed by the appellant-Gulab Singh, against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence whereby the appellant has been held guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03 years along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 03 months. The appellant has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03 years along with a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the said Act and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 04 months. Additionally, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years along with a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the said Act and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

3 All the substantive sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.

4 CRR-2134-2011 has been filed by the complainant Om Parkash, seeking enhancement of sentence awarded to the appellant in CRA-S-493-SB-2011 on the ground that the sentence imposed by the trial Court is inadequate.

5 Factually, the prosecution case emanates from a statement dated 27.03.2008 made by Om Parkash–complainant to the police. It was averred that the complainant had three children, two sons Ram Kumar and Mukesh and one daughter Smt. Raj Bala, all of whom were married. The elder son, Ram Kumar, resided with his family at Chandigarh, while the younger son, Mukesh, resided at Bangalore. The daughter, Smt. Raj Bala, was married in village Kainthala, District Kurukshetra. The complainant, along with his wife Smt. Parkasho Devi, resided at Shiv Colony, Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar. On 27.03.2008, at about 8:00 A.M., the complainant left his residence to visit his agricultural land at village Ghespur, leaving behind his wife alone at home. Upon returning at about 12:30 P.M., he found all the doors of the house open and the kitchen bolted from outside. The wife of one Diwan Chand, a neighbour, who was present near the entrance, asked him to check on his wife inside the kitchen. Upon opening the kitchen door, the complainant found his wife, Smt. Parkasho Devi, lying unconscious in a pool of blood, having sustained multiple injuries on her head, arm and face, with blood oozing from her head. With the assistance of neighbours, she was immediately removed to Gaba Hospital, Yamuna Nagar, for medical treatment. The complainant expressed suspicion against Rajinder Singh son of Leelu Ram, alleging that he had caused injuries to his wife with a knife, as the complainant’s younger son Mukesh had entered into a love marriage with Suman, a close relative of the said Rajinder Singh, which was opposed by him. The said statement was recorded by ASI Om Parkash, the Investigating Officer, on the basis whereof the present FIR was registered.

6 During the course of investigation, various articles w