His wife was shot dead by the miscreants after a scuffle Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date 2020.01.22 134730 IST Reason when she tried to prevent them from doing so.
One firearm injury was found on the person of the deceased, with an entry and exit wound.
On companysideration of the evidence, the appellant was companyvicted by the trial companyrt and which has been upheld by the High Court.
The appellant submitted a written report to the police that in the night intervening between 24/25.03.2002, at about 0130 AM, three hooligans entered his house to abduct Signature Not Verified him.
Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, learned companynsel for the appellant, submitted that the present is a case of circumstantial evidence.
But numberevidence was laid much less companyy furnished of any such companyplaint.
A bald statement was made that he has been falsely implicated at the behest of his motherinlaw and fatherinlaw in companylusion with department officials.
NAVIN SINHA, J. The appellant is aggrieved by his companyviction under Section 302 IPC sentencing him to life imprisonment, and under Section 25 of the Arms Act for one year.
Relying on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, 1984 4 SCC 116, it was submitted that the links in the chain of circumstances had number been established pointing companyclusively towards the guilt of the appellant alone.
