Suraj Pal vs State
2009 Latest Caselaw 601 Del

*               HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                               Crl. Appeal No. 123/2007

%                                Date of Order : February 19, 2009

SURAJ PAL                                            ..... Appellant
                           Through : Mr. Mukesh Jain, Advocate

                                     VERSUS

STATE                                      .....Respondent

Through : Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP

CORAM :-

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH

(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment?

(2) To be referred to the reporter or not?

(3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral)

1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated

28.7.2006 the appellant has been convicted for the offence of

murdering his wife Somwati; an offence punishable under

Section 302 IPC as also voluntarily causing simple hurt on the

person of his daughter Lispat; an offence punishable under

Section 324 IPC. For the offence of murder he has been

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of

Rs. 1000/- failing which to undergo simple imprisonment for

one month. No separate sentence has been awarded for the

offence punishable under Section 324 IPC because the

learned trial judge has held that the convict has already been

imposed the sentence of imprisonment for life.

2. The involvement of the police surfaced when vide

DD No. 52B, Ex. PW-1/B, information was recorded by the

duty officer at 7.42 PM on 1.10.1998 that a stabbing incident

has taken place near the jhuggies adjoining a medical

hospital. At 8.30 PM vide DD No. 5B, Ex.PW-8/B, information

was recorded by the duty officer as conveyed by the duty

constable from All India Institute of Medical Sciences that

Somwati wife of Suraj Pal was admitted at the hospital and

had died.

3. ASI Iqbal Singh PW-17, and constable Surender

Singh PW-7, immediately left the police station after DD No.

52B was recorded and reached All India Institute of Medical

Sciences where they met Santosh PW-10, son of the

deceased, who made a statement Ex.PW-10/A informing the

police that he was residing along with his parents in Jhuggi

No. 142, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi and that he was employed

in a private factory at Okhla. That his father Suraj Pal was

working as a security guard at Safdarjung Enclave and under

influence of alcohol used to regularly fight with his mother.

His mother Somwati aged 46 years used to wash dishes in

bungalows and with the income so generated used to manage

the kitchen. His father used to fight with his mother and

extract money from her to consume alcohol. That on 1.10.98

i.e. the date of the incident, at around 7.30 PM he was

sleeping in his jhuggi. His maternal aunt Rajni, who was

residing in a jhuggi nearby, came to his jhuggi and after

breaking his sleep told him that his father was assaulting his

mother. That he immediately left for the jhuggi of his

maternal aunt, where outside the jhuggi, he saw his father,

armed with a meat chopper, assaulting his mother saying that

he was fed up with her constant bickering. He i.e. his father

was accusing his mother of not giving him money. He heard

his father say that today he would finish her, and so stating,

his father struck a blow with the chopper in the stomach of

his mother and thereafter on the other parts of the body.

That at that time his younger sister Lispat was in the lap of

his mother. Even she received a cut on her right foot. That

he i.e. Santosh raised a hue and cry and ran to catch his

father. People in the neighbourhood gathered on hearing his

shrieks and the cries of his mother. That his father ran away

with the weapon of offence and he brought his mother to All

India Institute of Medical Sciences.

4. ASI Iqbal Singh made an endorsement, Ex.PW-

17/A, on the statement Ex.PW-10/A and despatched the same

through constable Surender Singh PW-7 for registration of an

FIR. The FIR Ex.PW-1/A was thereafter registered at the Police

Station at 9.20 PM by ASI Champa Lal, PW-1.

5. At the hospital Dr. Sayeed Tariq Hussain PW-2,

examined Somwati and noted her condition in the MLC Ex.

PW-2/A noting three stab wounds on her body. The stab

wounds are as under:

"1. Left flank - deep stab wound 4 cm in length significant bleeding present.

2. Right Iliac fossa - Bowal lying outside.

3. Left back 4 cm superficial wound."

6. Relevant would it be to note that in the MLC it has

been recorded that Somwati wife of Suraj Pal has been

brought to the hospital by her son Santosh. While recording

the history of the injuries, it is recorded that stab injuries

were inflicted on Somwati by her husband.

7. Somwati died within less than 14 hours of her

admission. She died on 2.10.98. The dead body was sent to

the mortuary at AIIMS where Dr. Sunil Kumar Sharma PW-3,

conducted the post-mortem and noted ante mortem injuries

being as under:

"(1) Stab injury on the right iliac fossa 3 cm above the anterior superior iliac spine measuring 7 cm X 2.5 cm cavity depth.

(2) Stab injury on the left loin, 5 cm above the anterior/superior iliac spine measuring 3 cm X 1.5 cm

cavity depth.

(3) Surgically made incised wound extending from Xiphoia process to symphysis pubis measuring 20 cm in lengh.

(4) Stab injury only right buggock, 10 cm right to mid-line, 5 cm below theiliac crese seize 4X1.5 X 6 cm. (5) Incised wound on the right lower back 12 cm from mid-line X 15 cm below shoulder measuring 5 X 1.5 cm. (6) Incised wound on theleft lower back 5 cm from mid- line and 20 cm below shoulder measuring 7 X 2.5 cm cavity depth."

8. Internal examination revealed multiple cut injury

with stitches over the small intestine. There was a cut wound

on the left lower part of the left kidney. He opined that death

was due to shock resulting from haemorrhage caused by the

multiple stab injuries.

9. Relevant would it be to note that the post-mortem

report shows five stab wounds, being at serial Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5

& 6.

10. The appellant, husband of Somwati, absconded.

He was found by the police after four years, being

apprehended on 1.8.2002.

11. We eschew reference to the evidence collected by

the police in the form of blood stained earth, blood stained

clothes of the deceased and evidence gathered during

investigation, for the reason nothing much turns thereon

except proof of the fact that Somwati was fatally stabbed

outside the jhuggi of her sister Rajni PW-9, and that the blood

of her group was found contaminating the soil outside the

jhuggi of Rajni.

12. We note the evidence pertaining to: who was the

assassin.

13. Two witnesses were cited by the prosecution being

Rajni PW-9, the sister of the deceased and Santosh PW-10,

the son of the deceased as also of the appellant. Santosh

PW-10 turned hostile. He only admitted the fact that Suraj Pal

was his father but disclaimed any knowledge about the case.

He denied having told anything about the incident to the

police. He denied having made any statement to the police

but admitted his signatures at point A on Ex.PW-10/A. He

denied that the police lifted blood stained earth from outside

the jhuggi of his maternal aunt. He denied having told the

police that his maternal aunt Rajni came to his jhuggi and

informed that his father was fighting with his mother. He

denied having gone to the jhuggi of his maternal aunt. He

admitted that after the post-mortem of his mother was

conducted he took the dead body but denied being involved

by the police with any investigation.

14. Relevant would it be to note that inspite of the fact

that he did not support the prosecution case, the counsel for

the accused cross-examined Santosh and when cross-

examined he answered: "when on being called by my Mausi

Rajni, I reached the place of occurrence. My Mausa Pappu

husband of my Mausi was present at his jhuggi." Thus though

wanting to support and save his father, PW-10 admitted that

Rajni his maternal aunt had called him and that he had

reached the place of occurrence.

15. Rajni PW-9 fully supported the case of the

prosecution and deposed that on 1.10.1998 at around 7.30

PM she was at her jhuggi and that after finishing her work

Somwati came to her jhuggi and was sitting near her, feeding

her daughter Lispat aged 1½ -2 years. Suraj Pal husband of

her sister came and demanded money from her sister to buy

liquor. Her sister refused. He took out a knife used for

cutting mutton and inflicted injuries on her sister. That she

tried to rescue her sister but could not do so and immediately

rushed to the jhuggi of her sister, which was nearby, to call

Santosh. Santosh came and on seeing him, Suraj Pal ran

away from the spot. She deposed that Suraj Pal inflicted knife

blows on the stomach of her sister and as a result thereof her

intestines came out.

16. The witness was cross-examined and indeed

nothing of substance was brought out; none has been pointed

out to us to discredit the testimony of Rajni.

17. Dr. Sayed Tariq Hussain PW-2, deposed that on

1.10.1998 Somwati wife of Suraj Pal was brought to the

hospital by her son Santosh with an alleged history of stab

injuries caused by her husband in the evening. He deposed

that he prepared the MLC Ex. PW-2/A.

18. Suffice would it be to note that no suggestion was

given to PW-2 when he was cross-examined that Santosh had

not brought Somwati to the hospital or that he had incorrectly

recorded the history of the stab wounds.

19. Believing the deposition of Rajni PW-9 and the fact

that in the MLC, history of the stab injuries was recorded as

being inflicted by the husband; finding corroboration to the

deposition of Rajni and the fact of the appellant absconding

i.e. his subsequent conduct; learned trial judge has held that

the charge against the appellant of murdering his wife is fully

established.

20. Noting the testimony of Rajni that when the

appellant inflicted stab injuries on his wife, a cut was made on

the foot of his daughter Lispat, who was in the lap of the

mother, the charge under Section 324 IPC had been

sustained.

21. At the hearing today, learned counsel for the

appellant has urged that when the maker of the FIR turns

hostile, the FIR fails and in that view of the matter the

conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. Second

submission made is that no independent witness has been

examined by the police.

22. It is true that Santosh has not supported the case

of the prosecution, but as noted above, he has admitted that

Rajni his maternal aunt had summoned him and that he

immediately went to the place of the occurrence. This

admission of his runs contrary to his earlier deposition where

he deposed that he knew nothing of the incident. But he

corroborates Rajni being present.

23. As noted above, the MLC of the deceased shows

that Santosh, her son, had brought her to the hospital. This

was confirmed by PW-2. We have noted hereinabove that the

testimony of PW-2 was not challenged with respect to the

facts stated by him that Santosh had brought Somwati to the

hospital. His testimony has also not been challenged with

respect to the history recorded on the MLC that Somwati had

been inflicted stab injuries by her husband.

24. Thus Rajni PW-9 stands fully corroborated with

respect to a document prepared contemporaneously i.e. MLC

of Somwati.

25. It makes no difference whether Santosh did not

live by his conscious and chose to depose falsely.

26. Rajni PW-9 has lived by her conscious and has

deposed the true and correct facts which stand independently

corroborated as noted hereinabove.

27. That no public witness was examined is neither

here nor there for it is the quality of the evidence and not

quantity thereof which is of importance at a criminal trial.

28. What was the use of having public witnesses where

the police had the son of the accused as the best witness.

The son turned hostile. The other witnesses would have so

turned hostile. It is an unfortunate thing which we are

noticing virtually in every second case. Case after case

shows that whenever the police has associated a public

witness, invariably the public witness turns hostile.

29. The conduct of the appellant of absconding and not

being seen for four years is itself a good circumstance to

connect the appellant with the crime.

30. We find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is

dismissed.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

ARUNA SURESH, J.

February 19, 2009/jk