Ravi Prakash vs State
2009 Latest Caselaw 973 Del

*               HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          Crl. A. No. 460/2001

%                            Date of Order : March 25, 2009

RAVI PARKASH                          ..... Appellant
                       Through : Mr. Raman Sawhney, Advocate

                                   VERSUS


STATE                                       .....Respondent

Through : Mr. Pawan Sharma, 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? Yes

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

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral)

1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated

23.5.2001 the appellant has been convicted for the offence of

murdering his wife. Vide order on sentence dated 24.5.2001,

the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment

for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default of payment of

fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.

2. The conviction of the appellant is rested on the

deposition of his daughters; namely Kumari Nisha PW-3 and

Kumari Shikha PW-4, aged about 20 years and 17 years

respectively when they deposed in court in the year 1998.

The incident took place on 10.12.1995 and it is obvious that

Kumari Nisha was aged about 17 years and Kumari Shikha

was aged about 14 years when the incident took place.

3. Additional sustenance to the conviction has been

found on the recovery of the weapon of offence, a hammer

Ex.P-1, as also the fact that the pant Ex.P-5 and the shirt Ex.P-

6 worn by the appellant when he was arrested were found to

be stained with human blood group whereof was „AB‟; the

same blood group as that of the deceased as opined in the

report of serologist Ex.PW-17/G.

4. Police got information of a lady being injured in her

house as recorded in DD No.16-A. SI Prem Mittar PW-16

accompanied by Const. Satbir left for the spot and there from

to Hindu Rao Hospital. Indira Devi, wife of the appellant had

been rushed to the hospital by a neighbor Ram Avtar PW-2.

He met PW-16 at the hospital. His statement Ex.PW-2/A was

recorded by PW-16. Endorsement Ex.PW-16/B was made on

the statement and was sent to the Police Station for

registration of an FIR. At the Police Station, the FIR under

Section 307 IPC was registered. The FIR is Ex.PW-5/A. On

death of Indira Devi the offence punishable under Section 302

IPC was added.

5. Ram Avtar told PW-16 that he was a TSR driver and

was present in his house at 4.00 P.M. His daughter told him

that people had assembled in the street outside his house

because an incident had occurred in the house opposite to

his. He came out and learnt that Indira Devi was injured. On

being requested by the people he removed Indira Devi, who

was badly injured in the head and blood was oozing out, to

the hospital. That after he admitted Indira Devi to Hindu Rao

Hospital her brother came to the hospital.

6. The statement of Kumari Nisha and Kumari Shikha

was recorded by the Investigating Officer on the day of the

incident itself. The two girls implicated their father telling the

police officers that with the use of hammer in the house, their

father had assaulted their mother and fled.

7. Needless to state, the appellant became the

suspect and was apprehended the next day at 11.30 A.M. He

was apprehended near Roshnara Bagh. On being

interrogated by PW-16 the appellant made a disclosure

statement Ex.PW-16/E. In his statement he admitted his guilt

and disclosed to the police that he can get recovered a

hammer used in the crime, which he had hidden. Thereafter,

he led the police to inside Roshnara Bagh and pointed out the

bushes, from underneath which, after shifting leaves, the

hammer Ex.P-1 was recovered. The recovery memo Ex.PW-

16/G was drawn-up. The sketch Ex.PW-16/F of the hammer

was prepared by PW-16.

8. The clothes i.e. the shirt and the pant which the

appellant was wearing was noticed being blood-stained. Both

were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-15/A.

9. Since Indira Devi died at the hospital her body was

sent to the mortuary where postmortem was conducted on

11.12.1995 and as per postmortem report Ex.PW-8/A fifteen

external injuries all directed towards occipital region were

noted. The jaw „mandible bone‟ was fractured. Internal

examination revealed that deceased had suffered cerebral

damages. Injury No. 8 and 10 were opined individually and

collectively to be sufficient in the ordinary course to cause

death.

10. It would be a useless formality to note each and

every external and internal injury several and except to

record that the same evidence complete battering of the head

of the deceased.

11. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem opined

that all injuries except injury No.15 have been caused by a

sharp edged weapon and injury No.15 has been caused by a

blunt force impact with a hard surface object.

12. We note that the sketch of the hammer i.e. Ex.PW-

8/B shows that the hammer is akin to a pick axe. One side is

round and has a flat surface. The other side tapers, akin to a

pick axe, i.e. the hammer has a sharp edge on one side and a

blunt side on the other.

13. The two daughters of the appellant, namely

Kumari Nisha and Kumari Shikha fully supported the case of

the prosecution and deposed that due to the business of their

father not being healthy, there used to be a quarrel between

their parents and that their father‟s factory was lying closed.

That their mother was compelling their father to sell the

machinery in the factory and generate some money. Their

father used to tell their mother that he would do the needful,

but on the day of the incident i.e. on 10.12.1995, their mother

learnt that their father had been telling lies to her as he had

already sold the machinery in the factory. That the attention

of the two sisters was attracted when at around 3.30 P.M.

they heard a quarrel between their parents. The two were

studying in a room on the roof top. They came down. Their

mother told them to go up. As they were proceeding upstairs,

they heard shrieks of their mother "GURIYA - BULBUL" : the

nick names of the sisters. They came down. The room was

bolted from inside. They called to their parents to open the

door. They could not hear the voice of their mother. They

peeped from the window and saw their mother lying and their

father hitting their mother. They made an attempt to open

the door but could not succeed. Through the bathroom which

also had an entry into the room, they managed to enter the

room and saw their father with an iron hammer in his hand.

He was hurling filthy abuses at their mother. Thereupon, their

father opened the room and ran away with the hammer. They

came out in the street and raised alarm. Ram Avtar, a TSR

driver who resided in the neighbourhood, took their mother to

the hospital.

14. We note that both the daughters of the appellant

have been extensively cross examined. Indeed, at the

hearing today, learned counsel for the appellant has not

shown to us anything wherefrom it can be urged that the

testimony of the two daughters does not inspire confidence or

that the two have contradicted each other or that the two

should not be believed.

15. The only submission urged is that immediately on

the day of the incident, Ravinder, brother of the deceased i.e.

maternal uncle of the girls came to the hospital and took

custody of the two girls as also the third younger daughter of

the appellant. Counsel urges that the possibility of the

daughters of the appellant being tutored cannot be ruled out.

16. We have noted the age of Kumari Nisha and

Kumari Shikha. They were not children who could be tutored.

One was aged about 14 years and the other was aged about

17 years when their mother was brutally assaulted. They

could form their own opinion. We see no reason why would

the two girls falsely implicate their father if somebody else

was the assailant of their mother.

17. We note that while cross examining the two girls,

their testimony pertaining to their being present in the house

has gone unchallenged. The incident took place around 3.30

P.M. It was natural time for the daughters to be in the house.

18. The fact that the appellant absconded and was

apprehended the next day at 11.30 A.M. is certainly an

incriminating circumstance against the appellant.

19. It is no doubt true that no independent public

person has been associated with the recovery of the hammer

in question, but that does not mean that the police officers

have not to be believed with respect to the recovery of the

weapon of offence pursuant to the disclosure statement of

the appellant and upon the appellant leading the police to the

place wherefrom the same was recovered.

20. It is of importance to note that the hammer Ex.P-1

was identified by both the daughters as the one they had

seen in the hand of their father while assaulting their mother.

21. The hammer appears to be of a kind which is

normally found in a house. It is not uncommon to see a

hammer of the kind in a house; one side whereof is akin to a

pick axe because such shape of the hammer facilitate pulling

out nails, if one finds that a particular nails is to be removed

from the place where it is hammered inside. What we want to

convey is that the daughters could be the best persons to

identify the hammer which they presumably would be seeing

in their house.

22. That the blood of human origin was found on the

shirt and the pant worn by the appellant which was seized

when he was arrested and that blood group thereto is of „AB‟

group, which happens to be the same blood group of the

deceased is another incriminating circumstance against the

appellant. More so, for the reason the appellant has not

rendered any satisfactory explanation as to how his pant and

shirt got stained with human blood, group whereof was „AB‟.

23. A feeble submission is made that it appears to be a

case of a quarrel between husband and the wife and upon a

sudden cruel the appellant has caused injuries. Thus, counsel

urges that the offence made out is not one of culpable

homicide amounting to murder but one amounting to only

culpable homicide.

24. Assuming that the appellant acted under an

impulse and upon a sudden quarrel, but even then the

offence would continue to be one of culpable homicide

amounting to murder because of the reason Exception 4 to

Section 300 of the Penal Code mandates that to avail benefit

thereof, the offender should not have taken undue advantage

or acted under a cruel or unusual manner.

25. The fifteen injuries, all directed towards the head

of the deceased, shows that he who caused injuries i.e. the

appellant has acted in a cruel and unusual manner.

26. That apart, there is no evidence that the appellant

acted upon a sudden quarrel. The testimony of Kumari

Shikha and Kumari Nisha shows that when they heard a

quarrel going on between their parents they came down.

Their mother told them to go upstairs and study. As they

were climbing upstairs, they heard shrikes of their mother.

Meaning thereby, the appellant did not act spontaneously

when a quarrel ensued. He quarreled with his wife for some

time before launching the brutally assault.

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

dismissed.

28. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond and surety

bond are cancelled.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

ARUNA SURESH, J.

March 25, 2009/vk