Narender Singh vs State
2009 Latest Caselaw 4108 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


%                      Date of Decision: 12th October, 2009


+                      CRL.A. 528/2003

       NARENDER SINGH                      ..... Appellant
               Through:      Mr. Sumeet Verma, Advocate

                             versus

       STATE                                 ..... Respondent

Through: Mr. M.N.Dudeja, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers 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. With reference to the testimony of Manish Kumar

PW-1, the son of the appellant and the testimony of Anil Kumar

PW-3, the appellant has been convicted for the offence of

having murdered his wife. The additional evidence held

incriminating against the appellant is the recovery of the rapi

(chisel) Ex.P-1 at the instance of the appellant, which was

ostensibly used as the weapon of offence.

2. With reference to the 4 injuries caused on the

deceased as recorded in the post-mortem report Ex.PW-12/A

by Dr.Sarvesh Tandon PW-12 who conducted the post-mortem

of the deceased on 1.1.2001, learned counsel for the appellant

does not dispute that the said injuries make out a case to hold

that the act resulting in the injuries constitutes the offence of

murder.

3. It is urged by learned counsel for the appellant that

the son of the appellant; namely Manish Kumar PW-1 had a

motive to get rid of the appellant who was addicted to smack

and had made a nuisance of himself to the family. Thus,

learned counsel urges that the testimony of PW-1 should be

discarded. Since Anil Kumar PW-3 is the nephew of the

appellant, learned counsel urges that even Anil Kumar had a

motive to falsely implicate the appellant due to Anil Kumar

being of the same age as the son of the appellant and hence

on friendly terms with him. Learned counsel urges that as

deposed to by Manish Kumar, the appellant had an injury on

his head on the day of the incident and said injury having not

been explained by the prosecution, the defence of the

appellant that he told everybody that some stranger had

inflicted the injuries on his wife and an injury on him had to be

accepted.

4. The record of investigation duly proved at the trial

by Insp.S.K.Meena PW-13 establishes that on 31.12.2000 the

appellant was taken to the police station by his son Manish

Kumar PW-1 who told the police that when he returned home

at around 5:15 PM on 31.12.2000 and opened the outer door

of the house he saw his father washing clothes in a bhigona

and saw blood coming out from the room. On seeing inside he

saw the dead body of his mother. When he questioned his

father as to what was all this, his father made an extra judicial

confession to him that since his mother did not give money to

him to buy smack, he has killed his mother. We note that the

FIR Ex.PW-7/A recorded by ASI Mohender Singh PW-7 records

the aforesaid facts.

5. At the trial Manish Kumar PW-1 has deposed

aforenoted facts and has withstood the test of cross

examination. During cross examination he has admitted that

he saw blood oozing from the head of his father but did not

notice the number of injuries. We may note that Anil Kumar

PW-3 has deposed that on 31.12.2000 at 6:00 PM he saw the

appellant with his son Manish and he saw that the appellant

had an injury on his head. He enquired as to what had

happened. The appellant told him that he had murdered his

wife. We further note that Anil Kumar have withstood the test

of cross examination.

6. The investigating officer, Insp.S.K.Meena PW-13 had

proved the seizure of the rapi Ex.P-1 as recorded in the seizure

memo Ex.PW-1/B as also the seizure of the wet shirt and pant

from the house as recorded in the memo Ex.PW-1/C, in respect

of which pant and shirt, we note that the forensic report

Ex.PW-13/D opines that no blood could be detected thereon.

The reason is obvious, as deposed to by Manish, the appellant

was in the process of washing the pant and the shirt when

Manish came home. Obviously, the fresh blood thereon got

washed away in the running water.

7. We agree with the view taken by the learned Trial

Judge that the conduct of the appellant who was admittedly in

the house when his wife was murdered is suggestive of the

guilt of the appellant. Had there been an outsider involved,

the natural conduct of the appellant, as a husband, would be

to seek assistance of outsiders by shouting for help and not to

quietly sit down and start washing his clothes which were

stained with blood.

8. The extra judicial confession made by the appellant,

firstly to his son and secondly to his nephew cannot be wished

away so lightly.

9. It is true that the prosecution has acted negligently

in not bringing on record the nature of the injury sustained by

the appellant. But, therefrom, we cannot give any benefit to

the appellant. Our reason for so holding is the fact that the

appellant, who was apprehended on 31.12.2000 was produced

before the Magistrate the very next day and even the

Magistrate did not direct any medical examination to be

conducted. Had there been a serious injury on the person of

the appellant and that too on the forehead, the same could not

have gone unnoticed and the learned Magistrate would have

directed a medical examination of the appellant. This has not

been done and hence our reason for holding that, if at all, the

injury was a simple injury. There is another possibility. The

photographs Ex.PW-13/6 to Ex.PW-13/10 show extensive blood

having flown out from the body of the deceased. The floor of

the room is smeared in blood spreading in an area of at least 8

square feet. It is possible that the blood of the deceased

spluttered out and fell on the forehead of the appellant and it

was this blood which was noticed by his son.

10. The presence of the appellant in his house when his

wife was murdered has not been disputed by learned counsel

for the appellant. The conduct of the appellant in not seeking

any rescue for his wife is incriminating enough wherefrom the

guilt of the appellant can be safely inferred. Add on thereto

the two extra judicial confessions made by the appellant and

proved by PW-1 and PW-3, compels us to concur with the view

taken by the learned Trial Judge.

11. We find no merit in the appeal which is dismissed.

12. Copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent

Central Jail Tihar for being made available to the appellant who

is in jail, serving out the sentence of imprisonment for life.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(SURESH KAIT) JUDGE

October 12, 2009 mm