Ranbir Singh Rawat vs State
2009 Latest Caselaw 4421 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Date of Decision : 30th October, 2009

+                   CRL.APPEAL No.83/2007

       RANBIR SINGH RAWAT                 ...........Appellant
                 Through: Mr.V.P.S.Charak, Advocate.

                                 versus

       STATE                              ...........Respondent
                    Through:    Ms.Richa Kapoor, A.P.P.

       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?

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
        Digest?

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. The appellant has been convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 302 IPC pertaining to the death of

Har Dayal Singh. He has also been convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 307 IPC for the injuries caused to

Aditi Asthana, the daughter of Har Dayal Singh.

2. As per the post-mortem report Ex.PW-6/A pertaining

to Har Dayal Singh, it is evidenced that he died due to a stab

injury inflicted on the left side front of the chest which pierced

the right lung. The consequence was haemorrhagic shock.

The said injury has been opined to be sufficient in the ordinary

course of nature to cause death.

3. The knife recovered at the spot where the offence

took place, sketch whereof is Ex.PW-6/B shows that it has a

blade of 20 cm with thickness 2 cm. The handle is 12.5 cm.

The cutting edge of the knife is sawed.

4. The MLC Ex.PW-3/A of Aditi Asthana records an

injury on her neck caused by a sharp-edged weapon. The

injury is described as: Spindle shaped incised wound - incised

wound approximately 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the left side of intro

lateral aspect of the neck with active bleeding. The injury has

been opined to be dangerous.

5. Rather than note the entire evidence of the

prosecution and as a result pen a lengthy judgment, we may

note at the first instance certain incriminating evidence which

has been admitted by the appellant when he was examined

under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellant admitted being

employed as a domestic help in the house of Dr.A.K.Khare at

flat No.D-II/346 Vinay Marg, Chanakya Puri, a year and a half

prior to the date of the incident in which Har Dayal Singh and

Aditi Asthana were injured. He also admitted that about two

months prior to the incident Har Dayal, father of Dr.A.K.Khare

started residing in the flat and had brought along with him

another domestic help Kalu. He also admitted that two or three

days prior to the date of the incident, Ms.Aditi Asthana,

daughter of Har Dayal had shifted to the flat. He further

admitted that two days prior to the incident, Dr.A.K.Khare had

left for a pilgrimage to Gangotri. The appellant further

admitted that at the time of the incident, Har Dayal and his

daughter Aditi were sleeping in a bedroom. Kalu was sleeping

in the lobby near the kitchen and he was to sleep in the

drawing room. The appellant further admitted that in the

middle of the intervening night of 10th and 11th June 2001, Har

Dayal Singh was fatally stabbed and his daughter Aditi also

received injuries.

6. But, the appellant denied that he caused injury to

the deceased or Aditi.

7. It is not in dispute that the appellant was

apprehended at the spot. It is also not in dispute that the pant

Ex.P-6 which he was wearing when he was apprehended was

found, as per report Ex.PW-22/B to be stained with human

blood of the same group as that of the deceased.

8. As per the prosecution, the motive for the crime was

the desire of deceased Har Dayal to impress upon his son to do

away with the services of the appellant and engage Adarsh

Kumar @Kalu as the domestic help.

9. Aditi PW-1 has deposed that her father Har Dayal

was residing with her brother at Government Flat D-II/346

Vinay Marg, Chanakya Puri and that her father had brought

with him Kalu as a domestic help. Her father had desired to do

away with the services of the appellant. Two days prior to the

date 10.6.2001, her brother had gone on a pilgrimage to

Gangotri with his family and she was staying with her father.

On 10.6.2001 she and her father went to sleep at around 10:30

PM. Both were sleeping in the same bedroom. Kalu slept in

the lobby nearby and the appellant slept in the drawing room.

At around 2:30 in the night the cry of her father disturbed her

sleep and she saw the appellant with a knife which he struck on

her father's chest. She responded to rescue her father and the

accused inflicted a knife blow on the left side of her neck.

Hearing the hue and cry, neighbours gathered. With the help

of Kalu she summoned the police. The appellant was

apprehended at the spot and she was removed to the hospital.

10. Kalu PW-8 deposed that when he was sleeping in

the gallery of the flat, at around 2:00 AM (night) cries of Aditi

awoke him and he went to the room where the deceased and

Aditi were sleeping and saw the deceased lying in a pool of

blood. At the asking of Aditi he rang up the police. Aditi told

him that the appellant had stabbed her father and Aditi.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant very fairly

concedes that in view of the testimony of Aditi and Kalu it

stands established that the appellant is the culprit. With

reference to the testimony of Aditi and Kalu as also the

testimony of Inspector Sudhir Kumar PW-13 who was the first

police officer to reach the flat after the incident, it stands

established that the appellant was apprehended at the spot.

12. Thus, the fact that the appellant fatally stabbed the

deceased and also stabbed Aditi is not in dispute, being a fact

duly proved at the trial and conceded as proved at the hearing

of the appeal.

13. The only submission urged by learned counsel is

that from the testimony of Aditi and Kalu it is evidenced that

the appellant made no attempt to flee. There from, deduces

learned counsel that the intention of the appellant was to

simply injure the deceased as an act of revenge for the reason

the deceased wanted to throw out the appellant from service.

Counsel urges that the blow was struck in darkness and

therefore it cannot be said that the appellant intended to strike

the blow on the chest of the deceased. Further, counsel urges,

that only a single blow being inflicted on the deceased also

suggests the intention to cause injury to the deceased and not

murder him.

14. From the testimony of Aditi, it is apparent that but

for Aditi responding to the cries of her father, the appellant

would have struck more blows on her father. That the

appellant assaulted Aditi who responded to the cry of her

father evidences the intention of the appellant to do more than

merely injuring Har Dayal. The weapon of offence used by the

appellant, as noted above is not a simple knife, but one with a

blade length of 20 cm and a width of 2 cm.

15. It is true that it was night time and the deceased

and Aditi were sleeping with lights switched off. But

experience guides us that the street lights which filter inside a

bedroom even when curtains are drawn can sufficiently guide a

third person to see a human being sleeping on a bed and

target a particular part of the body intended to be injured.

16. There is no rule of law that a single stab blow must

mean that the only inference possible is the intention not to

cause the death of the victim. We need not catalog the various

judicial pronouncements in which single stab blows were held

indicative of an intention to cause death. Suffice would it be

for us to note that the attendant circumstances under which

the blow is inflicted have to be kept in mind and the act as

cocooned within the circumstances has to be viewed to

ascertain the intention of the assailant.

17. Keeping in view the motive, the nature of the

weapon of offence, the ferocity of the blow with which the

assault was made, the fact that but for Aditi intervening more

blows could be inflicted upon the deceased, the fact that an

attempt was made to cut the neck of Aditi, compel us to hold

that the view taken by the learned Trial Judge is correct. We

concur with the finding returned that pertaining to the death of

Har Dayal, the offence committed by the appellant is that of

murder. From the injury caused to Aditi, noting that an

attempt was made to cut her neck with the knife in question,

we concur with the view taken by the learned Trial Judge that

the offence of attempt to murder Aditi is also made out. Noting

that for the offence of murder the sentence imposed is to

undergo imprisonment for life and for the offence of attempt to

murder the sentence imposed is seven years rigorous

imprisonment, we dismiss the appeal.

18. The appellant is in jail. Copy of this order be sent to

the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar for being supplied to the

appellant.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(SURESH KAIT) JUDGE October 30, 2009 Dharmender