Delhi High Court
Radhey Shyam vs State on 26 April, 2010
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 26th April, 2010
+ CRL.A. 398/2010
RADHEY SHYAM ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.V.Madhukar, Advocate
with Mr.Jayendra Sevada,
Advocate
versus
STATE (N.C.T.) OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP
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 Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. On 04.05.2007 at about 1:30 PM information was
received; informant being the appellant, that his mother had
died and as deposed to by ASI Preet Pal Singh PW-12 to whom
DD No.16 recording said information at the police station was
handed over, accompanied by Ct.Suraj Prakash he proceeded
to the Jhuggi cluster near Rajasthan Udyog Nagar Jahangirpuri
and as further deposed to by ASI Preet Pal Singh he saw a
dead body of a 60 years old lady ready to be taken to the
cremation ground when he reached the jhuggi of the
appellant near Rajasthan Udyog Nagar Jahangirpuri. He found
abrasion marks on the neck and injury marks on the arms of
the body and hence seized the dead body and sent the same
to the mortuary.
2. Doctor K.Goel PW-5 conducted the post-mortem
on the body on 06.05.2007 and noted bruises on the forehead,
cheeks, neck and chest of the deceased. He noted two
abrasions on the right shoulder top and left shoulder top. He
noted lacerated wound over the dorsum of left hand. Internal
examination evidenced effusion of blood in neck layers and
greater horn of hyoid bone being fractured with bruising
around. He noted the same in the post-mortem report Ex.PW-
5/A. He opined that death was due to asphyxia resulting from
manual strangulation and that all injuries were ante mortem.
He opined that manual pressure over the neck was sufficient
to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
3. At the trial, Ramu Singh PW-1, a neighbour of the
appellant, deposed that the appellant used to frequently beat
his wife and the mother of the appellant used to intervene to
save the wife of the appellant and angered by that the
appellant used to beat his mother. He deposed that in the
evening prior to when the deceased was found dead, the
appellant had beaten his mother in the street and dragged her
inside. On the next day morning at around 9:00 AM he learnt
that the deceased had expired. Since he saw injury marks on
the person of the deceased he asked the appellant to inform
the police and not cremate the body. At his insistence the
appellant informed about his mother's death to the police.
4. Ramu Singh has been cross-examined and nothing
of substance has been brought out to discredit the witness.
5. Meena PW-2, the sister of the appellant, deposed
that after consuming alcohol the appellant used to quarrel with
his wife and used to beat her and for said reason the wife of
the appellant had gone away to her parental home and that
the appellant along with her mother were living together in a
jhuggi. On 04.05.2007 a resident informed her of her mother
expiring. She reached the jhuggi and when she saw injuries on
her mother she told the appellant to inform the police. On
being declared hostile and cross-examined by the APP she
admitted that the appellant used to fight with his mother on
account of the grievance that her mother was not helping in
the wife of the appellant returning to him.
6. Suffice would it be to record that nothing has been
brought out in the cross-examination which discredits the
testimony of Meena.
7. It is thus apparent that the conduct of the appellant
in attempting to cremate his mother who admittedly died not a
natural death is a highly suspicious conduct. This, coupled
with the fact that the appellant used to beat his mother in the
past as also the fact that only the appellant and his mother
were the two residents of the jhuggi and that the two were
seen alive in the jhuggi in the night and next day morning, at
around 9:00 AM, as deposed to by Ramu the mother of the
appellant was dead with injuries have been opined to be
sufficient circumstances wherefrom the guilt of the appellant
can be inferred.
8. Having perused the evidence afore-noted, learned
counsel for the appellant very frankly concedes that any
prudent person would conclude that the appellant was the one
who has inflicted the injuries on his mother.
9. But, learned counsel urges that in view of the
testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, it is apparent that the appellant
used to beat his mother and instant act was also one of
beating. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellant intended to
murder his mother urges the counsel.
10. Mr.M.N.Dudeja, learned counsel for the State urges
that Section 300 Fourthly IPC is attracted. Counsel urges that
the doctor has opined that due to manual pressure applied on
the neck of the deceased, as a result of asphyxia, she died.
Counsel urges that the doctor concerned has categorically
opined that said act was sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death.
11. Having considered the rival contentions, it is
apparent that the evidence shows that even in the past, on
account of grievance that his mother was not taking pro-active
steps to bring back his wife, the appellant used to beat his
mother. Thus, it cannot be said that on the eve in question,
when the appellant gave beating to his mother, he intended to
kill her.
12. The intention being to beat the mother, it is
apparent that the appellant caught his mother by the scuff of
her neck and inflicted fist blows on her. Unfortunately, the frail
lady could not withstand the pressure applied on her neck
when she was caught by the scuff of her neck. We have used
the expression "frail" for the unfortunate lady with reference
to the photographs Ex.PW-8/2 to Ex.PW-8/10 which show her
frail body.
13. But, where a young man catches an old woman by
the scuff of the neck, knowledge can certainly be attributed to
such person that his act may likely result in the death of the
victim.
14. Thus, we hold that the offence committed by the
appellant is that of culpable homicide not amounting to
murder.
15. For the act committed by the appellant we feel that
appropriate sentence which he must undergo is to suffer RI for
a period of 10 years.
16. The appeal stands disposed of partially allowing the
same. The appellant is acquitted of the charge of having
murdered his mother but is convicted for the offence of having
cause the homicidal death of his mother but not amounting to
murder.
17. For the offence committed by the appellant we
sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of 10 years.
18. The appellant shall be entitled for the benefit of
Section 428 Cr.P.C.
19. Since the appellant is still in jail, we direct that a
copy of this decision be sent to the Superintendent Central Jail
Tihar, to be supplied to the appellant.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J
SURESH KAIT, J
APRIL 26, 2010
'mr'
