Ajit Singh vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 711 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                            Date of Decision: 08th February, 2010

+                            CRL A 396/2005

        AJIT SINGH                                  ..... Appellant
                         Through:   Ms.Anu Narula, 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. Conceding that through the testimony of Gurdev

Singh PW-2, Ram Pyari PW-3, Jageer Kaur PW-4 and Jasbeer

Kaur PW-7 it stands conclusively established that the appellant

had fatally attacked his wife on 14.8.2002 at around 10:30 AM,

learned counsel for the appellant restricts submissions qua the

offence made out by the acts of the appellant.

2. Gurdev Singh is the brother-in-law of the appellant

i.e. he is the real brother of the deceased, who happened to be

the wife of the appellant. Ram Pyari is the mother-in-law of

the appellant. Jageer Kaur is the daughter of the appellant.

Jasbeer Kaur is the daughter of the sister of the deceased. The

testimony of the 4 witnesses establishes that the appellant

used to consume liquor and beat his wife. The wife of the

appellant and her daughter had taken shelter in the house of

the parents of the wife of the appellant and in the morning of

14.8.2002 the appellant wanted his wife to return home. She

wanted an assurance that the appellant would stop drinking.

Enraged by the refusal of his wife to return, the appellant

picked up the handle of a hand pump and repeatedly struck

blows therewith on his wife who died as a result thereof.

3. What is urged by learned counsel for the appellant

is that the appellant did not come pre-armed. He was

overcome by sudden surge of emotion, passion and rage,

when his wife refused to go with him. Thus, counsel urges,

intention to cause the death of the deceased or intention to

cause any particular bodily injury does not arise. Counsel

urges that at best, what can be said is that the appellant acted

in a casual manner causing the death of his wife and hence

has committed the offence of culpable homicide not

amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC.

4. We do not agree for the simple reason it is not in

dispute that evidenced by the post-mortem report Ex.PW-13/A

and the testimony of Dr.Sanjeev Lalwani PW-13 who

conducted the post-mortem of the deceased 8 injuries were

caused by the appellant as under:-

"1. Lacerated wound 1 x 5 cm. x bone deep on right eye brow laterally with blood clot on dissection there was fracture of frontal bone involving right anterior cranial fossa with subscalp extravasations of blood.

2. Lacerated wound 4.5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on right tempo parietal region with extravasations of blood. There was fracture of inner table of right temporal and parietal bone.

3. Lacerated wound on left ear pinna upper part of size 1 x .5 cm cutting cartilage with clotted blood.

4. Lacerated wound 7 x 3 cm x brain cavity deep on left mastoid/temporal region behind left ear with bleeding and expulsion of brain matter. The underlying bone was found fracture into multiple pieces with segments of bones entering into cranial cavity causing tearing of duramater and laceration of brain on inferior surface of left temporal lobe in 4 x 3 cm area.

5. There was fracture of middle cranial fossa and fissured fracture of left occipital bone involving foramen magnum.

6. Lacerated wound 2 x 1 cm x bone deep with subscalp extravasations of blood on left fronto temporal region 2 cm above and behind injury No.4.

7. Lacerated wound 4.5 x 1 cm x cranial cavity deep with subscalp extravasations of blood on left tempo parietal region with fracture of underlying bone and tearing of duramater and expulsion of brain matter through the bone. The brain was lacerated in temporal lobe upper part in area of 4 x 3 cm.

8. Lacerated wound 6 x 1 cm x bone deep with subscalp extravasations of blood on left tempo

parietal region."

5. A mere look at the situs of the injuries shows that

all blows were directed towards the forehead and the right

temporal area above the ear as also the skull. It is not a case

of a wanton and mindless blows directed all over the body. It

is a case where each and every blow has been targeted

towards the head. The extent of the damage is revealed from

the internal examination as per the post-mortem report.

Subdural hematoma and laceration of the brain was noticed

causing instant death.

6. In fact injury No.4 and 7 show that due to the

ferocity of the blow not only the segments of the bones

entered into cranial cavity tearing duramater but even the

brain matter came out through the bone.

7. To put it in colloquial language, the head of the

deceased was reduced to near pulp.

8. It is obviously a case attraction Section 300 thirdly;

in any case, Section 300 fourthly.

9. The appellant has been rightly convicted for the

offence of having murdered his wife.

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

11. Since the appellant is in jail a copy of this order be

sent to the Superintendent Central Jail Tihar to be made

available to the appellant.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

SURESH KAIT, J.

February 08, 2010 mm