Delhi High Court
Rajesh Kumar vs State on 19 March, 2010
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 19th March, 2010
+ Crl.A.No.3/2008
RAJESH KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through: Ms.Shraddha Bhargava,
Advocate
versus
STATE ..... 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? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?Yes
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. Believing the testimony of Smt.Dhulli PW-1, Gaje
Singh PW-2, Babita PW-3 and Kanta PW-4, the learned trial
Judge has convicted the appellant for the offence of having
murdered his wife as also for the offence punishable 498-A IPC.
For the offence of murder, the appellant has been sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for life and for the offence
punishable under Section 498-A IPC, the appellant has been
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years.
2. When the incriminating circumstances were put to
the appellant he sang the song "It is incorrect" or "It is wrong".
3. The only thing which was admitted by the appellant
was that the deceased was his wife.
4. The unfortunate date was 07.09.2005. As deposed
to by Dhulli PW-1 and other three witnesses i.e. Gaje Singh,
nephew of Dhulli, Babita sister of the deceased and Kanta PW-
4, the cousin of the deceased, a telephone call was made by
Amarjeet PW-12, the brother of the appellant informing
Smt.Dhulli that the appellant was beating her daughter Kavita.
5. All four persons, namely, Dhulli, Gaje Singh, Babita
and Kanta proceeded to the matrimonial house of Kavita and
saw that the appellant, had by that time they reached the
house of the deceased, picked up a Belan and was hitting
Kavita as also striking her against the floor. Kavita was crying
and bleeding. As deposed to by all four witnesses they
requested appellant to take his wife to the hospital. They
accompanied the appellant to the hospital where Kavita was
declared brought dead. As deposed to by all four, on learning
that his wife had died the appellant fled from the hospital.
6. It may be noted at the outset that the deceased
belongs to a humble background evidenced by the fact that
her mother Dhulli is a Safai Karamchari with the MCD. Thus,
the narratives of the incident by the four witnesses has to be
evaluated, vis-à-vis the credibility of the four persons, keeping
in view the humble socio-economic background to which they
belong.
7. That even in the past the appellant had been
indulging in wife bashing is proved through the testimony of SI
Ramesh Kalsan PW-10 and the record of proceedings Ex.PW-
10/A and orders passed by the learned Sub Division Magistrate
on various dates being Ex.PW-10/B to Ex.PW-10/D. As also the
MLC Ex.PW-10/E of the appellant drawn on 06.06.2004. The
same relates to proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. as
per which it stands recorded that on 06.06.2004, under
influence of alcohol, the appellant has severely beaten his wife
Kavita. Kavita's statement Ex.PW-10H has been proved by SI
Ramesh Kalsan which shows the atrocities committed by the
appellant on his wife.
8. That Smt.Dhulli was with her daughter, as claimed
by her, is proved by the fact that her statement Ex.PW-1/A i.e.
her statement on which FIR has been registered was recorded
by the Investigating Officer who proceeded to RML hospital on
learning about Kavita being badly beaten by her husband and
removed to the said hospital.
9. Having perused the testimony of Dhulli, Gaje Singh,
Babita and Kanta, we find no blemish in their testimony. All
four have corroborated each other.
10. It is urged by learned counsel for the appellant that
Amarjeet PW-12 had denied having rung up Dhulli and,
therefore claim of Dhulli to be going to the matrimonial house
of her daughter and the claim of other three witnesses of
accompanying Dhulli is false.
11. We note that Dhulli has stated that she went to the
matrimonial house of her daughter when Amarjeet, her other
son-in-law and the brother of the appellant, rang up and
informed that his brother was beating his wife. We find that
Dhulli has not been cross-examined with reference to the said
assertion made by her. It is apparent that Amarjeet is now
trying to shield his brother i.e. the appellant.
12. It is then urged, that it is not possible for the
appellant to continue to beat his wife for so long a period as
claimed by Dhulli. It is urged that as per Dhulli, the telephone
call made by Amarjeet was received in the house of Kanta PW-
4, niece of Dhulli, and they left for the matrimonial house of
Kavita. It is pointed out that as per testimony of Dhulli the
telephone call was received at around 5:30 PM and all reached
the matrimonial house of Kavita at around 6:45 PM.
13. Now, it is possible that when Amarjeet rang up
Kanta, quarrel may have just commenced and yet to assume
alarming proportions. Amarjeet ringing up his mother-in-law at
the threshold of a quarrel before it assumed alarming
proportion has to be viewed with reference to the 107/151
Cr.P.C. proceedings involving the appellant in the month of
June, 2004 requiring him to be bound down to desist from such
activity.
14. We are not inclined to disbelieve the testimony of
PW-1 to PW-4 merely because Amarjeet informed about
appellant beating his wife at 5:30 PM and the family members
of the deceased reaching her matrimonial house at 6:30 PM
15. No blemish whatsoever has been pointed out to us
in the testimony of four witnesses.
16. That the deceased was assaulted for a reason
except to teach her a lesson is evidenced by the fact that from
the scene of the crime not only the blood of the deceased but
even blood stained hair of the deceased was picked up. There
was no robbery. Nothing was stolen from the house.
17. The photographs taken of the scene of the crime
show that Kavita ran helter skelter all over the room and was
chased by the appellant.
18. A last submission urged needs to be noted.
Learned counsel for the appellant urges that the appellant has
simply used a Belan i.e. an implement used for making
chapatis and thus the offence made out against the appellant
is of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
19. The post-mortem report Ex.PW-15/A of the
deceased shows multiple injuries with a blunt object, all of
which are attracted towards the scalp, her face and her
forehead. It is apparent that the appellant was repeatedly
attracted the head of his wife. Indeed death was due to brain
hemorrhage.
20. He who repeatedly hits his wife on the head with a
Belan would certainly be attributed knowledge of knowing that
his acts would result in the death of the victim and death being
a near probability, and not death being the likelihood of his
acts.
21. We agree with the view taken by the learned trial
Judge that the appellant is guilty of having murdered his wife.
22. Appeal is dismissed.
23. Since appellant is in jail, we direct that a copy of
this decision be sent to the Superintendent Central Jail, Tihar
to be made available to the appellant.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J
SURESH KAIT, J
MARCH 19, 2010
'mr'
