Ramesh Kumar vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 1556 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                         Date of Decision :19th March, 2010

+                   CRL.APPEAL NO.292/2008

        RAMESH KUMAR                         ...Appellant
                Through : Ms.Shraddha Bhargava, Advocate

                               Versus

        STATE                                 ...Respondent
                     Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, 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 Reporter or not?                Yes
     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                          Yes

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. As recorded in DD No.35A, Ex.PW-6/A, it has been

noted at 5:30 AM on 1.4.2003, that L/Ct.Bimla has been

stabbed by her husband and she has been removed to LNJP

Hospital.

2. Investigation was entrusted to SI Mahender Singh

PW-5 but before he could proceed another entry being DD

No.36A, Ex.PW-21/C, was recorded by the Duty Officer to the

effect that the Bimla had been declared 'brought dead' at LNJP

Hospital. SI Mahender Singh PW-5 had yet to leave the police

station. Copy of DD No.36A was handed over to him.

Accompanied by HC Ombir Singh PW-11, he left for LNJP

Hospital. Bimla was declared dead. He took a copy of the MLC

and reached the place of crime i.e. the residence of Bimla

where he met Santu, the landlord of Bimla. He recorded

Santu's statement Ex.PW-4/A as per which Santu informed that

Bimla and her husband were his tenants and were residing in

the room immediately adjoining his room in the building and

that noise from the house of the accused made him come out.

He saw Bimla stabbed. She told him that her husband had

stabbed him. He informed the police. Halimuddin, another

tenant employed at CRPF went to the camp nearby and took

Bimla to the hospital.

3. Needless to state, the appellant was found

absconding and was apprehended after 25 days.

4. At the trial Santu PW-4 turned hostile and denied

having heard any dying declaration made to him by Bimla. He

stated that he heard some conversation of his tenants and

went to the room of Bimla by which time she had already been

removed to the hospital. He denied any knowledge of the

incident.

5. But, on being declared hostile by the learned APP

and on being cross-examined, he admitted having seen Bimla

bleeding profusely and that somebody had tied a chunni over

her waist.

6. From the admission made by Santu during cross-

examination that he had seen Bimla bleeding profusely and a

chunni tied over her waist, it is apparent that his statement in

examination-in-chief that he reached the room occupied by the

accused on hearing conversation from the neighbours and that

he knows nothing about the reason for Bimla taken to the

hospital stands contradicted.

7. Halimuddin PW-10 has fully stood by the

prosecution and has deposed that he was a tenant in the same

building where the appellant and his wife resided. That at 5:30

AM on 1.4.2003 he heard noise and came down. He saw Bimla

lying on the ground outside her room. She told him that her

husband had stabbed her. He saw the appellant near Bimla.

Bimla asked him to remove her to the hospital. He went to

fetch a vehicle and removed Bimla to the hospital of the

battalion, where she died.

8. In view of the testimony of Halimuddin which is

credible we find that it is apparent that the appellant is the

culprit.

9. It assumes importance to note that the scene of the

crime is the matrimonial house of the appellant and the time is

5:30 AM; a time when husbands are expected to be with their

spouses.

10. The defence of the appellant that he was in

Rajasthan when his wife died is rejected by us for the reason

no evidence has been led to prove that the appellant was in

Rajasthan. The testimony of Halimuddin shows that the

appellant was in Delhi and in his matrimonial house. That the

appellant absconded for 25 days is another incriminating

evidence against him.

11. But, the question arises, whether the appellant

intended to murder his wife or something happened i.e. a

quarrel ensued between the couple and the appellant did the

offending act with the intention of causing an injury on his

wife.

12. No motive has surfaced. Halimuddin PW-10 also

employed as a Head Constable with CRPF i.e. a colleague of

Bimla, has categorically stated that he had never seen any

dispute between the deceased and the accused.

13. There is a possibility that the husband and wife

quarreled and in the heat of the moment appellant picked up a

knife and stabbed his wife.

14. With reference to the post-mortem report of the

deceased, we find four injuries, two of which are superficial

incised wounds. A third is a scratch abrasion. Only one is a

serious injury which is a stab wound in the abdomen. It is this

injury which has proved to be fatal for the reason the

intestines were damaged.

15. The trajectory of injury No.4 shoes that a knife has

been pierced into the stomach cavity and pulled out the same

route. No attempt has been made to turn or twist the knife

inside, meaning thereby, the wound suggests a thrust into the

stomach and a pull-out.

16. Under the circumstances we give benefit to the

appellant with respect to his intention and hold that the

evidence does not conclusively show that the appellant

intended to murder his wife. The evidence shows that the

appellant intended to cause an injury to his wife with a knife.

Looking at the situs of the injury, it can safely be said that

knowledge could be attributed to the appellant that death may

be a likely result of the act. Knowledge of the degree

contemplated by Section 300 Fourthly, that in all probability

death would be the result may not be attributable to the

appellant.

17. Accordingly, we conclude by holding that the act of

the appellant establishes that he caused the homicidal death

of his wife and the homicidal death does not attain the status

of murder. We hold that the appellant is guilty of the offence

of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and for the

same we sentence the appellant to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for ten years.

18. The appeal stands disposed of modifying the

conviction of the appellant by setting aside the conviction of

the appellant for the offence of murder. We convict the

appellant for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting

to murder and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for ten years.

19. Since the appellant is in jail, we direct that a copy

of this order be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar

for being supplied to the appellant.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

SURESH KAIT, J.

MARCH 19, 2010 'dkb'