Delhi High Court
Rakesh vs State on 24 September, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: September 24, 2014
+ CRL.A. 1432/2012
RAKESH ..... Appellant
Represented by: Ms.Manjusha Wadhwa,
Ms.Harshlata and Mr.Arpan
Wadhawan, Advocates.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the
State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
1. Rakesh is convicted for the offence of murder of Ram Dass and
causing simple injury to Suman vide impugned judgment dated March 29,
2012 and vide order dated March 30, 2012 he has been directed to undergo
imprisonment for life and pay a fine of `50,000/- for offence punishable
under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months for the
offence punishable under Section 323 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution rests on the statement of Badami Lal, the
son of the deceased who was an eye-witness of the incident and with whom
Rakesh started quarrelling. Badami Lal in his statement Ex.PW-3/A on the
basis of which FIR No.375/2008 under Sections 302/323 IPC was registered
stated that he was working as a cobbler and staying with his family at E-383,
J.J. Camp, Tigri. On that date i.e. July 08, 2008 at about 10.45 PM after
having his dinner he was sitting in the gali outside the Masjid when Rakesh
Kumar who lives in the gali came to him and demanded money for liquor.
Rakesh abused and slapped him. Badami Lal went to his house to save
himself and informed his parents. His father Ram Dass and mother Suman
came outside to talk to Rakesh, when at around 11.00 PM Rakesh came to
the door of their Jhuggi with a knife in his hand. His father immediately
pulled Badami Lal towards his back. Rakesh gave a stab blow by 'Chhuri'
to his father on the left side of his chest and ran away with the knife. On
their shouting someone called the police and PCR van took his father to
Trauma Centre with him where he was declared brought dead.
3. The post-mortem of Ram Dass was conducted by Dr.Siva Prasad,
PW-6, who proved the post-mortem report as Ex.PW-6/A. He noticed the
following injuries on the body of Ram Dass:
"i. An eliptical stab wound of length 3 cm and width 1.5 cm,
everted, sharp margins, pointed at both ends along the
axis of length, obliquely placed with upper end towards
medially and lower and towards laterally, present in
lower aspect of left chest. It is 8 cm below left nipple, 11
cm lateral to midline and 19 cm above left anterior
superior iliac spine (ASIS). It is 12 cm deep and is
directed posteriorly, medially and slightly upwards. On
brining both margins to apposition the length of the
wound is 3.8 cm.
Wound track- It is directed posteriorly, medially and
upwards. From outward to inward 7th rib is cut, the
intercostals muscles between 6th and 7th ribs are cut with
extravasation of blood into surrounding muscles,
transverse colon is punctured, left costal attachment of
diaphragm is punctured and inferior vena cava in T8 -T9
region is cut. There is hemoperitoneum of about 1.5
litres. Extravasation of blood into the mesenteries
present. Retroperitoneal extravasation of blood into
paravertebral region is also present.
ii. An L-shaped laceration of size 2.5 x 0.5 cm, bone deep
present in right occipital region 2 cm to the right of
midline and 3 cm below and lateral to occipital
prominence and 8 cm above C-6 vertebra. There is
diffuse extravasation of blood under the scalp in occipital
region.
iii. A brownish abrasion of size 0.8 x 0.7 cm, 5 cm posterior
to left acromion prominence present."
4. Dr.Siva Prasad opined that the cause of death was hemoperitoneum
caused by injury No.1. He also opined that the injury No.1 was caused by a
sharp weapon and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
According to him injury Nos.2 and 3 were due to blunt force and all injuries
were ante-mortem in nature. Dr.Siva Prasad, PW-6 also gave his subsequent
opinion Ex.PW-6/B after pursuing the post-mortem report and examining
the weapon of offence recovered and opined that the injury No.1 was
possible by the examined weapon.
5. Rakesh was arrested and at his instance a knife 'Chhuri' of a length of
34 cm and width of 4.8 cm was recovered from roof of his house which was
blood stained. The said knife Ex.P1 was found to be stained with blood of
human origin though no reaction could be noted.
6. Badami Lal who appeared in the witness box as PW-3 deposed in
sync with the statement on the basis of which FIR was registered and
nothing could be elicited from the cross-examination of this witness. The
presence of Badami Lal at the spot cannot be disputed because he was the
one with whom the initial quarrel started and being night time, his presence
near his house was natural. He clarified in his cross-examination that at the
time of incident he had gone to a walk after the meal and being a cobbler he
generally came late from his job and that no neighbour was available being
late.
7. Suman, the wife of the deceased and mother of Badami Lal was
examined as PW-5 and she also deposed about the incident which happened
in her presence. She deposed that as soon her husband saw the 'Chhuri' in
the hand of Rakesh Kumar he immediately pulled back his son Badami Lal
and Rakesh attacked Ram Dass with the 'Chhuri'. Rakesh also caught hold
of her throat and attacked Suman resulting in tenderness on the left side of
the chest. Her MLC has been exhibited as Ex.PW-4/A.
8. In view of the ocular evidence which is unimpeachable and the fact
that the stab blow was given with a big 'Chhuri' which is generally used for
chopping the meat etc. and with the force that the injury was 12 cm deep
directed posteriorly, medially and slightly upwards traversing through the
inter costal muscles between 6th and 7th rib, colon, diagphram and inferior
vena cava, the offence committed by the appellant Rakesh Kumar would fall
within the ambit of murder as defined under Section 300 IPC and punishable
under Section 302 IPC.
9. Consequently, we find no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed.
The appellant, who is in custody, will suffer the remaining sentence.
10. T.C.R. be returned.
11. Two copies of the judgment be sent to the Superintendent Central Jail
Tihar one for his record and the other to be handed over to the appellant.
Crl.M.B No.10601/2014
Dismissed as infructuous.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 24, 2014
'vn'
