Som Nath vs State
2015 Latest Caselaw 9221 Del

$~R-82B

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                           Judgment reserved on : 03.12.2015
                           Judgment delivered on : 11.12.2015

+      CRL.A. 824/2013

       SOM NATH                              ..... Appellant
                           Through:   Mr.Neeraj       Kumar        Sharma,
                                      Advocate.
                           versus
       STATE                                 ..... Respondent
                           Through    Mr.Tarang Srivastava, APP
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1 This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order

on sentence dated 15.4.2013 and 25.4.2015 respectively wherein the

appellant stands convicted under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. He has

been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of

Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 6 months.

2 Nominal roll of the appellant reflects that as on date he has

completed incarceration of about 5 years and 7 months which includes

the remissions earned by him. His jail conduct has been satisfactory.

3 This is an unfortunate case where the appellant/accused is the son

of the victim. The version of the prosecution is that he had battered his

mother to death. The prosecution in support of its case has examined 24

witnesses. FIR was registered on the statement of Surjeet Kaur (PW-2).

She is the daughter of the victim and the sister of the appellant. She had

disclosed that her mother Amar Devi was residing along with her son

(appellant) at house No.C-838, Mangol Puri, Delhi. On 03.2.2011 at

about 8.45 a.m. her daughter Reeta (PW-11) received information from

her mausi Pushpa (PW-12) that Amar Devi was not well. PW-2 reached

the house of her mother. She was informed by a neighbor that the

appellant had given beatings to their mother. There were injury marks

on her face, ear and neck and her mother was crying in pain. Her

condition appeared to be very serious. She was unable to speak and she

pointed fingers towards the appellant by gesture indicating that he had

beaten her. The appellant had beaten his mother on the issue of the

house as he wanted her to sell the house. PW-2 took her mother to the

hospital where she was declared dead. FIR was registered against the

appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. He was subsequently convicted

under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. Apart from PW-2 her sister

Pushpa (PW-12) was also examined. Reeta, the daughter of PW-2,

was also examined as PW-11. She has supported the version of her

mother. She stated that she received information from PW-12 that her

Naani was in a serious condition. On reaching the house of her Naani

she found her Naani lying in a cot and she was having injury marks on

her face, throat and ear. She hardly appeared to be in a position to talk.

Tears were rolling down her eyes. She gestured that she had been given

beatings by the appellant. Statement of another member of the family,

Rahul (son of PW-12) was also recorded; he was examined as PW-5.

He also deposed that he had received information from their house maid

Meena (PW-1) that their Naani was in a critical condition. The house

maid (PW-1) also deposed on the same lines. She deposed that when

she reached her work place at about 7.30-8.00 p.m. she saw that the

victim Amar Devi was weeping and she told her that she had been given

beatings by the appellant. Apart from these witnesses neigbour Kashmiri

Devi (PW-8) has also been examined. She stated that on hearing the

noise of crying from the house of Amar Devi she reached there and saw

injury marks on the face of Amar Devi. She admitted that after

consuming liquor appellant used to quarrel with his mother and often

used to beat her. She further stated that 3-4 days earlier similar kind of

incident had also occurred in the house of Amar Devi. Another neighbor

Harbans Lal (PW-9) was also examined. He also deposed on the same

lines as that of PW-8. Apart from the witnesses of the prosecution the

medical evidence which included the post mortem report Ex. PW-13/A

and Ex.PW-13/B reflects seven external injuries besides various internal

injuries. The MLC of the victim was prepared by Dr. Vikas Aggarwal

(PW-17). The victim had been admitted in an emergent condition; she

was referred to Medicine Department by Dr.Lakhwinder Kaur, CMO of

SGM Hospital. PW-17 stated that the victim was unfit for statement.

She was brought to the hospital by her daughter (PW-2). The victim was

declared dead at about 7.15 p.m. on 03.02.2011. The cause of death was

opined to be combined effect of craniocerebral damage and asphyxia

consequent upon blunt force impact over head and neck.

4 Inspector Raj Kumar, Investigating Officer, was examined as

PW-24. He recorded the statement of the witnesses. Viscera was sent

to FSL for an examination to obtain expert opinion on the various

injuries which had been suffered by the victim.

5 In the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313

Cr.P.C. he had stated that this is a case of false implication and since his

sister wanted to grab the property he has been falsely implicated in the

present case.

6 On behalf of the appellant the arguments propounded by learned

counsel for the appellant are to the effect that this is a case of false

implication. PW-12 one of the sisters of the appellant was hostile. This

Court thought it fit to order production warrants for appearance of the

appellant. He has been produced from custody. His sisters PW-2 and

PW-12 have also been summoned in Court. The minor son of the

appellant was living with PW-12, she was taking care of him. The wife

of the appellant has deserted him.

7 Record establishes that the prosecution has been able to prove its

case to the hilt. PW-2, the sister of the appellant and the complainant,

has categorically deposed that bone of contention between the appellant

and his mother was that the appellant wanted to sell the house. The

mother of the appellant being a senior citizen was not agreeable to the

same. On the fateful day, PW-2 was informed by her daughter Reeta

(PW-11) that she had received a phone call from her Mausi Pushpa

(PW-12) that the condition of her mother Amar Devi was critical. On

this information she reached the house of Amar Devi. She found that

her mother was having bruises on her face, ear and neck was crying in

pain. She had taken the victim to the hospital. Version of PW-2 was

fully corroborated by PW-11 as also her nephew Rahul (PW-5),

neighbors PW-8 and PW-9 both of whom are independent witnesses and

had also deposed that the appellant used to argue with his mother on the

issue to sell the house. On earlier occasions he had given beatings to

her. The maid servant was examined as PW-1. She had also deposed

that the appellant caused injuries upon the victim and this was told to

her by Amar Devi by gestures when she reached the house i.e. the place

of her work. As per the post mortem report the cause of death was a

combined effect of craniocerebral damage and asphyxia consequent

upon blunt force impact over head and neck. There were seven external

injuries and four internal injuries which also show the manner in which

the victim was bruised and battered. Contusion 8 x 7.5 cm reddish

bruise present over left side of face, contusion 4 cm long and 1.5 cm

wide reddish bruise present over front, middle and right side of neck

along with various other injuries received by her on the frontal area of

her mouth, eye, ear coupled with the linear fracture of occipital bone and

the effusion of blood over her middle and upper part of the neck muscle

clearly show that the appellant was well versed with the knowledge that

by his act he could kill his mother. The Trial Judge in fact has been

lenient in imposing a conviction under Section 304 Part II of the IPC

and attributing knowledge alone to the appellant and not intention that

by his act he could have caused the death of his mother. The motive of

the crime is also clear. This is also spelt out in the testimony of the

prosecution witnesses.

8 In this background, this Court is not inclined in any manner to

interfere with the lenient sentence which had been imposed upon the

appellant for his conviction which is well founded under Section 304

Part II of the IPC.

9      Appeal is without any merit. Dismissed.



                                       INDERMEET KAUR, J

DECEMBER 11, 2015
ndn