Delhi High Court
Vasudev vs State on 27 January, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 27, 2018
+ CRL. A. 895/2015
VASUDEV ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocate
Versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor with SI Gaurav
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. Appellant has been tried for committing murder of his wife on 28 th
August, 2012 at the house and vide impugned judgment of 7th April,
2015, he has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and
vide impugned order of 9th April, 2015, he has been sentenced to
imprisonment for life and fine with default clause.
2. As per the prosecution case, on 28th August, 2012 at about 09:45
A.M., police had reached appellant's house and had found that a girl child
aged 3 years was sleeping in the front room and in the inner room,
appellant was sitting besides the dead body of his wife. The concerned
SDM (PW-5) had made enquiries from appellant, who had disclosed that
on the night intervening 27/28th August, 2012, he had a quarrel with his
wife regarding sale of his vehicle and his wife was favouring the said
purchaser, therefore, he strangulated his wife with a Chunni/Dupatta. The
entire prosecution version stands noted in the opening paragraphs of
impugned judgment and so needs no reproduction. Apart from evidence
of the SDM (PW-5), there is medical evidence and evidence of the
Investigating Officer (PW-24) on record. The crux of the prosecution case
is tabulated in paragraph No.31 of impugned judgment. The appellant had
chosen not to lead any evidence in defence and trial court while relying
upon prosecution evidence has convicted appellant for the offence in
question, as noted hereinabove. The stand of appellant before trial court,
as noted in paragraph No.33 of impugned judgment, is as under:-
"The accused Vasudev pleaded innocence and
claimed false implication. He stated that he had no
discussion with Pankaj Gupta. He never met Pankaj Gupta
personally. He stated that on 23/24.08.2012, his wife visited
Pankaj Gupta alongwith a lady. His wife asked him not to
visit Pankaj Gupta as he could misbehaved with him. He
denied that he demanded any amount from his father-in-law
Sh. Davender Tiwari. He stated that he incurred expenses of
the clothes and given jewellery in the marriage of his elder
sister-in-law. He stated that his relation with his wife was
cordial. There was no dispute between him and his wife. He
stated that he was not using the mobile no.8010655648 and
the said number was being used by his wife. He denied
making of call to the police."
3. Learned counsel for appellant at the outset submits that appellant
had committed the offence in question without there being any
premeditation and had no intention to murder his wife. It is submitted on
behalf of appellant that out of anger and frustration, the offence in
question has been committed. It is also submitted that appellant has a
minor child to support and so, the offence committed by appellant falls
under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and not under Section 302 of IPC. It is
pointed out by appellant's counsel that as per Nominal Roll of appellant,
he has undergone sentence of more than six years and during his
incarceration in jail, he has been doing work of Yoga Sahayak and
meditation and so, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the
sentence awarded to appellant deserves to be reduced to the period
already undergone by him.
4. On the contrary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State submits that appellant had strangulated his wife and so,
his intention to murder his wife is clear and that appellant has been
rightly convicted and sentenced for the offence in question and so, this
appeal deserves to be dismissed.
5. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned judgment, order on
sentence and the evidence on record, we find that appellant had made an
extra judicial confession before the SDM (PW-5) of having strangulated
his wife with a Chunni/Dupatta on account of some quarrel with her. We
find that evidence of SDM (PW-5) is unassailable as nothing has come
out in the brief cross-examination of SDM (PW-5). The aforesaid
evidence receives ample corroboration from medical and other evidence
on record. Appellant's counsel has rightly confined this appeal to the
nature of offence committed. It is evident from evidence of Pankaj Gupta
(PW-19) that deceased had offered to sell Maruti EECO Cargo Van for
rupees one lac and he had paid rupees fifty thousand and remaining fifty
thousand was to be paid after completion of documentary formalities as
the said vehicle was registered in the name of appellant. The precise
submission put forth by appellant's counsel is that selling of aforesaid
vehicle by deceased had infuriated appellant, who, in a fit of anger, had
strangulated his wife with a Chunni/Dupatta. After having gone through
the evidence of Dr. Meghali Kelkar (PW-6), we find that the extent of
strangulation was such that blood came out of the nostril of deceased. We
are unable to accept the plea that appellant had committed the offence in
question in a sudden fit of anger, as it has come in the evidence of Pankaj
Gupta (PW-19) that aforesaid vehicle, which was sold to him by
deceased, remained in use with him for three/four months. So, it cannot
be said that the incident in question took place in fit of anger. The
medical evidence reveals that ligature mark was present around the neck
of deceased. Thus, we find that the culpable homicide in the instant case
is of 'First Degree' which brings the offence in question within the ambit
of Section 300 of IPC. The act of strangulating deceased can neither be
said to be accidental nor unintentional.
6. In a case of strangulation of deceased, Division Bench of this Court
in Karamveer v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2018 SCC OnLine Del
6483 has maintained the conviction of accused for the offence of murder.
In our considered opinion, the nature of offence committee by appellant is
cold blooded murder and no case for altering the conviction of appellant
from Section 302 of IPC to Section 304 of IPC is made out. In light of
aforesaid, finding no substance in this appeal, it is dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
(PRATHIBA M. SINGH)
JUDGE
JANUARY 27, 2018
s
