Delhi District Court
State vs Chander Mohan Dhingra on 17 July, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI P.S. TEJI : DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE (EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
S.C. No.30/2012
Unique Case ID No.02402R0127032012
FIR No.47/2012
PS Krishna Nagar
U/s 302/307/309 IPC
State Versus Chander Mohan Dhingra
S/o Sh.Harnam Dass Dhingra
R/o F5/30, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi.
Date of Institution : 24.05.2012
Date of judgment reserved : 06.07.2013
Date of pronouncement : 15.07.2013
JUDGMENT
The present chargesheet has been filed against accused Chander Mohan Dhingra by the police of PS Krishna Nagar in case FIR No.47/12, under sections 302/307/309 IPC. 2 Facts leading to filing of the present chargesheet are that on 7.2.2012, a DD No.17A Ex.PW2/A was received in PS Krishna Nagar which was assigned to ASI Pawan Kumar(PW21) who SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 1 of 39 along with Ct. Jagdish(PW5) reached the spot i.e. F5/30, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. At the spot, people had gathered along with PCR van. ASI Pawan Kumar(PW21) opened the door with the help of staff and public and saw that lot of blood was lying scattered. One person, namely, Harnam was found lying on the floor in a pool of blood. One lady, namely, Kailash was lying on a Sofa and blood was oozing out from her head. In the inner room, one unconscious man, namely, Chander Mohan was found. All the three injured were sent to hospital. No eye witness was found at the spot. In the meanwhile Inspector A.K.Singh(PW20) along with SI Arvind(PW15) and HC Pramod reached the spot. HC Pramod was left at the spot to safeguard the same and other staff reached Hedgewar Hospital. In the hospital, Smt. Kailash(PW4) was found under treatment. MLC of accused as well as MLC of Harnam were collected on which doctor declared Harnam Singh brought dead. Smt. Kailash Dhingra(PW4) was found fit for statement and her statement Ex.PW4/A was recorded.
3 In her statement, Smt. Kailash Dhingra(PW4) stated to the police that she had been living at F5/30, Krishna Nagar, Delhi along with her husband and son i.e. accused Chander Mohan Dhingra. SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 2 of 39 She further stated that her husband had a business of cloths in Gandhi Nagar which was closed due to his being unwell and thus her husband used to remain at house. Her son i.e. accused Chander Mohan Dhingra was unemployed and he also used to remain at house. Her daughter Seema had been married and she had been living at Rani Bagh. She has stated that her son i.e. accused was annoyed with her and her husband due to their communication with their daughter on telephone. Her son did not like the visit of her daughter and other relatives at home. Due to fear of the accused, they used to talk to their daughter and relatives secretly. Last night, her husband was sleeping in the outer room by lighting the bulb of the bathroom and she was sleeping in the room along with her son i.e. accused. At about 12 midnight, she also slept leaving her son awake. At night she heard the weeping of her husband. She went to the room where her husband was sleeping and saw that her son was having an iron musli in his hand and blood was oozing out from the head of her husband. When she tried to rescue her husband from her son, her son i.e. accused hit her with iron musli on her head and said that he had bolted the doors from all the sides and that nobody would come to save her and her husband. In the meantime, accused brought a SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 3 of 39 vegetable cutting knife from the kitchen and gave repeated blows with the iron musli to her husband till he died. She kept weeping till morning when her door was broken open by the police and other people. She was removed to hospital.
4 On the basis of statement of Smt. Kailash Dhingra and the MLCs, ASI Pawan Kumar singh made endorsement Ex.PW21/A for registration of the case under Section 307/302 IPC. In the PS, ASI Tej Pal Singh(PW2), duty officer, registered FIR Ex.PW2/B and made his endorsement Ex.PW2/C on the rukka. After registration of FIR, investigation was assigned to Inspector A.K. Singh (PW20) who reached at the spot. Crime Team was called at the spot. Dead body of the deceased was sent to mortuary. 5 In the presence of Inspector A.K.Singh(PW20), scene of occurrence was got inspected from Crime Team. Spot was got photographed by Ct. Sandeep(PW1) vide photographs Ex.PW1/B collectively. Negatives have been proved as Ex.PW1/A collectively. Site plan Ex.PW20/A was prepared. In between SI Arvind Kumar reached at the spot along with original rukka and copy of the FIR. At the spot, one person, namely, Charanjeet(PW10) was found who disclosed himself to be the brother in law of deceased. He was joined SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 4 of 39 in the investigation. Blood stained quilt and its cover Ex.P3, blood stained table cover Ex.P4, blood stained sofa cover Ex.P5, blood samples, blood stained floors, sample floor and blood stained clothes were lifted from the spot and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/B. Thereafter, Inspector A.K.Singh(PW20) along with SI Arvind(PW15) reached hospital and the accused was found fit for statement. During inquiry, he stated that his father used to threaten him to disown him from the property and wanted to get the property transferred in the name of his daughter Seema. In this regard, a complaint dated 28.05.2011 was made by the deceased in which accused was arrested under section 107/151 Cr.P.C. Disclosure statement Ex.PW15/A of the accused was recorded. He was arrested vide memo Ex.PW15/B and his personal search Ex.PW15/C was conducted. In the presence of witness Charanjeet Singh(PW10), blood stained iron musli and blood stained knife were recovered from underneath the bed mattress of the accused. Postmortem on the dead body of Harnam Singh Dhingra was got conducted. PW14 Dr. Ashitesh Singh Bajwa conducted postmortem and proved postmortem report as Ex.PW14/A. PW10 Charanjeet Singh identified the dead body of Harnam Singh Dhingra vide statement Ex.PW10/C and received the dead body vide SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 5 of 39 receipt Ex.PW10/D. After postmortem, blood sample along with one plastic bag containing clothes of the deceased and sample seal ere seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. IO also collected blood clothes of accused and Smt. Kailash handed over to the IO which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A. IO has also seized proceedings under section 107/151 vide memo Ex.PW17/A. Record of complaint dated 28.05.2011 Ex.PW10/E lodged by the deceased against accused in PS Krishna Nagar and record of the proceedings initiated before Special Executive Magistrate i.e. kalanda Ex.PW20/C, court proceedings Ex.PW20/D, compromise Ex.PW20/E recorded there, statement of ASI Surinder Pal Ex.PW20/F was seized by the IO in the present case. After discharge of Smt Kailash(PW4) vide discharge summary Ex.PW18/A, site plan Ex.PW20/B was prepared at her instance. PW11 SI Mukesh Jain prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW11/A. PW12 HC Sunil Pradhan who was working as MHCM at the relevant time has proved entries in register No. 19 as Ex.PW12/A and RC as Ex.PW12/B. PW13 Dr. Ashok Dua has medically examined the deceased, accused and PW4 Smt. Kailash and proved their MLC as Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW13/B and Ex.PW13/C respectively. PW3 Ct. Amod Kumar from PCR HQ has proved the SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 6 of 39 PCR form as Ex.PW3/A. PW16 Dr. B.K.Mohapatra, CFSL, has examined parcels/ exhibits of the present case and has given his report Ex.PW16/A. IO has sent vegetable knife and iron musli for subsequent opinion to the Doctor vide his request Ex.PW20/G and opinion Ex.PW20/H was given by the Doctor. IO has obtained subsequent opinion Ex.PW20/I of the Doctor regarding musli and knife. IO collected copies of several DDs which have beebn collectively proved as Ex.PW20/J. He has also proved inquest report Ex.PW20/K. On completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in the present case.
6 After compliance of provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C.. case was committed to Court of Sessions which in turn assigned the case to this Court for disposal in accordance with law. 7 After hearing ld Addl PP for the State and ld Amicus Curiae for the accused, charges under Section 302/307/309 IPC were framed against the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed and claimed trial.
8 To prove its case, the prosecution has examined 21 witnesses. PW1 Smt. Kailash Dhingra is the injured as well as complainant, PW10 Charanjeet Singh is another public witness, PW7 SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 7 of 39 Smt. Seema Arora is sister of the accused, whereas PW8 Yatin Kundra is neighbour of the accused. PW1 Ct. Sandeep had taken photographs of the place of incident. PW2 ASI Tej Pal Singh is the duty officer. PW3 Ct. Amod Kumar has proved PCR form. PW6 Ct. Dinesh was duty constable at the hospital. PW9 Ct. Krishan Kumar deposited exhibits in CFSL. PW11 SI Mukesh Jain had prepared scaled site plan. PW12 HC Sunil Pradhan was MHCM at the relevant time. PW16 Dr. B.K. Mohapatra had examined exhibits in the CFSL. PW17 HC Shripal Singh has proved proceedings under section 107/151 Cr.P.C. initiated against accused. PW18 Dr. Manowar Khurshid has proved discharge summary of PW4 Kailash from Max Hospital. PW5 HC Jagdish, PW15 SI Arvind Kumar, PW21 ASI Pawan Kumar Singh remained associated with investigation of the present case headed by IO PW19 Inspector K.K. Tiwari and PW20 Inspector A.K. Singh. PW13 Dr. Ashok Dua had medically examined, deceased, Smt. Kailash and accused in the hospital. PW14 Dr. Ashitesh Singh Bajwa conducted postmortem on the dead body of Harnam Singh Dhingra. PW18 Dr. Monawar Khurshid has proved discharge summary of Kailash from Max Hospital.
9 After completion of prosecution evidence, statement SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 8 of 39 of accused Chander Mohan Dhingra was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused either denied the case of prosecution or showed his ignorance. He stated that present case is a false and fabricated case. He is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Opportunity to lead defence evidence was given to the accused, but he opted not to lead any evidence in his defence.
10 I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused. I have meticulously gone through their submissions and material available on record.
Murder 11 Case of the prosecution is that on the day of incident i.e. in the night intervening 7/8.2.2012, accused committed murder of his father Harnam Dass Dhingra by giving musli blows on his head. 12 To prove its case, prosecution has examined the eye witnesses as well as mother of the accused, namely, Smt. Kailash Dhingra as PW4. She deposed that she was residing at F5/30, Krishna Nagar, Delhi with her family for the last about 40 years. She has two children, namely, Ms. Seema Rani and accused Chander Mohan. Her husband was running cloth business at Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. On 6.2.2012, she along with her husband Harnam Dass SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 9 of 39 Dhingra and son/accused had taken dinner and went to sleep at about 12.00/12.30 a.m. in the night intervening 6/7.2.2012. In the night, she heard noise of crying from the room in which her husband was sleeping. She woke up on hearing the noise and went to his room where she saw that accused was beating her husband. PW4 intervened to save her husband from the hands of accused and asked him as to why he was beating her husband on which accused challenged her and asked not to intervene. Accused challenged her twice and asked to go back otherwise she would be killed but she intervened to save her husband from accused. She further deposed that at that time, accused gave musli( made of iron rod for crushing masala etc.) blow on her head as she was trying to save her husband. She further deposed that accused wanted to kill her husband. Accused firstly gave fist blows to her husband and asked him to give details about his bank accounts and properties etc. Her husband asked PW4 to take him out to save from the accused. She asked the accused to allow her to attend nature's call and meanwhile her husband also asked to attend nature's call but accused did not allow them to attend the call of nature and told "jo kuch karna hai kamrey mai kar lo" (do whatever they want in the room itself). All the doors SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 10 of 39 were locked. No one could enter the house. Her husband gave details of bank accounts and details of property documents. Thereafter, accused told them "Ram ka nam le lo, tumhara akhri time aa gaya hai" (remember the God as their last time has come). Thereafter, accused started giving blows with Musli on the head of her husband. PW4 asked accused not to give blows on the head of her husband but he continued giving blows on the head of her husband. PW4 further deposed that accused told that he would kill both of them. Accused brought a knife from the kitchen and then gave musli blows as well as knife blows to PW4 as well as to her husband. PW4 started weeping and crying. She broke open the door of the room and raised alarm. Neighbourers and passersby entered their house and helped her in breaking open the door of the room. Some person entered from windowpane and roof and unbolted the door. Someone informed the police and PCR reached there. PW4 further deposed that her husband Harnam Dass Dhingra was lying almost dead in the room and she was in injured condition. She was taken to hospital and her husband was also brought to hospital where she was medically examined. 13 PW4 further deposed that accused was not doing any work for earning and he used to remain at house. Accused used to go SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 11 of 39 out from the house in late hours. Her daughter Seema was already married and was residing at Rani Bagh with her husband and children. She further deposed that whenever she and her husband used to talk to their daughter on telephone, accused used to object to the same and was annoyed with them for telephonic conversation with their daughter Seema. Accused was also not happy from them whenever their relative visited them. They used to talk to their daughter when accused was not at home. She stated that her statement Ex.PW4/A was recorded in the hospital bearing her signatures at point A. she further stated that on 26.02.2012, she joined investigation and pointed out the spot. Site plan was prepared at her instance and she had given some more details of the incident. 14 During her cross examination, PW4 stated that she could read and write Hindi. She studied upto Xth standard. Accused is graduate. Her daughter Seema is elder to accused and was got married in the year 1995. After graduation, her accused son had been doing the business of clothes of her husband at Gandhi Nagar. Accused might have gone with her husband at clothes shop for about one and half years and last went upto 1997. Accused used to refuse for marriage whenever proposal came. But she did not know the SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 12 of 39 reason for his refusal to marry. Accused himself stopped going to the clothes' shop of her husband. They did not get the accused treated for his refusing to marry and not doing the work. She was discharged from the hospital after 4 days of the incident. She denied that accused was mentally sick or he did not marry or did not go for work due to mental sickness. She denied that she was a tutored witness. She further denied that she was deposing falsely as there was property dispute and they wanted to exclude accused from the property by making false allegations. She denied that IO recorded her statement on his own or that she had signed on the papers at the instance of IO subsequently. She further denied that accused did not challenge her or gave any beatings to her. She further denied that accused did not hit her husband with musli or knife on his head in her presence. 15 It is alleged against accused that he committed murder of his father as he was suspecting that his parents might have transferred the property to their daughter by disowning him from the same. Case of the prosecution is that accused was not in a habit of work and was dependent upon his parents. It is also alleged against him that he used to harass his parents earlier also. 16 To prove these facts, prosecution has examined Smt. SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 13 of 39 Seema Arora(PW7), daughter of deceased and PW4 Smt. Kailash Dhingra. PW7 in her testimony deposed that accused is her younger brother. She was married about 16 years ago. She used to visit her parental house on festivals uptil last 6 years. When she visited her parental house on the occasion of Rakshabandhan, accused refused to get tied rakhi from her. She felt insulted, returned back weeping to her inlaws' house and thereafter did not visit her parental house on any festival. However, she used to talk to her parents and they also used to call her frequently. She used to make phone calls to her parents to know their well being. Accused did not like her visit to her parental house or any of his inlaws, so even her inlaws stopped visiting her parental house. Accused even did not like visits of her cousins and other relatives. PW7 further deposed that on 28.05.2011, her father made a complaint to the police against accused as he used to beat his parents. In the year 2011, accused was sent to Tihar Jail in some case and after his release, he became more offending against his parents and used to beat them. She further deposed that accused had caused fracture injury on the right ankle of her mother. Her parents were scared of accused. Accused used to give beatings to her parents and did not talk to them. On 7.2.2012, she received a telephonic call SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 14 of 39 from her maternal uncle that accused had murdered her father and assaulted her mother. She came to her parental house and her statement was recorded on 26.02.2012.
17 During cross examination,PW7 Smt. Seema Arora stated that she never had any quarrel with accused. On the day of Rakhi, she went to her parental house but accused behaved indifferently, so she did not tie rakhi to accused. Accused was not married as he had not been doing any work. Accused had not been assisting her father in running the shop. She denied that no incident of quarrel or behaving indifferently had taken place with her at any point of time or on the occasion of rakhi. She denied that accused never gave beatings to her parents. On the day of incident, she had gone directly to the hospital. Police officials met in the hospital and statement of her mother was recorded.
18 PW10 Charanjeet, maternal uncle of accused as well as of PW7, has deposed that deceased Harnam Dass Dhingra was his brotherinlaw i.e. Jeeja (husband of his sister) who was residing with the sister of PW10 and his children. His sister Smt. Kailash Dhingra was having two children i.e. accused and Smt. Seema Rani who is already married. On 7.2.2012 at about 7.30 a.m., he received SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 15 of 39 telephonic information that Harnam Dass Dhingra had been murdered. He immediately reached the house of his sister where he found police officials. He came to know that Harnam Dass Dhingra, his sister Kailash Dhingra and accused have already been removed to Hedgewar Hospital. He had seen blood lying in the house. Thereafter, he went to hospital and met his sister Smt. Kailash who was having head injuries. Accused was also having injuries. He came to know that his Jeeja had been declared dead. He enquired from his sister as to what had happened and she told that accused had assaulted her and Harnam Dass. Condition of his sister was not well. Accused was arrested by the police. Dead body of his Jeeja was shifted to mortuary. He returned back to the spot from where one blood stained vegetables cutting knife, one musli, blood, earth control, blood stained mattresses were seized vide memos E.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B. PW10 further deposed that on the next day vide statement Ex.PW10/C, he identified the dead body of his Jeeja and after postmortem received the dead body against receipt Ex.PW10/D. In the court he identified the musli as Ex.P1, vegetables cutting knife as Ex.P2, blood stained quilt and its cover as Ex.P3, blood stained table cover as Ex.P4 and blood stained sofa cover as Ex.P5. SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 16 of 39 19 PW10 further deposed that on 28.05.2011, his Jeeja had made complaint against accused as he used to harass his Jeeja and his sister. PW10 had also made complaint against the accused on 28.05.2011 as he used to beat his sister and Jeeja. He proved his complaint as Ex.PW10/E. 20 In his cross examination, PW10 stated that it was around 11.00 or 12.00 a.m. of 7.2.2012 when musli was recovered in his presence. He could not say if such type of musli are available in the market or not. He denied that no musli was recovered in his presence or he identified it wrongly at the instance of police officials or the same was planted. He further denied that no knife was recovered. He denied that no recovery memo was prepared in his presence or his signatures were taken subsequently. He stated that he received information regarding the incident on his telephone around 7.008.00 a.m. of 7.2.2012. Within 20 minutes, he reached the house of his deceased brother in law. He denied that he was not informed by his sister that accused had assaulted her or Harnam Dass. He further denied that his deceased brother in law had not made any complaint on 28.05.2011 against accused that he used to harass him or sister of PW10. He denied that complaint Ex.PW10/E is a fake SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 17 of 39 document. He further denied that he is a tutored witness or deposed falsely due to vested family interest.
21 PW17 HC Shripal Singh produced the original kalandra under section 107/151 Cr.P.C. with copy of DD No.58B dated 28.05.2011 filed by ASI Surender Pal against accused Chander Mohan along with proceedings conducted against him. He also produced arrest memo and personal search memo of accused, original complaint dated 28.05.2011 made by Harnam Dass Dhingra and Smt. Kailash Rani Dhingra, complaint dated 28.05.2011 made by Sh. Charanjeet and MLC of accused Chander Mohan. He proved the said documents collectively as Ex.PW17/A. 22 Prosecution has also examined PW8 Sh. Yatin Kundra, neighbour of the deceased. PW8 has deposed that on 7.2.2012 at about 7.30 /8.00 a.m., he heard noise of knocking and weeping from the house of Smt. Kailash. PW8 reached there, other neighbours also gathered there and they suspected that something had happened inside the house. Someone informed the police on number
100. the gates and doors were closed. He along with neighbours broke open the gate of the gallery, went inside and found that Harnam Dass was pooled in blood and was lying on floor while Smt. Kailash SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 18 of 39 was lying on the Sofa and accused Chander Mohan was lying on the bed in another room. Blood was lying in both the rooms. Two or three PCR vans had reached at the spot and injured Harnam, Smt. Kailsh as well as accused present today in the Court were taken to the hospital. Later on I was enquired by the police and his statement was recorded by the police on the same day in front of the house of accused.
23 In his cross examination, he has denied that he was not present at the spot or that PCR nor the PCR came in his presence or for the same reason he did not know who called on 100 number. He has also denied that he did not give any statement to the police or the same was fabricated by the police. He has stated that his statement was read over to him and he fond the same correct. Monu Manchandan, Raju and many other neighbours wee present outside the house of Smt. Kailash. He has also stated that he left the spot after recording of his statement.
24 As per testimony of the eye witness/ complainant/ injured Smt. Kailash Dhingra(PW4) who is mother of the accused, in the night intervening 6/7.2.2012, when she was present in the house in another room, she heard the cries of her deceased husband. When SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 19 of 39 she went to his room, she saw that accused was beating her husband. When she tried to save her husband, accused challenged her not to intervene, otherwise she would also be killed. She also stated that at that time accused was having iron musli Ex.P1 in his hand and gave its blows on her head when she tried to save her husband. She also categorically stated that she and her husband were not allowed to attend the call of nature by the accused. Accused even told them to do whatever they wanted in the room itself and also remembered the name of God as their last time had arrived. She further stated that firstly accused fist blows to her husband and then gave the repeated iron musli blows on the head of her husband. When she asked the accused not to do so but he continued giving blows to her husband. Thereafter, accused brought a vegetables cutting knife from the kitchen and gave its blow to her as well as to her husband. 25 The testimony of PW4 Smt. Kailash Dhingra is quite natural and trustworthy inasmuch as she herself is a victim of crime as she also sustained injuries at the hands of accused. The reason given by injured(PW4) behind the brutal attack by accused upon her as well as on her husband is that accused was behind the properties owned by her deceased husband. She stated that accused was not SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 20 of 39 doing any work and used to remain in house. Whenever they used to talk to their daughter Seema, accused used to object and get annoyed. Accused even did not like the visit of their relatives. They used to talk to their daughter when accused was not at home. She categorically stated that when she reached the room of her husband, accused had firstly given fist blows to her husband and asked him to give details of his bank accounts and properties etc. She further stated that her husband gave details of bank accounts and property documents to the accused. The accused even asked both of them to remember the God as their last time had arrived and then gave repeated iron musli blows on the head of her husband, brought a knife and gave its blows to PW4 as well as to her deceased husband. 26 Smt. Seema Arora(PW7), daughter of PW4 Smt. Kailash Dhingra as well as sister of accused has corroborated the testimony of PW4 that when she visited her parental home on the occasion of Rakshabandhan, accused refused to get tied rakhi from her and thereafter she never visited her parental house. She also stated that accused did not like her visit as well as visit of her inlaws to her parental house. Accused was even not liking visit of her cousins and relatives. She stated that on 28.05.2011, accused gave SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 21 of 39 beatings to her parents for which a complaint was made to the police by her father. She also stated that in the year 2011, accused was sent to Jail and after his release, he became more offending against her parents and used to beat them. He even caused fracture on the right ankle of her mother.
27 As per PW7 Smt. Seema Arora, accused was in the habit of beating his parents and was not doing any work. PW10 Charanjeet, maternal uncle of accused, has also corroborated the testimony of PW4 and PW7 that accused used to beat his parents for which a complaint dated 28.05.2011 Ex.PW10/E was made by PW10 to the police.
28 PW17 HC Shripal Singh has produced the proceedings under section 107/151 Cr.P.C. against accused as PW17/A. These proceedings Ex.PW17/A shows that a DD No.58B dated 28.05.2011 was registered in PS Krishna Nagar vide which accused was arrested under section 107/151 Cr.P.C. as he was found quarreling and beating his parents. Statement of deceased Harnam Dass Dhingra and PW4 Smt. Kailash Dhingra was recorded in which they had stated that accused had been harassing them for the last about 8 years. He was disowned from the properties by making SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 22 of 39 publication in the newspaper. They had also stated that 2 days prior to 28.05.2011, accused pushed Smt. Kailash Dhingra due to which she suffered fracture. Statement of PW10 Sh.Charanjeet was also recorded on that day who also stated that accused had been harassing and beating his parents. Vide order dated 29.05.2011, accused was ordered to execute a personal bond to maintain peace and harmony in the area.
29 The proceedings Ex.PW17/A duly establishes that accused used to beat his parents and the reason behind it was the properties from which he was disowned by his father and that was the reason for committing his murder. The proceedings Ex.PW17/A corroborates the testimony of PW10 Charanjeet, PW7 Smt. Seema Arora as well as PW4 injured Smt. Kailash Dhingra that accused was behind the properties of his deceased father and that was the reason that on the day of incident, he beat him mercilessly to death. 30 The medical evidence also corroborates the testimony of PW4 Smt. Kailash Dhingra that deceased Harnam Dass Dhingra died due to injuries caused by accused. MLC Ex.PW13/A of deceased shows that the deceased was brought to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital on 7.2.2012 at 10.35 a.m. As per his MLC, there was SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 23 of 39 depression over left side of his forehead; deviation over nose, fresh lacerated wound on left eye brow; fresh lacerated wound on left side of nose; fresh bleeding multiple lacerated wounds over fronto parietal region; fresh bleeding lacerated wound over chin and swelling over left side of his face. Patient was declared brought dead and was referred to forensic Expert to determine the cause of death and nature of injuries.
31 Postmortem on the dead body of deceased was conducted by PW14 Dr. Asitesh Singh Bajwa vide report Ex.PW14/A. As per his testimony, it was a case of assault. He has stated that deceased was having ante mortem external injuries viz. blackish discoloration around both eyes; lacerated wound on left side of forehead with deformity of forehead and clotted blood was present; lacerated wound on left side of face just lateral to bridge of nose and on dissection nasal bone was found fractured; lacerated wounds on right side of lower lip and upper lip; lacerated wounds on the right side and left side of chin; multiple lacerated wounds 5 in number present at fronto parietal, bilateral parietal and occipital region and multiple incised wounds 3 in number were present at left cheek, right side of face, medial to right ear and on right cheek. On internal SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 24 of 39 examination, subgalical haematoma was present at bilateral front temporal parietal region with depressed communated fracture at left frontal bone with fissure fracture of left fronto parietal bone. Dura were found torn with laceration of brain matter at frontal lobe. Subdural haematoma and clotted blood was present at bilateral fronto parietal region. Fracture of base of skull at anterior cranial fossa was found. As per opinion of the Doctor(PW14), cause of death was cranio cerebral damage consequent upon blunt force impact which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Time since death was about 2436 hours.
32 The medical evidence in the form of MLC Ex.PW13/A and postmortem report Ex.PW14/A of deceased corroborates that the deceased died due to blunt force. There were several lacerated wounds on the head of the deceased due to which there were fractures of skull as well as nasal bone which was the cause of death of the deceased. The force applied by the accused in causing injuries by using iron musli Ex.P1 was such that it disfigured the head and depressed its left side. The medical evidence duly proves that it was homicidal death and as per testimony of PW4, accused caused such injuries on the person of deceased. The report of SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 25 of 39 CFSL Ex.PW16/A also corroborates that blood was detected on the clothes of deceased, clothes of accused, clothes of PW4, sofa cover, quilt, quilt cover, iron musli, knife as well as the floor of the house. 33 In view of unshaken statement made by eye witness Smt. Kailash Dhingra(PW4), in my view, statement of victim of the crime who happened to be eye witness of the incident and had suffered injuries at the hands of the accused, alone is sufficient to base conviction if her solitary testimony inspires confidence of the Court. My this view is strengthened by judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in Machhi Singh vs State of Punjab 1983 Cr. L.J. 1457 in which it was held that evidence of the victim of the crime alone is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused, even if the evidence of other witnesses is excluded from the consideration. But in the present case, testimony of eye witness(PW4) has duly been corroborated by the testimony of PW7 Smt. Seema Arora and PW10 Sh. Charanjeet who stated that accused used to harass and beat his parents.
34 From the statement of eye witness Smt. Kailash Dhingra(PW4), the prosecution has successfully established that on the intervening night of 6/7.2.12 accused gave iron musli blows SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 26 of 39 Ex.P1 on the head of the deceased which resulted into his death. The postmortem report corroborates testimony of PW4 that it was a homicidal death and cause of death was injuries on the head of deceased. Testimony of eye witness (PW2) remained unrebutted and unshaken. The defence has tried its best to doubt the veracity of her version but it fell flat. Testimony of PW4 Smt. Kailash Dhingra is compatible with medical evidence. Medical evidence in the form of postmortem report of deceased establishes that cause of death of deceased was due to cranio cerebral damage consequent upon blunt force impact and injuries were antemortem in nature. The ocular statement of Smt. Kailash Dhingra (PW4) coupled with medical evidence and other incriminating evidence i.e., recovery of knife, iron musli, sofa cover, quilt, quilt cover and other blood samples taken from the spot go to prove that it was the accused who has committed murder of the deceased Harnam Dass Dhingra.
Attempt to commit murder 35 It is alleged against accused that on the day of incident apart from committing murder of his father, he also attempted to commit the murder of his mother Smt. Kailash Dhingra(PW4).
SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 27 of 39 36 In her testimony in the court, PW4 Smt. Kailash Dhingra has categorically stated that on the day of incident when she went to save her husband from the clutches of accused, she saw that accused was giving fist and musli blows on his head. When she intervened, firstly she was challenged not to intervene, otherwise she would be killed and secondly accused brought a vegetables cutting knife from kitchen. Accused gave blow of musli Ex.P1 on her head when she was trying to save her husband. After bringing knife, accused again gave musli blows as well as knife blows to her as well as to her husband. The testimony of PW4 is not repeated for the sake of brevity as the same has already been above discussed in detail in earlier part of judgment.
37 Intention of a culprit to commit a crime is to be gathered from the circumstances brought on record. In the judgment titled State of M.P. Vs. Kashiram & Ors. Reported in 2009 AIR (SC) 1642, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused, is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of a given case. The determinative question is intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not the nature of injury.
SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 28 of 39 38 The MLC Ex.PW13/C of injured Smt. Kailash Dhingra (PW4) corroborates the case of prosecution that she received multiple injuries on her person. As per MLC Ex.PW13/C, PW4 received multiple lacerated wounds over fronto parietal region and same were fresh and bleeding. She was having swelling over right and left side of eye region. As per opinion of the Doctor Ashok Dua(PW13), nature of injuries sustained by PW4 was grievous caused by blunt object. Multiple lacerated wounds on the fronto parietal region of PW4 Smt. Kailash Dhingrea as reflected from MLC Ex.PW13/C and the opinion of Doctor regarding nature of injuries proves that accused had the intention to commit her murder. PW4 has also stated that accused did not allow them to attend the call of nature and confined them in a room. She also stated that accused told them to remember the God as their last time had arrived. The injured as well as her deceased husband were old aged and that was the reason of their inability to counter the attack of accused. The causing of injuries on the person of PW4 and the act of accused in confining her, also establishes that accused was having knowledge that his said act might have caused her death. It is a settled law that the testimony of injured witness is alone sufficient to bring home the guilt of an SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 29 of 39 accused. In the present case, injured Smt. Kailash Dhingra (PW4) has categorically stated the role of the accused in causing injuries on her person. MLC Ex.PW13/C of PW4 corroborates the testimony of injured. My this view is strengthened by judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Machhi Singh vs State of Punjab (supra) in which it has been held that evidence of the victim of the crime alone is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused, even if the evidence of other witnesses is excluded from the consideration.
39 So, the prosecution has successfully establish that accused attempted to commit the murder of his mother PW4 Smt. Kailash Dhingra.
Offence under section 309 IPC 40 It is alleged against the accused that on the day of incident after committing murder of his father and causing injuries on the person of his mother Smt. Kailash Dhingra, he attempted to commit suicide by inflicting injuries on his person. 41 PW10 Sh. Charanjeet, maternal uncle of accused, has stated that when he reached the spot, he came to know that deceased, his sister Kailash Dhingra and accused had already been removed to hospital. In the hospital, he met his sister Smt Kailash who was SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 30 of 39 having injuries on her head and accused was also having injuries. PW8 Yatin Kundra, neighbour of the accused, has stated that on 7.2.2012, he heard noise of knocking and weeping from the house of Smt. Kailash. He along with other neighbours reached there. They suspected that something wrong had happened. They broke open the gate, went inside and found that deceased Harnam Dass was in a pool of blood. Smt. Kailash was lying on a sofa and accused was lying on bed in another room. Blood was lying in both the rooms. PCR vans arrived at the spot and removed all of them including accused to hospital.
42 PW21 ASI Pawan Kumar Singh has also stated that on 7.2.2012 when he reached the spot, he with the help of public persons broke open the door of the house. One person, namely, Harnam with head injuries was lying on the floor. Smt. Kailash was lying injuries on sofa. Accused was also found lying on the bed in another room. He categorically stated that all those three persons including accused were removed to hospital as they were injured. Apart from collecting other MLCs, he also collected MLC of accused. 43 PW13 Dr.Ashok Dua had medically examined accused vide MLC Ex.PW13/B. As per his MLC, accused was SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 31 of 39 having multiple lacerated wounds over parietal region which were fresh and bleeding. The injuries were simple in nature. 44 As per testimony of PW8 Yatin Kundra, when he along with other neighbours entered the house, only three persons were found inside i.e. deceased Harnam, injured Smt. Kailash Dhingra and accused and all of them were in injured condition. PW21 ASI Pawan Kumar Singh also corroborates the testimony of PW8 that only those three persons including accused were found in the house and that is too in injured conditions. Since it has come in evidence that none other than accused and his parents were present in the house, causing of injuries from any other person on the person of accused is ruled out. Another aspect of the matter is that there is clear evidence against accused that he assaulted his parents by giving iron musli and knife blows to them, so the sustaining of injuries on the person of accused from his parents does not arise. The only inference which could be drawn is that accused himself inflicted injuries on his person with a view to kill himself after trying to kill his parents. But he could not succeed in finishing his life as the injuries on his person were simple.
45 In view of above evidence coupled with MLC SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 32 of 39 Ex.PW13/B of accused, the prosecution has successfully established that accused attempted to commit suicide after assaulting his parents. So, offence under section 309 IPC is duly proved against accused. Conclusion 46 As discussed above, the prosecution has duly established that the accused committed the murder of his father Harnam Dass Dhingra. It has duly been established that on the day of incident i.e. in the night intervening 6/7.2.2012, accused confined his parents in a room. As per testimony of eye witness/injured Smt. Kailash Dhingra (PW4), who is mother of the accused, when she came to the room of her husband on hearing his cries, she saw that accused was giving beatings to her husband. She categorically stated that accused was having iron musli in his hand at that time and gave its blow on the head of her husband. She also stated that when she tried to save her husband from the accused, she was challenged by the accused either to remain away or she would also be killed. But when she again tried to save her husband, PW4 was also beaten by the accused. She also stated that firstly accused gave fist blows on the person of her husband and then gave repeated musli blows on her head. She also stated that accused also gave musli blows on her head. SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 33 of 39 47 Smt. Kailash Dhingra (PW4) has also stated that accused brought a vegetable cutting knife from the kitchen and also gave its blow to her and also on the person of her husband. PW4 Smt. Kailash Dhingra is the eye witness of the incident as well as injured. Her testimony is quite nature and trustworthy which inspires confidence. The medical evidence i.e. postmortem report Ex.PW14/A of injured corroborates the testimony of PW4 that the death of deceased had taken place due to blunt force object. As per postmortem report, cause of death of deceased was due to cranio cerebral damage consequent upon blunt force impact. So, the prosecution has successfully established that the accused caused several injuries on the person of his father Harnam Dass Dhingra which resulted into his death and his death was homicidal. Therefore, it has been duly proved that accused committed the murder of his father.
48 It has duly been established that accused was behind the properties of his deceased father and that was the reason he assaulted his parents on the day of incident. Accused earlier also used to beat his parents and this fact has duly been established on record from the testimony of his sister PW7 Smt. Seema Arora and his SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 34 of 39 maternal uncle Sh. Charanjeet (PW10). Both of them have stated that accused used to beat his parents for which earlier Sh. Harnam Dass Dhingra had made a complaint to the police.
49 Prosecution has further established that accused caused head injuries on the person of his mother Smt. Kailash Dhingra (PW4). The ocular testimony of PW4 has duly been corroborated by medical evidence. MLC Ex.PW13/C of Smt. Kailash Dhingra duly proves that she received multiple lacerated wounds on her head and the doctor opined the nature of injuries sustained by her as grievous. It has duly been established from the evidence that accused attempted to commit the murder of his mother Smt. Kailash Dhingra (PW4). The intention and knowledge of the accused to commit such an offence has been proved from the fact that firstly he confined his parents in a room and then gave iron musli blows on the head of her mother Smt. Kailash Dhingra (PW4). Accused even threatened his mother to stay away otherwise she would also be killed, when she came to the rescue of her husband from the clutches of the accused. Accused even told his parents to remember the God as their last time had arrived. Causing of multiple blows on the head of PW4 and the acts of accused duly establishes that he had intention SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 35 of 39 and knowledge to commit the murder of Smt. Kailash Dhingra. 50 Prosecution has further successfully established on record that after assaulting his parents, accused inflicted injuries on his person with a view to commit suicide. The MLC Ex.PW13/B of accused shows that he inflicted injuries on his head with a view to commit suicide. It has come in evidence that there was no one else in the house when its door was broke open other than accused and his injured parents. So, it has duly been established that the accused attempted to commit suicide after assaulting his parents. 51 In view of above discussion, accused Chander Mohan Dhingra is hereby held guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302, 307 and 309 IPC. He is accordingly convicted for the said offences.
Announced in the open Court ( P.S. TEJI )
Dated: 15.07.2013 District & Sessions Judge(East)
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 36 of 39
IN THE COURT OF SHRI P.S. TEJI : DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
S.C. No.30/2012 Unique Case ID No.02402R0127032012 FIR No.47/2012 PS Krishna Nagar U/s 302/307/309 IPC State Versus Chander Mohan Dhingra S/o Sh.Harnam Dass Dhingra R/o F5/30, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. ORDER ON SENTENCE Vide my judgment dated 15.07.2013, convict
Chander Mohan Dhingra has been convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Section 302, 307 and 309 IPC. 2 I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Sh. A.K. Bali, Ld. Amicus curiae for convict on the point of sentence and have gone through their submissions.
3 The learned Addl. PP for the State has argued that convict has been held guilty for committing the murder of his father. He has also been held guilty for attempting to commit murder of his SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 37 of 39 mother and then attempting to commit suicide. It has been duly established that on the day of incident, convict firstly committed the murder of his father and then assaulted his mother. It has also been established that the convict earlier also used to beat his parents, prior to the day of incident. He has argued that the convict deserve no leniency and maximum punishment provided under the law may be awarded to him.
4 On the other hand, learned Amicus Curiae for convict has submitted that the convict is aged about 38 years. He is unmarried. He has submitted that it was in the moment of emotion, convict had committed the offence. He has submitted that a lenient view may be taken at the time of awarding punishment to the convict. 5 In view of facts and circumstances of the present case, convict Chander Mohan Dhingra is sentenced as under :
(i)Convict is awarded life imprisonment and fine of Rs.
5,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. In default of payment of fine, convict shall further undergo SI for six months.
(ii)Convict is awarded seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. In default of payment of fine, convict shall further undergo SI for six months. SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 38 of 39
(iii)Convict is also awarded one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 309 IPC.
All the sentences awarded to the convict shall run concurrently. The convict shall be entitled for the benefit of the provisions of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given free of cost to the convict.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court ( P.S. TEJI )
Dated: 17.07.2013 District & Sessions Judge(East)
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
SC No.30/12 State vs. Chander Mohan Dhingra Page 39 of 39