Delhi District Court
State vs Harjeet Singh @ Raju Fir No.253/11//Sc ... on 28 May, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEI(NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
SC NO.84/11.
FIR NO.253/11.
PS K.N. KATJU MARG.
U/S.302/324 IPC.
STATE
VERSUS
HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU
S/O. SHRI MANMOHAN SINGH,
R/O. G6/128, 2ND FLOOR,
SECTOR16, ROHINI, DELHI.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
28.05.2013
Present: Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Convict Harjeet Singh @ Raju produced from JC.
Shri Ashok Garg, ld. Counsel for the convict.
STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 1 OF PAGE 69
2
1. Arguments heard on sentence. The convict has been
convicted under Section 302/324 IPC for committing murder of his
mother in law and causing hurt to Jaswinder Kaur by sharp edged
weapon vide judgment dated 16.05.2013.
2. It is argued by Shri Ashok Garg, ld. Counsel for the
convict that, convict is aged about 39 years and he has four children
of the age of 15, 13, 11 and 10 years and to look after and he is the
sole bread earner of his family. He further submits that convict is not
previously involved in any crime. Therefore, lenient view may be
taken.
3. On the other hand, ld. Addl. PP for the State submits
that convict has committed the murder of his mother in law
Harbhajan Kaur and caused hurt to his sister in law Jaswinder Kaur
without any reason and thus he should be given maximum sentence,
as prescribed under the statute.
4. I have heard the rival submissions and gone through the
record.
5. The protection of society by stamping out criminal
activity is essential function of State. It can be achieved by imposing
appropriate sentence. The facts and given circumstances in each
STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 2 OF PAGE 69
3
case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned
and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct
of the convict, the nature of weapons used and all other attending
circumstances are relevant facts for imposing appropriate sentence.
Any definite formula relating to imposition of sentence cannot be laid
down. The object of sentencing is that the offenders does not go
unpunished and the justice be done to the victim of crime and the
society. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper
sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner
in which it was executed or committed etc. The measure punishment
in a given case must depend upon the gravity of the crime; the
conduct of the offender and the defence less and unprotected state
of the victim. Imposition of appropriate punishment is the way
adopted by the courts for responding the society's desire for justice
against the criminals. Justice demands that courts should impose
punishment fitting to the crime. The Courts must not only keep in
view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of the victim of crime
and the society at large while considering imposition of appropriate
punishment.
It was held in the case of Siddarama & Ors. V State of
STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 3 OF PAGE 69
4
Karnataka, (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 72 :
the object should be to protect the society and to
deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object to
law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is
expected that the courts would operate the
sentencing system so as to impose such sentence
which reflects the conscience of the society and the
sentencing process has to be stern where it should
be. Imposition of sentence without considering its
effect on the social order in many cases may be in
reality a futile exercise. The social impact of the
crime e.g. where it relates to offences relating to
narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances which
have great impact not only on the health fabric but
also on the social order and public interest, cannot
be lost sight of and per se require exemplary
treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meagre
sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on
account of lapse of time or personal inconveniences
in respect of such offences will be result wise
counterproductive in the long run and against
societal interest which needs to be cared for and
strengthened by a string of deterrence inbuilt in the
sentencing system.
6. Section 302 IPC provides only two sentences i.e. Death
Sentences and imprisonment for life and fine.
7. It is now settled by the Higher Courts that Death penalty
is to be awarded in those cases, which falls within the category of
STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 4 OF PAGE 69
5
"rarest of rare cases".
8. In the case Bachan Singh V State of Punjab, AIR
1980 SC 898 it was observed that a real and abiding concern for the
dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life through
law's instrumentality. That ought not to be done save in the rarest of
rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.
9. In case Machhi Singh V State of Punjab, AIR 1983
SC 957, the guidelines are laid down which are to be kept in view,
considering the question whether the case belongs to the rarest of
rare category. It was observed that the following questions may be
asked and answered as a test to determine the 'rarest of the rare'
case in which death sentence can be inflicted:--
a) Is there something uncommon about the
crime which renders sentence of imprisonment for
life inadequate and calls for a death sentence?
b) Are the circumstances of the crime such
that there is no alternative but to impose death
sentence even after according maximum weightage
to the mitigating circumstances which speak in
favour of the offender?
10. In case Machhi Singh, the guidelines were culled out
which are to be applied to the facts of each individual case where the
question of imposition of death sentence arises. The following
STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 5 OF PAGE 69
6
preposition emerges from the Bachan Singh's case:
i. The extreme penalty of death need not be
inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme
culpability.
ii. Before opting for the death penalty the
circumstances of the 'offender' also required to
be taken into consideration along with the
circumstances of the 'crime'.
iii. Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence
is an exception. Death sentence must be
imposed only when life imprisonment appears to
be an altogether inadequate punishment having
regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime,
and provided, and only provided, the option to
impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot
be conscientiously exercised having regard to the
nature and circumstances of the crime and all the
relevant circumstances.
iv.A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating
circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing
so the mitigating circumstances have to be
accorded full weightage and a just balance has to
be struck between the aggravating and the
mitigating circumstances before the option is
exercised.
11. In case Bablu @ Mubarak Hussain V State of
Rajasthan, AIR 2007 SC 697, the Supreme Court observed as
under :-
STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 6 OF PAGE 69
7
In rarest of rare cases when collective conscience
of the community is so shocked that it will expect
the holders of the judicial power center to inflict
death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion
as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining
death penalty, death sentence can be awarded.
The community may entertain such sentiment in the
following circumstances:
i. When the murder is committed in an extremely
brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly
manner so as to arouse intense and extreme
indignation of the community.
ii. When the murder is committed for a motive which
evinces total depravity and meanness; e.g
murder by hired assassin for money or reward or
a coldblooded murder for gains of a person vis
avis whom the murderer is in a dominating
position or in a position of trust, or murder is
committed in the course for betrayal of the
motherland.
iii. When murder of a member of a Scheduled Caste
or minority community etc., is committed not for
personal reasons but in circumstances which
arouse social wrath, or in cases of 'bride burning'
or 'dowry deaths' or when murder is committed in
order to remarry for the sake of extracting dowry
once again or to marry another woman on
account of infatuation.
iv.When the crime is enormous in proportion. For
instance when multiple murders, say of all or
STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 7 OF PAGE 69
8
almost all the members of a family or a large
number of persons of a particular caste,
community, or locality, are committed.
12. In this case, convict has murdered his mother in law.
Hence, the offence of convict is quite grave, however, this fact
cannot be ignored that convict has small children and old parents to
look after. Therefore, taking into account aggravating and mitigating
circumstances, I am of the view this case does not fall in the
category of "rarest of rare cases" to impose death penalty.
13. Therefore, I sentence the convict for Life Imprisonment
for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and also fine of Rs.
10,000/, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo SI
for six months.
14. Convict is further sentenced RI for two years and fine
of Rs.2000/ for offence u/s. 324 IPC, in default of payment of fine,
he shall undergo further SI for three months. Both the sentences
shall run concurrently.
STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 8 OF PAGE 69
9
15. The case property is confiscated to the State. Benefit of
Section 428 Cr.P.C be given to the convict. Committal warrants be
issued against the convict. A copy of the judgment and that of order
on sentence be supplied to the convict free of cost forthwith. File be
consigned to the record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (SANJEEV KUMAR)
COURT ON 28.05.2013 ASJ01(NORTH):ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 9 OF PAGE 69
10
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEI(NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
SC NO.84/11.
FIR NO.253/11.
PS K.N. KATJU MARG.
U/S. IPC.302/324 IPC & 25/27 ARMS ACT.
STATE
VERSUS
HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU
S/O. SHRI MANMOHAN SINGH,
R/O. G6/128, 2ND FLOOR,
SECTOR16, ROHINI, DELHI.
Date of Institution in this Court:01.10.2011.
Date of Arguments:17.04.2013.
Date of Judgment:16.05.2013.
JUDGMENT:
1. Brief facts of the prosecution are that on 08.06.2011 at about 9.26pm, from phone number 9289901718 information was given to the PCR on 100 no. regarding quarrel (Jabardast Jhagda), nd at G5/381, 2 floor, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi. On the said information, duty officer of PS K. N. Katzu Marg recorded DD No. STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 10 OF PAGE 69 11 31A, which was assigned to ASI Gurjant Singh, through telephone who had reached there alongwith Ct. Hridesh. Inspector Yashpal the IO alongwith Ct. Jaswant also reached there. IO came to know injured Jaswinder Kaur and Harbhajan Kaur were already shifted to the hospital, hence, he reached at the hospital, where he collected the MLC of Harbhajan Kaur in which doctor has mentioned that patient has been brought dead with the alleged history of stab with knife. He also collected the MLC of the injured Jaswinder Kaur. IO recorded the statement of the injured Jaswinder Kaur.
2. Injured Jaswinder Kaur stated that she reside with her mother Harbhajan Kaur and brother Gurmeet Singh and Gurbachan @ Rura Singh at G5/381 Sector 16 Rohini. She had six sisters and three brothers and her fifth number sister Rajender Kaur @ Rajni was married with Harjeet Singh @ Raju and they reside at G6/128, nd 2 floor, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi with their four children. Raju is a private vehicle driver and he suspects on the character of his wife and due to which they used to quarrel each other. Raju thinks that his mother in law is involved in the prostitution from Rajni due to which he has enmical relations. Today i.e. 08.06.2011 at about 9pm, when they were in the flat, she was in the balcony and her mother STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 11 OF PAGE 69 12 Harbhajan Kaur was preparing food in the kitchen and her brother Gurmeet Singh was sleeping in the bedroom and Ruda Singh was eating food while sitting at sofa as he is handicapped and at that time, somebody had knocked the door, which open towards balcony side and when she opened the door, her brother in law (Jija) Harjeet Singh @ Raju who has having a meat cutter knife in his hand entered in the house while abusing and gave the knife blow on her hand and when she raised alarm and tried to run away, when her mother came from kitchen to save Rajni and stated to her that, you are doing the prostitution from her daughters and he will finish her (Tu Ladkiyon Se Dhandha Karati hai aaj tera kaam kar deta hu), and then he stabbed her mother with knife due to which her mother fell down. In the meanwhile, her brother Kaichi Singh woke up and tried to apprehend the accused, but he ran away through the way of balcony. Hearing the noise her sons and neighbourer come and somebody made a call to the police from mobile to police. She took her mother to the hospital with the help of her brother Kaichi Singh in PCR where doctor declared her mother brought dead.
3. IO Inspector Yashpal made endorsement on the said complaint/statement and prepared the rukka and sent the same for STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 12 OF PAGE 69 13 registration of FIR through Ct. Jaswant who got the FIR registered u/s 302/324IPC. Thereafter he came to spot and inspected the spot and prepared the site plan, crime team was called and crime team inspected the spot and photographer of the crime team took the photographs. IO seized the blood stained floor from the floor and also took earth control sample blood stained pieces of floor and earth control samples. He seized the cloths of the deceased and complainant from Doctors. He recorded statements of witnesses.
4. It is further case of prosecution that Harjeet Singh @ Raju i.e. accused himself arrived at PS with knife and IO inquired from him about the case and thereafter arrested him. Recorded his confessional statement. He prepared the sketch of the knife and thereafter sealed the same. He also seized the blood stained cloth of the accused. He got conducted the postmortem of the deceased and after postmortem examination the dead body of the deceased was handed over to her relative. He obtained PM Report and subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence. He sent the exhibits to the FSL and during investigation he recorded the statement of witnesses from time to time and after completion of the investigations he prepared the challan u/s. 302 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act and finally STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 13 OF PAGE 69 14 filed the charge sheet in the court and accused was put for trial.
5. After compliance of the provisions of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure, Ld. MM committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, it was assigned to this court.
6. Vide order dated 01.10.2011, charge under Section 302/324 IPC framed against accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Later on amended charge were framed on 27.01.12 as in previous charge date, time and place were left to be mentioned inadvertently.
7. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 28 witnesses.
PW1 Ct. Harish, PW2 HC Madan Singh, PW3 Gurmeet Singh @ Kainchi, PW4 SI Prem Singh, PW5 Ct. Pape Gawda, PW6 Dr. Florence Almeida, PW7 ASI Gurjant Singh, PW8 Ct. Shakeel Ahmad,PW9 Dr. Vijay Dhankar, PW10 Wct. Savita, PW11Ct. Aaskaran, PW12 Dr. J.V. Kiran, PW13 HC Mahesh Kumar, PW14 Dr. Kuldeep Singh, PW15 Ct. Hardesh Kumar, PW16 Ct. Dinesh Kumar, PW17 SI Manohar, PW18 Ct. Virender, PW19 HC Surender Pal, PW20 Ct. Jaswant, PW21 SI Murki Lal, PW22 Shri D.K. Mishra, Home Deptt. GNCT of Delhi., PW23 HC Shiv Ram, PW24 Jaswinder Kaur, PW25 Gurbachan Singh @ Rura Singh, PW26 HC Sukrampal, PW27 Ct. Ram Prasad, PW28 Inspector/IO Yashpal Singh STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 14 OF PAGE 69 15 EVIDENCE
8. PW1 Ct. Harish is photographer. He deposed that on 09.06.2011 he was posted in Mobile Crime Team and went to the House No. G5/381, Sector16, Second Floor, Rohini, Delhi and there he took 20 photographs Ex.PW1/A1 to Ex.PW1/A20 and also proved their negatives as Ex.PW1/B1 to Ex.PW1/B20. He was not cross examined.
9. PW2 Ct. Madan Singh deposed that on 26.05.2011 on the direction of the IO Inspector Yashpal Singh, he took one application for blood sample of Jaswinder Kaur and her brother Gurmeet Singh and doctor took blood in gauze with blood sample of Jaswinder Kaur and kept the same in a small plastic vial and sealed the same with the seal of SD alongwith MLC and sample seal and he seized the same vide memo Ex.PW2/A, deposited the same in the malkhana. He proved the copy of application Ex.PW2/B. In his cross examination he had stated that he was handed over application at 12/12.30pm and came back at 1.30/1.45pm.
10. PW3 Gurmeet Singh @ Kainchi is the son of the deceased, he had deposed that they are three brother and six rd th sisters. Rajender Kaur @ Rajji is his sister of 3 or 4 number in his STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 15 OF PAGE 69 16 th family and then said 5 number sister and accused Harjeet Singh @ Raju is the husband of his sister Rajinder Kaur @ Rajji who was residing at G6/128, Second Floor, Sector16,Rohini, Delhi. Further he deposed that accused Harjeet suspects the character of his sister and suspected that he used to say "Maa Dhanda Karwati Hai", due to which accused beat his sister and have enmity with him and his mother Harbhajan Kaur and his family members. He further stated that on 08.06.2011 at 9pm he was sleeping at his house at that time, he heard the noise of his sister, he woke up and saw that blood was oozing out from the hand of his sister Jaswinder Kaur and the room of their balcony and accused Harjeet @ Raju was present there and he was saying to his mother Harbhajan Kaur that, "Tun Ladkiyo Se Dhanda Karwati Hai, Aaj Tera Kaam Tamam Kar Denge", and he gave knife blow in the stomach of his mother and thereafter ran away from there. He tried to apprehend him but accused ran away. He further stated that he took his mother and sister to BSA Hospital in TSR and his mother was declared brought dead and sister was treated there and police came, his statement and recorded statement and also recorded his statement. He alongwith his sister reached at PS and his another brother Ruda Singh was also STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 16 OF PAGE 69 17 present there. accused Harjeet was also present there. Jaswinder handed over her blood stained kurta to the police, police seized the same vide memo Ex.PW3/A. Thereafter, he went to his house alongwith his brother and thereafter to BSA Hospital. He identified the dead body of his brother. On 25.6.2011 Jaswinder Kaur came at PS with him and thereafter he alongwith HC Madan Singh went to BSA Hospital where took blood sample of his sister and sealed the same with the seal of SD, seized the same vide memo Ex.PW2/A. He identified the accused Harjeet and also identified the green colour kurta as Ex.P2.
In his cross examination, he had stated that he went to bed on 08.06.11 at 7pm. His sister Jaswinder Kaur, his brother Gurbachan Singh and his mother Harbhajan Kaur were present at the house. He had not made any complaint regarding the beating of his sister by his brother in law Harjeet and had not taken any action personally in this regard. He further stated that room in which he was sleeping and the room where his mother was stabbed was only 3 rooms apart. He followed the accused upto upstairs only. He also raised alarm and never gathered and till that time accused ran away from the spot. The blood was also fallen at the stairs. He further STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 17 OF PAGE 69 18 stated that his statement was recorded under on the next day morning of the incident.
11. PW4 SI Prem Singh is incharge of Crime Team has deposed that on 8.6.2011 at about 10.16 pm he received information nd from District Control Room and reached at the spot G5/381, 2 Floor, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi. He reached there where Inspector Yashpal was present with his staff. He found lot of blood inside the house. Photographer Ct. Harish took the photographs of the spot. He prepared his report. In his cross examination, he had stated that he reached at the spot at 10.35pm and left at 9.40pm and again said 11.40pm. No finger prints was found at the spot, despite his best efforts. Son of the deceased, who handicapped was also present at the spot. He further stated that son of the deceased was saying that, incident was taken place at about 10pm and on the basis of the same he put time of the incident in his report as 9pm.
12. PW5 Ct. Pape Gawda had deposed that on 09.06.2011 at about 1am, he was called by DO HC Surender Pal and he reached there and took three envelops containing FIR for delivering the same to the concerned MM, Joint CP, DCP and other higher officers. He was not cross examined.
STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 18 OF PAGE 69 19
13. PW6 Dr. Florence Almeida had deposed that on 08.06.2011 she examined Harbhajan Kaur and prepared MLC No. 4528/11 Ex.PW6/A and sealed the cloths of deceased and handed over to the duty officer to be handed over to the IO. She further stated that dead body was handed over to Ct. at duty for further handing over to the IO. She further stated that on the same day, she examined Jaswinder Kaur vide MLC No.4527/11 Ex.PW6/B. In her cross examination she stated that she handed over clothes of deceased to duty constable at about 9.50pm.
14. PW7 ASI Gurjant Singh had deposed that on 08.06.11 at about 9.27 pm he was present in the area with Ct. Hardesh and he received a call from duty officer regarding DD No.13A, thereafter, he alongwith Ct. reached at G5/381, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi. Beat Constable Aas Karan and SI Murki Lal and other staff were already present there. He found lot of blood lying in the house on the floor and he came to know that injured was already taken to the hospital. He alongwith Ct. Hardesh reached at BSA Hospital where he collected the MLC of Harbhajan Kaur and Jaswinder Kaur and handed over the same to the Inspector Yashpal, who came at the spot. Inspector Yashpal recorded statement of Jaswinder Kaur and STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 19 OF PAGE 69 20 prepared the rukka. Ct. Dinesh handed over one sealed cartoon containing clothes of the deceased Ex.PW7/A. In his cross examination he had stated that on receiving the information regarding the quarrel, but no name was mentioned in that information. He further stated that he reached at the hospital at about 9.55pm. He further stated that no family of the injured had met him at the spot. Public persons gathered there informed him that injured were already taken to the hospital and he remained at the hospital till 12.30pm and thereafter he went for another duty.
15. PW8 Ct. Shakeel Ahmad had deposed that on 08.06.2011 he was working as computer operator and recorded statement and at about 12.10am he received a statement of Jaswinder Kaur and rukka of Inspector Yashpal Singh for registration of FIR from duty officer HC Surender Pal and on the basis of said statement of Jaswinder Kaur FIR was registered. In his cross examination, he denied the suggestion that, he recorded FIR on next day at about 56am at the instance of the IO.
16. PW9 Dr. Vijay Dhankar had deposed that on 19.08.2011 a patient Jaswinder Kaur was produced before him alongwith MLC No.4527/11 dated 8.6.2011. He gave his opinion of the injuries as STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 20 OF PAGE 69 21 simple in nature and proved his report as Ex.PW9/A. He was not cross examined. He was again recalled for further examination in chief and he deposed that Dr.J.V. Kiran had left the services of hospital and his present whereabouts are not known as per record and he is acquainted with the handwriting of Dr. J.V. Kiran. The postmortem report is Ex.PW12/A was prepared by J.V. Kiran, which bears his signatures at point A. he further stated that he has given subsequent opinion of the knife and proved as Ex.PW12/B. He was not cross examined.
17. PW10 WCt. Savita had deposed that on 09.06.2011 she recorded DD No.26B, regarding arrival of Ct. Pepe Gowda after delivering the special report and she proved the DD as Ex.PW10/A. In his cross examination she had deposed that she recorded the DD at the instance of IO and SHO.
18. PW11 Ct. Aaskaran had deposed that on 08.06.2011, nd he received an information of quarrel at G5/381, 2 Floor, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi. He immediately reached there where ASI Gurjant and Ct. Hardesh were already present there. He found lot of blood in the room and came to know that injured was already taken to the hospital and he informed the said facts to the SHO and SHO STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 21 OF PAGE 69 22 Inspector Sanjeev Kumar reached at the spot alongwith Inspector Yashpal and another official. Inspector Yashpal left SI Murki Lal at the spot and they went to the hospital. Inspector Sanjeev Kumar returned at the spot with other staff. He further deposed that Gurcharan Singh @ Ruda Singh also reached at the spot. Crime Team officials also reached at the spot with the photographer and inspected the spot and took photographs. Inspector Yashpal lifted the blood from the spot and kept the same in a plastic dibbi and sealed with the seal of YP and he also seized with the seal of YP and seized vide memo Ex.PW11/A. He further stated that thereafter they returned to the PS alongwith Gurcharan Singh. Harjeet Singh, HC Surender Pal and Ct. Ram Prasad were already present there. Gurbachan Singh had identified the Harjeet Singh as the assailant, who caused injuries to his mother. Blood stained TShirt and blood stained knife recovered from the accused Harjeet. IO prepared the sketch of knife Ex.PW11/B and measured the knife and thereafter seized vide memo Ex.PW11/C. He seized blood stained Tshirt after making pullanda and seized vide memo Ex.PW11/D. He further stated that Kainchi Singh and Bablu also reached there and identified accused Harjeet Singh as the assailant, who caused STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 22 OF PAGE 69 23 injuries to their sister. Knife cuts and blood stains were also found on the green colour kurta/ladies suit of Babli and seized vide memo Ex.PW3/A. Thereafter he alongwith Inspector Yashpal, Babli, Kainchi Singh, Gurbachan and other staff members reached at the spot. accused was interrogated by the IO and his disclosure statement Ex.PW11/E was recorded. He further stated that accrued had also pointed out the incident Ex.PW11/F. He has also identified the case property and accused.
In his cross examination, he stated that he does not know the name of public persons who informed him about the quarrel. He further stated that there was no specific marks of identification on the knife. He further stated that there was no blood on the staircase at the spot. He further stated that when he reached at the spot knife was in possession of the duty officer and TShirt of the accused was got removed from the person of accused Harjeet in his presence.
19. PW12 Dr. J.V. Kiran had deposed that on 09.06.2011 he conducted the postmortem examination on dead body of deceased Harbhajan Kaur and proved his PM report as Ex.PW12/A and his subsequent opinion as Ex.PW12/B. He did not appeared for STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 23 OF PAGE 69 24 crossexamination.
20. PW13 HC Mahesh Kumar had stated that on 08.06.2011 he was posted at CPCR, PHQ at about 9.27pm 'Zabardarst Jhagda' from the phone number 9289901718 and he recorded the same in PCR Form No.1 Ex.PW13/A. He gave the information to the concerned computer operator and the informed the concerned PS. He was not cross examined.
21. PW14 Dr. Kuldeep Singh had deposed that on 25.06.11 he took the blood sample in gauze piece and handed over the same to HC Madan. He also prepared the MLC No.5025/11, which is proved as Ex.PW14/A. In his cross examination he stated that the MLC was prepared in the handwriting of Dr. Monika under his supervision.
22. PW15 Ct. Hardesh Kumar had deposed that on 09.06.2011, he was working as duty constable at BSA Hospital. Dr. J.V. Kiran handed over to him blood gauze piece with sample seal which he handed over to Inspector Yashpal which he seized as Ex.PW15/A with dead body of deceased was handed over to Gurmeet Singh vide memo Ex.PW15/B. In his cross examination, he denied the suggestion that STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 24 OF PAGE 69 25 no exhibits were given in his presence. Therefore, he does not remember the initial words of seal.
23. PW16 Ct. Dinesh Kumar had stated that on 09.06.11 he was posted as duty constable on that day Dr. Florence Almeida had handed over to him one corrugated box containing Kameez and Duppatta of deceased Harbhajan Kaur same were sealed with the seal of SD and seized vide memo Ex.PW7/A. In his cross examination he denied the suggestion that no exhibits were handed over to him.
24. PW17 SI Manohar Lal had stated that on 28.7.2011 he nd alongwith IO reached at the spot i.e. Plot No. G5/381, 2 floor, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi where complainant Jaswinder Singh and Gurmeet Singh were also present and he had inspected the spot on the pointing out by the complainant Jaswinder Kaur, he took rough notes Ex.PW17/A. He denied the suggestion that he has not visited the spot and prepared the scaled site plan as Ex.PW17/A at the PS at the instance of IO.
25. PW18 Ct. Virender has deposed that on 14.07.2011 he took eleven sealed pullandas alongwith sample seal from the MHC(M) vide RC No.77/21/11 and deposited the same in the FSL, STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 25 OF PAGE 69 26 Rohini. He was not cross examined.
26. PW19 HC Surender Pal had deposed that on 08.06.2011 he was working as duty officer from 5pm to 1am (midnight) and Ct. Ram Prasad arrested him. On that day at about 9.27pm wireless operator informed him about the quarrel at G5/381, Sector - 16, Rohini, Delhi. He recorded the DD No.31A as Ex.PW19/A, which he handed over to ASI Gurjant for necessary action. He further deposed that at about 12.10pm Ct. Jaswant handed over to him rukka and sent by Inspector Yashpal on the basis of which FIR was registered by Ct. Shakeel Ahmad computer operator, which he proved as Ex.PW19/D. He further deposed that he recorded DD No.29 as Kaime DD, which he proved as Ex.PW19/B and also stated that he recorded DD No.30 as closure of FIR, which he proved as Ex.PW19/C. He further stated that after finishing his duty at about 1a.m. he handed over charge to HC Ramesh and as soon as he went near the duty officer's room gate where ct. Ram Prasad was also standing. In the meantime, Sardar Harjeet Singh, who was wearing a chocolate colour TShirt and was carrying a Chura (Knife) in his right hand and Tshirt and Chura were having blood stains. Harjeet Singh told him that he had injured his STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 26 OF PAGE 69 27 mother in law and sister in law with knife. He had come to surrender himself. He took the knife from his hand and took him inside the Investigation Room with the help of Ct. Ram Prasad and waited for Inspector Yashpal Singh. Inspector Yashpal Singh alongwith one Ct. Aaskaran and one handicapped Sardar whose name was revealed as Gurbachan Singh came in the PS and on seeing accused Harjeet Singh, Gurbachan Singh started crying loudly that, "Isine Meri Mummy Harbhajan Kaur aur meri Behan Jaswinder Kaur ko chure se maara hai aur ghayal kiya hai aur yeh mera Jija Lagta hai". Thereafter, he handed over the accused Harjeet alongwith blood stained knife to the IO. He identified the case property as well as accused.
In his cross examination, he stated that he alongwith ct. Ram Prasad remained with the accused Harjeet Singh for about 1/1½ hour. accused had confessed that he has caused injuries to his mother in law and sister in law due to some family disputes, but had not confessed that there was the family disputes at that time. He denied the suggestion that he made DD No.13A after 6am. He also denied that FIR is ante timed. He further stated that after the expiry of his duty time, he does not stay at the PS and went to his house. STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 27 OF PAGE 69 28
27. PW20 Ct. Jaswant had deposed that on 08.06.2011 at about 9.30pm he alongwith Inspector Yashpal reached there and they came to know that injured had been taken to the hospital. They reached at hospital where they came to know that Harbhajan Kaur had died due to injuries received from knife. Thereafter, they met Jaswinder Kaur and her brother Gurmeet Singh. IO recorded statement of Jaswinder Kaur and prepared the rukka and gave the same to him for registration of FIR. He went to the PS handed over the same to HC Surender Pal, duty officer, who registered the FIR. In his cross examination he had stated that he left the hospital at 11.50pm, came to the spot at about 12.45 am. He left the spot alone early morning may be 5/6am.
28. PW21 Murki Lal had deposed that same facts as deposed by PW11 Ct. Aaskaran.
29. PW22 D.K. Mishra has proved the notification regarding the knife issued by Delhi Government as Ex.PW22/A. He was not cross examined.
30. PW23 HC Shiv Ram is the MHC(M) and he has proved the entry in register No.19 Ex.PW23/A and also proved the entry in register No.21 as Ex.PW23/B and copy of receipt of depositing of STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 28 OF PAGE 69 29 exhibits in the FSL as Ex.PW23/C. In his cross examination, he denied all the entries are ante timed and ante dated at the instance of IO.
31. PW24 Jaswinder Kaur is the complainant/injured. She had stated that accused Harjeet Singh is the husband of her sister nd and she alongwith his family resides at G6/128, 2 Floor, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi with her mother and brothers. accused used to suspect on the character of her sister, due to which quarrel used to take place between them. accused Harjeet Singh suspected that her mother used to indulge his sister Rajni in prostitution, due to which accused was enemical towards them. She further stated that on 08.06.2011, at 9pm, she was present in his house and was in the balcony room and her mother had been cooking food. Her brother Gurmeet Singh @ Kainchi Singh was in the bed room and her other brother Rura Singh was sitting on the sofa and taking food. At that time some body knocked the door and she opened the door and saw that her jija/accused Harjeet Singh @ Raju was there and was carrying a meat cutter knife and abused her and entered into their house and first accused slapped her and gave knife on her left hand. She raised alarm and thereafter accused attacked her twice on her STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 29 OF PAGE 69 30 back with knife. Her mother came there and accused attacked on her stomach with knife by saying that he will finish her off. Her brother Gurmeet came there and he tried to caught hold his jija/accused but accused ran away. His mother fell down and blood was oozed out. Neighbour also came there and they made telephone call to police from his mobile. He alongwith her brother took her mother to the hospital in TSR where doctor declared her brought dead. She was also medically examined. Her shirt was seized by the police vide memo Ex.PW3/A. She identified her shirt as Ex.P2 and also identified accused correctly.
In her cross examination, she had stated that she handed over her shirt at 1/1.30am in the night on 09.06.20112. she admitted the suggestion that there are many holes from which cloth has been cut, but she submits that at that time there was no such hole in the back side, as she handed over the same to the police. She further stated that her husband is residing at Uttam Nagar and she has been residing with her mother for about 2 ½ years. She denied the suggestion that on the day of incident, she had quarreled with her mother. She further denied the suggestion that to save herself she concocted a false story that accused Harjeet has STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 30 OF PAGE 69 31 stabbed her and her mother. She further stated that as soon as she had opened the door, accused had stabbed her due to which she fell down. accused had stabbed her when she got up. She was standing just near the gate when she was stabbed, she had moved just 1/1 ½ ft., she was stabbed on her back and immediately after stabbing, accused stabbed her mother as her mother moved ahead towards her. She further stated that her mother was stabbed near the door of the middle room as her mother came towards her. She further stated that the distance between me and my mother where we were stabbed was about 1 ½ ft. She further stated that she does not know the name of the person who made call on 100 number to the police.
32. PW25 Gurcharan Singh had also deposed almost same facts and regarding the incident as deposed by his brother and sister. In his examination in chief he stated that police reached at their house and at that time he was alone in his house. He further deposed that police lifted the blood stained floor, sample floor and blood, taken into pullanda and seized vide memo Ex.PW11/A. He went to the PS alongwith police officials. accused Harjeet @ Raju was present in the PS alongwith knife and he was interrogated and arrested at his instance vide memo Ex.PW25/A and personal search STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 31 OF PAGE 69 32 was taken vide memo Ex.PW25/B. He made disclosure statement Ex.PW11/E. IO prepared the sketch of Chura as Ex.PW11/B. The blood stained Tshirt of accused was taken off put into pullanda vide memo Ex.PW11/D. Her sister also came in the PS and blood stained kurta also handed over to the police. He identified the case property i.e. Chura and Kurta and Tshirt and exhibited as Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 respectively as identified by the police. In his cross examination, police reached at his house at about 9.30pm, he was alone at that time. He recorded his statement that they reached at the PS at about 10pm. The knife was in the hand of accused Harjeet when they reached at the PS. Police had not taken any finger prints of accused in his presence. He further stated that there was no dispute in their family regarding money. He further stated that blood fell on the stairs as well as on the ground floor.
33. PW26 HC Sukh Ram Pal is the PCR Incharge. He stated that on 08.06.11 at about 9.27pm he was near Deepali Chowk, when he received a message from PCR Control Room that a quarrel had taken place at G5/381, Sector16, Rohini, so he reached there and police was already reached there. Thereafter, he went to BSA Hospital and came to know that the injured had already STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 32 OF PAGE 69 33 been declared brought dead. He passed the said information toe control room. He was not cross examined.
34. PW27 Ct. Ram Prasad had deposed same facts regarding the arrival of accused Harjeet Singh in the PS and apprehension of the accused.
35. PW28 Inspector Yashpal is the IO of the case. He had deposed that on 08.06.2011 he was on petrolling duty in the area with Ct. Jaswant and received information by phone that at G5/381, Sector16, Rohini a severe quarrel had been going on at the abovesaid address. He immediately reached alongwith Ct. Jaswant at the said spot where SHO alongwith other staff already present. SI Murki Lal and Beat Constable Aaskaran were also present there. Blood was spread near the gate of the abovesaid flat and came to know that injured had been taken to the BSA Hospital. He alongwith Ct. Jaswant went to BSA Hospital where ASI Gurjant Singh met and he produced MLC of Harbhajan Kaur and Jaswinder Kaur. On the MLC of Harbhajan Kaur doctor had declared her brought dead. He met with Jaswinder Kaur and recorded her statement Ex.PW24/A and made endorsement on the said statement Ex.PW28/A and handed over to Ct. Jaswant for registration of the FIR. Duty STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 33 OF PAGE 69 34 constable Dinesh at BSA Hospital had produced a carton containing dupatta and shirt and both were blood stained and belongs to deceased Harbhajan Kaur, which was sealed with the seal of SD and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW7/A. Thereafter, he came back at the spot where SHO Inspector Sanjeev Kumar, SI Murki Lal and Ct. Aaskaran were found. Ct. Jaswant came to the spot from the PS and handed over the copy of FIR and original tehrir to him as investigation was entrusted to him. He prepared the site plan at his instance. Crime Team also reached at the spot taken photographs of the spot. He lifted the blood scattered at the floor, blood stained earth control sample by keeping them in small plastic container and sealed with the seal of YP and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.P'W11/A. Thereafter he alongwith Gurbachan Singh @ Ruda Singh, SI Murki Lal, Ct. Askaran went in search of accused Harjit Singh. Thereafter they came to the PS where one person was standing before duty officer HC Surender Pal and DD Writer Ct. Ram Pal and on seeing the person Gurbachan Singh shouted that he was the brother in law (jija) who had assaulted his mother and sister and had escaped from the spot. He was apprehended by the DO and handed over to him alongwith blood STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 34 OF PAGE 69 35 stained knife. He interrogated accused Harjeet Singh and arrested him vide memo Ex.PW25/A took his personal search and recorded confessional statement Ex.PW11/A. He also seized the shirt of the accused vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/D, prepared the sketch of the knife and seized vide memo Ex.PW11/E. In the meanwhile, Gurmeet Singh @ Kaichi Singh, complainant Jaswinder Kaur came there and identified the accused Harjeet Singh. Jaswinder Kaur had produced a blood stained green colour lady shirt which have cut marks of knife on the back side and the same was converted into pullanda and sealed with the seal of YP and seized vide memo Ex.PW3/A. The nd accused also pointed out the place of incident i.e. G5/381, 2 Floor, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi, where accused had assaulted Jaswinder Kaur and Jaswinder Kaur and pointing out memo Ex.PW11/F prepared. He deposited the case properties with the MHC(M). He got conducted the PM of the dead body of deceased Harbhajan Kaur. The application for conducting postmortem examination on the dead body is Ex.PW28/C and brief facts Ex.PW28/C1. He further stated that the dead body was identified by Gurbachan Singh and Gurmeet Singh and he recorded their statement in this respect Ex.PW28/C4 and Ex.PW28/C3 respectively. He further stated that STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 35 OF PAGE 69 36 doctor handed over to him two sealed pullandas sealed with the seal of FM Dr. BSA, Delhi Govt. and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW13/A. He further deposed that he sent Ct. Madan Lal with complainant for taking blood samples of the complainant and he made an application in this regard Ex.PW2/B. HC Madan Singh handed over to him blood sample sealed with the seal of SD, which is seized vide memo Ex.PW2/A. He identified the case property as well as the accused Harjeet Singh.
In his cross examination he had stated that he reached at the spot at 9.45 pm. No public person or eyewitness were found at the spot. He further stated that he left the spot at about 10pm and came back at the spot at about 12.40/12.45 night and remained there for about 1½ hour. He further stated that neighbourer did not inform anything about the case by saying that they do not know anything. He further stated that he searched the accused in Sardar Colony through F Block, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi. He further stated that when he reached at PS he found accused in duty officer's room. HC Surender and Ct. Ram Prasad were also standing near the accused and knife was in the hand of HC Surender Pal when he first saw the accused.
STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 36 OF PAGE 69 37
36. Statement of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded in which he denied all the incriminating evidence put to him and had stated that he does not know why the witnesses have deposed against him and he was lifted from his house and falsely implicated in this case because complainant, deceased and her family members want to grab his flat No. J167, Sardar Colony, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi and he does not lead any evidence in his defence.
37. I have heard arguments from Shri A.K. Gupta, ld. Addl.
PP for the State and Shri Ashok Garg, ld. Counsel for accused and gone through the record very carefully.
38. It is argued by ld. Addl. PP for the State that from the testimony PW24 Jaswinder Kaur who is the injured as well as the eyewitness it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused had first stabbed her and then stabbed her mother Harbhajan Kaur. He further argued that testimony of PW24 Jaswinder Kaur is duly corroborated by testimony of PW3 Gurmeet Singh and PW25 Gurbachan Singh, who are other eyewitness of the incident and had categorically stated that accused Harjeet Singh had stabbed PW24 Jaswinder Kaur and deceased Harbhajan Kaur. He further argued STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 37 OF PAGE 69 38 that from the Postmortem report it is proved that deceased had died due to stab injuries by knife. Further from the testimony of PW28 Inspector Yashpal Singh & PW19 HC Surender Pal, it is proved that accused had after causing injuries to PW24 and deceased came to the PS with the weapon of offence i.e. knife and surrendered himself. Hence, the said conduct of the accused is relevant and can be read against the accused that he committed the murder of deceased and attempted to commit murder of PW24 Jaswinder Kaur and accused is liable to be convicted for offence punishable u/s. 302/307 IPC.
39. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that testimonies of PW3 Gurmeet Singh, PW24 Jaswinder Kaur and PW25 Gurbachan Singh are not reliable because they are interested witnesses. In fact PW 24 had caused injuries to the deceased during their scuffle, which led to the death of the deceased and later on accused has been falsely implicated in this case to save her and to grab the property/flat of the accused.
40. Ld. Counsel further argued that there are material contradiction in the statement of PW. He further argued that the initial information to PCR name of assailant is not mention despite STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 38 OF PAGE 69 39 accused being known to informant Gurmeet,which prove that accused had not caused injuries to Jaswant Kaur and Harbhajan Kaur and allegation against accused are afterthought. He further argued that accused had not come to the PS to surrender himself, but was lifted from his house and falsely implicated in this case in connivance with the police. Hence, accused is entitled to be acquitted.
FINDING
41. The accused has been charged for culpable homicide amount to murder of his motherinlaw Harbhajan Kaur.
42. The deceased had died homicidal death is undisputed fact, even otherwise from Postmortem EXPW12/ A it is proved that on the body of deceased had following injuries: External Injuries:
1. Stab wound 7.3cm X 3cm X about 17 cm deep oblique places present on inner front of upper third of right side of abdomen. The margins of the wound were contused. The upper end of the wound was placed 19cm below the upper end of manubrium sternii in the midline front and lower end of the wound was placed 80cm above the heel. The wound was directed upward, backward and inward tearing the inner front aspect of right STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 39 OF PAGE 69 40 diaphragm and lower anterior aspect of pericardium penetrating the right atrium.
Opinion:
The cause of death in this case is hemorrhagic shock consequent to penetrating injury to the chest caused by sharp stabbing weapon. The injury mentioned in the external injury is antemortem, fresh in duration and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
Hence, it is proved that deceased had died homicidal death.
43. Now, the only question is left that who had killed the deceased Harbhajan Kaur. The prime witness of the prosecution case are PW3 Gurmeet Singh @ Kainchi, PW24 Jaswinder Kaur and PW25 Gurbachan Singh @ Rura Singh, who are eyewitnesses of the incident.
44. PW24 Jaswinder Kaur had testified that accused is the husband of her sister Rajinder Kaur @Rajni. accused used to suspect her mother indulged her sister Rajni in prostitution and due to which he has enmical relation towards them. She further testified that on 089.06.2011 at about 9pm when she was in her house in balcony room, accused Harjeet came there with meat cutter knife and first he slapped her and thereafter gave blow on her hand and when she raised alarm accused attacked twice on her back with STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 40 OF PAGE 69 41 knife when her mother came to intervene, he attacked on her mother with knife and due to which her mother fell down. Her brother Gurmeet tried to caught hold Harjeet but he ran away.
Nothing has come out in her crossexamination to disbelieve her testimony. In her crossexamination she had categorically denied that on the day of incident she had quarreled with her mother Harbhajan Kaur and she stabbed her mother and falsely cooked the story that accused stabbed her mother. In my view the said suggestion given by Ld. Defense counsel is a bald suggestion without any basis. It is not the case of accused that he was present when deceased was stabbed, therefor accused had failed to explain how he came to know that PW 24 Jaswant Kaur had stabbed her mother. Further no reason has been given by accused what was the reason of quarrel between deceased and PW24 that PW24 stabbed the deceased Harbhajan Kaur. In his statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. Accused had taken the defense that witnesses want to grab his property. But has not given any explanation how his property will come in the hand of PW24 ,if accused is convicted.
45. Further accused has given no explanation how PW24 STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 41 OF PAGE 69 42 got injuries. From the perusal of testimony of PW 6 Dr. Florence Almeida who prepared her MLC EXPW6/B it is evident that PW24 has received clean incised wound measuring 10X1.5cm with taking downwards over her head and clean incised stab injury measuring 4cmX1cm over her back which corroborates her testimony that she was hit over her hand and back by the accused. Doctor has not opined that these injuries are self inflicted. Even no suggestion has been given to tnhe witnesses that injuries are self inflicted. There appear to be no probable rason that deceased Harbhajan Kaur and PW24 Jaswinder Kaur who are mother and daughter would quarrel to such extent that they would stab each other with knife. The injuries to PW24 are not self inflicted. In fact no such suggestion was given to the PW24 Jaswinder Kaur or to the PW6 Dr. Florence Almeida, who prepared the MLC of PW24.
46. The testimony of PW24 is consistent with her statement EXPW24/A recorded by police in which she has almost stated the same facts. Her testimony is duly corroborated by the her MLC. Hence considering the aforesaid facts I found her testimonies consistent, cogent and trustworthy and sufficient to convict the accused without any corroboration. In Noor Salam vs State (Govt. STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 42 OF PAGE 69 43 NCT of Delhi) Dt. 29.01.2013 passed by Hon'ble Justice Sh. S.P. Garg it is held that evidence of injured witness could not be disbelieved without assigning any reasons. Hon'ble judge in para 12 has held as under : The evidence of an injured witness cannot be disbelieved without assigning cogent reasons. The law on this aspect has been detailed in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Naresh and ors. (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 324 as under:
"27. The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 43 OF PAGE 69 44 evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions CRL. A. No. 694/2010 Page 7 of 13 and discrepancies therein. (Vide Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab,m Balraje v. State of Maharashtra and Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P.)"
Similarly in another case Abdul Sayed vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 259, Supreme Court laid down : "28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness." [Vide Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar, Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P., Machhi Singh v.
State of Punjab, Appabhai v. State of Gujarat Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra, Bhag Singh Mohar v. State of U.P. (SCC p.
STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 44 OF PAGE 69 45 606bc), Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan, Annareddy Sambasiva Redey v. State of A.P. And Balraje v. State of Maharashtra.] While deciding this issue, a similar view has been examined by the doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tubewell.
In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka this Court has held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his CRL. A. No.694/2010 page 8 of 13 presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident. In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness subjected to lengthy crossexamination and nothing can be elicited to discard his STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 45 OF PAGE 69 46 testimony, it should be relied upon (vide Krishan v. State of Haryana). Thus, we are of the considered opinion that evidence of Darshan Singh (PW4) has rightly been relied upon by the courts below."
The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law.
This as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein."
47. Testimony of PW 24 is also corroborated by PW3 and PW25. PW3 Gurmeet Singh who is the son of the deceased Harbhajan Kaur had also testified that accused Harjeet suspected the character of her sister Rajni and used to say "Maa Dhandha Karwati Hai" (mother is indulging Rajni in prostitution). He further deposed that on 08.06.2011 at about 9pm he was sleeping at his house and on hearing the noise of his sister he woke up and came STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 46 OF PAGE 69 47 and saw that blood was oozing out from the hands of his sister, who was present in the room of balcony and accused was saying to his mother that, "Tun Ladkiyo Se Dhanda Karwati Hai, Aaj Tera Kaam Tamam Kar Denge", and he gave knife blow on the stomach of her mother and thereafter ran away. Again in his cross examination, nothing has come out to disbelieve his testimonies. No suggestion has been given by the witness, he was not present at the spot at the time of incident. Spot is a small flat, hence, it is quite natural that if some cry has been made in one room it would be heard in another room. Hence, arrival of PW3 Gurmeet Singh at the time of the incident after hearing cry is not unnatural. No suggestion has been given to him that he was not present at the time of incident. The suggestion given to the accused that he has given false statement to save his sister Jaswinder Kaur, who had allegedly stabbed his mother Harbhajan Kaur is appeared to be lame excuse given by the ld. Defence counsel to defend the accused.
48. Similarly, PW25 Gurbachan Singh @ Rura Singh had also deposed that accused used to suspect on the character of her sister and on this he used to quarrel with her sister. He thought that his mother used to indulge his sister in prostitution so he was STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 47 OF PAGE 69 48 enmical towards them. PW25 further testified that on 08.06.2011 at 9pm when he was sitting at sofa her sister was in the room of balcony and he heard the noise of knocking the door, his sister Babli had opened the door and heard the noise of quarreling and saw that accused had stabbed her sister twice on the back and once on the arm and due to which his sister fell down and when her mother came there, accused stabbed her mother and thereafter accused ran away. Nothing has come out in the cross examination but PW25 also categorically denied the suggestion that there was some disputes in the family with regard to money or that her sister had quarreled with his mother and during that quarrel her sister had stabbed his mother.
49. Thus from the testimony of PW3, PW24 and PW25 it is proved that accused Harjeet Singh @ Raju, who had stabbed their mother Harbhajan Kaur with the intention to commit her murder because he suspect that deceased Harbhajan is indulging her wife in prostitution and he also stabbed PW24 Jaswinder Kaur but certainly he does not intend to kill her, that is why he did not stab or gave blow on her any vital part though he stabbed her mother in stomach.
STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 48 OF PAGE 69 49
50. On the cost of repetition, I again say that defence of the accused that deceased Harbhajan Kaur and PW24 Jaswinder Kaur had quarreled with each other due to which PW24 Jaswinder Kaur stabbed deceased Harbhajan Kaur does not appear to be much inspiring and probable. No suggestion has been given to PW24 Jaswinder Kaur or to PW3 and PW25 on what ground PW24 Jaswinder Kaur had quarreled with deceased Harbhajan Kaur that she would take such a drastic step by stabbing the Harbhajan Kaur. No evidence has been led by accused in defence to prove what was the motive that PW24 would stabbed her mother. On the other hand, PW3 and PW24 had given probable motive why deceased stabbed her mother in law. No suggestion has been given to the witnesses that accused had cordial relation with his wife or his in laws. Further accused had taken defence in the statement recorded U/S. 313 Cr.P.C that, witnesses deposed falsely against him because they wanted to grab his Flat bearing no. J167, Sardar Colony, Sector16, Rohini, but I do not find any such suggestion given to PW3, PW24 and PW25 in their cross examination. Hence the reason given by accused of witnesses deposing against him appear to be afterthought, a last attempt to save himself. Hence defence taken by STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 49 OF PAGE 69 50 accused appeared to be false which is another incriminating circumstance against the accused.
51. The another contention of ld. Defence counsel that in the initial information given to the PCR, which is recorded in PCR form Ex.PW13/A, name of the assailants is not mentioned and only it is mentioned that "Jabardast Jhagda", which creates doubt that accused had caused the injuries to deceased and PW24, otherwise, would have given the name of accused. But, I do not find force in the said contention. PW3 Gurmeet has in his crossexamination has stated that he does know name of the person who made call to the police from his mobile phone on 100 no. but he was residing in the house opposite of their house. PW24 also stated in her testimony that, call to police was made by some public person. She had stated that public person arrived at the spot after running away of the accused, hence, the caller may have not seen the assailant, therefore, he has not given the name of assailant. Hence, in my view proper explanation has come on record why name of assailant not given to PCR.
52. Therefore, in these circumstances, I find the testimony of Prosecution witnesses PW3, PW24 And PW25 cogent consistent STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 50 OF PAGE 69 51 reliable and trustworthy. No other evidence is required to convict the accused. However, there are other corroborating evidence also which point out that accused had committed murder of deceased.
ARREST AND RECOVERY
53. As per prosecution case accused himself arrived in the PS with blood stained knife and was wearing bloodstain clothes at that time and confessed that he had injured his motherinlaw and sister in law. PW19 HC Surender Pal had deposed that on 08.06.2011, he was posted at PS - K.N.Katju Marg as duty officer from 5pm to 1am (night) and Ct. Ram Prasad was also posted with him as Assistant DD Writer. On that day, after finishing his duties at about 1am, he handed over the charge to HC Ramesh and as soon as he went near the gate of duty officer room where Ct. Ram Prasad was sitting, Sardar Harjeet Singh i.e. accused came in the PS who was wearing a chocolate colour TShirt and carrying a Chura (knife) in his hand and TShirt and Chura were having blood stains. Accused told him that he has injured his mother in law and sister in law with knife and he came to surrender himself. He took the chura from his hand with the help of Ct. Ram Prasad and took him inside the investigation room and waited for IO Inspector Yashpal Singh. At STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 51 OF PAGE 69 52 about 2/2.30 am Inspector Yashpal Singh alongwith Ct. Askaran and one handicapped Sardar, whose name revealed as Gurbachan Singh came there and after seeing the accused Harjeet Singh, Gurbachan Singh started crying loudly that he has stabbed his mother, Harbhajan Kaur and sister Jaswinder Kaur, ("Isine Meri Mummy Harbhajan Kaur aur meri Behan Jaswinder Kaur ko chure se maara hai aur ghayal kiya hai aur yeh mera Jija Lagta hai") and thereafter, he handed over accused Harjeet Singh alongwith blood stained knife to the IO Inspector Yashpal Singh and he also identified the TShirt of the accused as Ex.P3 and Chura as Ex.P1.
54. In his cross examination PW19 HC Surender Pal had stated that after expiry of his duty he did not stay at the PS and went to his house. He denied the suggestion that accused had not come to the PS in his presence alongwith knife.
55. PW27 Ct. Ram Prasad had also deposed same facts regarding the arrival of the accused with knife in the PS. In his cross examination PW27 had deposed that IO, recorded his statement at about 8/9am and statement of HC Surender Pal was recorded in his presence. He further stated that accused was carrying knife in his right hand and HC Surender Pal had taken the knife from hi. STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 52 OF PAGE 69 53 Accused was kept there for about 1 ½ hour and Inspector Yashpal Singh reached there at about 2/2.30am. He also denied the suggestion that accused Harjeet Singh had not come in the PS, neither accused was having any knife nor he had stated anything to them.
56. PW28 IO/Inspector Yashpal Singh had also deposed that at about 2am, he returned to the PS. He saw one person standing near duty officer and DD writer and on seeing the said person Gurbachan Singh stated that he was his brother in law who assaulted his mother and sister and had escaped from the spot, he was apprehended by the IO, duty officer handed over to IO blood stained knife. He further stated that accused was interrogated in the presence of Gurbachan Singh and after the interrogation accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW25/A and his personal search was taken vide memo Ex.PW25/B and he has recorded confessional statement of accused Ex.PW11/A and accused confessed that by this knife he has assaulted Harbhajan Kaur and Jaswinder Kaur and also stated that at that time he was wearing the same cloth and T Shirt of chocolate colour with blood stains was produced by the accused and same was seized by him after making pullanda and STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 53 OF PAGE 69 54 sealed with the seal of YP and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW11/D and he also prepared the sketch of the knife produced by the accused Ex.PW11/E and seized the knife after making pullanda Ex.PW11/C. He further stated that Gurmeet Singh @ Kaichi Singh and complainant also came to the PS and identified the accused, who had assaulted Jaswinder Kaur and Harbhajan Kaur.
57. PW3 Gurmeet Singh, PW11 Ct. Askaran and PW25 Gurbachan Singh have also deposed the same facts that accused Harjeet Singh @ Raju had come to the PS alongwith knife and he was arrested there. Nothing has come out in the cross examination of aforesaid witnesses to disbelieve their version. I do not see any reason that why the PWs will depose falsely regarding the arrival of the accused in the PS with knife. Accused had in his statement U/S 313 Cr.PC had stated that he was lifted from his house but I found that Ld. defence counsel has not given any suggestion to witnesses when he was lifted from his house. In fact no suggestion has been given to PW19, PW27 PW28 that accused was arrested from his house. There is another contention of Ld. Defence counsel that from the arrest memo Ex.PW25/A, it is evident that accused has been arrested at 7am, hence it is proved that he has not arrived in PS at STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 54 OF PAGE 69 55 1am, otherwise there should not be such delay of 6 hour in his arrest. But, I do not find much substance in the said contention because on perusal of testimony of PW28, I found that no question has been asked from PW28 in this regard so that he could explain about the said delay. Therefore, in these circumstances, I found that the version of the aforesaid police officials and public witnesses i.e. PW19, PW27, PW28, PW3 and PW25 are reliable that accused had come to the PS on its own to the PS with the blood stained knife Ex.P1 and was wearing blood stained Tshirt Ex.P3.
58. Another contention of Ld. Defense counsel that recovery of knife and blood stained TShirt is not admissible in evidence being hit by Section 25 & 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. In support of the case Ld. Counsel has relied upon Judgment Agnoo Nagesia vs State of Bihar AIR 1966 (SC) AIR 1996 SC 119. But, in my view said judgment is applicable to the extent that the confession of accused before police officer that he has injured his mother in law and sister in law with said knife and came to surrender himself would not be admissible in evidence being hit by section 25 and section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, but the act of the accused to arrive at the PS with blood stained knife is admissible u/s. 8 of the Indian STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 55 OF PAGE 69 56 Evidence Act as subsequent conduct. Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act is reproduced below:
8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct.--Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.
Explanation 1.--The word "conduct" in this section does not include statements, unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements; but this explanation is not to affect the relevancy of statements under any other section of this Act.
Explanation 2.--When the conduct of any person is relevant, any statement made to him or in his presence and hearing, which affects such conduct, is relevant.
59. Hence, the recovery of knife and bloodstain T Shirt from his possession is admissible in evidence and is another incriminating STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 56 OF PAGE 69 57 circumstance against the accused. Unfortunately FSL report not proved by the prosecution wherein it is mentioned that, human blood was found on knife and Tshirt but in my view, these does not make much difference as no suggestion has been given to the witnesses that blood on knife and T Shirt is not human blood.
60. PW12 Dr. J.V. Karan has conducted the postmortem of deceased Harbhajan Kaur. He was examined in chief on 15.3.2012 and proved his PM report as Ex.PW12/A and his subsequent opinion as Ex.PW12/B. His cross examination was deferred. Thereafter he did not appear as PW9 Dr. Vijay Dhankar who had appeared on behalf of Dr. J.V. Kiran had deposed that Dr.J.V. Kiran had left the services of the hospital and his present whereabouts are not known. He identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. J.V. Kiran and proved the postmortem report as Ex.PW12/A and subsequent report as Ex.PW12/B. He was not cross examined. Hence, the Postmortem Report remained unchallenged.
61. Further from the PM report Ex.PW12/A, it is proved that deceased Harbhajan Kaur was having stab wound 7.3cmX3cmX about 17 cm deep oblique placed in inner front of upper third of right side of abdomen. The depth of the injury proved that the knife blow STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 57 OF PAGE 69 58 has been given in her abdomen portion with great force had caused 7cm deep injury. As per the opinion of PW12 she had died due to said injuries.
62. From the subsequent opinion Ex.PW12/B, it is proved that the injury to deceased Harbhajan Kaur was caused by the knife, which was sent for the examination/opinion of PW12 Dr. J.V.Kiran.
63. PW28 Inspector Yashpal Singh had stated that he procured opinion of weapon offence from the concerned doctor. No suggestion has been given to the witness that he has not obtained the subsequent opinion. Hence, PM report and subsequent opinion corroborate the testimony pf PW3, PW24 and PW25 that deceased was stabbed with knife EXP1.
64. The information of the incident to police is prompt, which is proved from the PCR Form No.1 Ex.PW13/A, DD No.13A Ex.PW19/A that information was given at 9:26:52pm. PW28/IO had stated that he came at spot at 9.45pm and left the spot at 10pm. Thereafter, he went to hospital, where he met the Doctor, collected the MLC and recorded the statement of PW24 and prepared the rukka. FIR of the case Ex.PW19/D, has been recorded at 00:10 hours on 09.06.2011. Hence, there is no delay in recording the FIR. STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 58 OF PAGE 69 59 Prompt reporting of matter and prompt recording of FIR reduces the chances of manipulation.
65. From the testimonies of PW3, PW24 and PW25 and police official i.e. PW1 Ct. Harish PW4 SI Prem Singh, PW7 ASI Gurjant Singh, PW11 Ct. Aaskaran, PW21 SI Murki Lal and PW 28 Inspector Yashpal and photograph Ex.PW1/A1 to Ex.PW1/A20 and document Ex.PW11/A, it is proved that blood was found at the spot nd i.e. house No. G5/381, 2 floor, Sector16, Rohini.
66. Hence, taking into account of facts and circumstances, I held that prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that against the accused stabbed his mother in law Harbhajan Kaur and also stabbed his sister in law Jaswinder Kaur.
67. The Ld. Defence counsel also argued that even if it is presumed that, accused had stabbed the deceased Harbhajan Kaur offence U/S.302 IPC is not made out because only one blow has been given which prove he has no intention to kill her, hence, at the best offence U/S.304 partII IPC is made out.
Section 299 IPC deals with culpable homicide. It reads as under:
299. Culpable Homicide : STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 59 OF PAGE 69 60 Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
Section 299 has following essentials: Causing of death of a human being.
Such death must have been caused by
doing an act
I) with the intention of causing death; or
II) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or III) with the knowledge that the doer is likely by such act to cause death.
Section 300 IPC deals with murder. It reads as under :
300. Murder : Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death; or 2ndly--If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or 3rdly--If it is done with the intention of STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 60 OF PAGE 69 61 causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or 4thly--If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
Exception 1....
Exception 2....
Exception 3....
Exception 4....
Exception 5....
In section 300 IPC, the definition of culpable homicide appears in an expanded form. Each of the four clauses requires that the act which causes death should be done intentionally, or with the knowledge or means of knowing that death is a natural consequence of the act. An offence cannot amount to murder unless it falls within the definition of culpable homicide; for this section merely points out the cases in which culpable homicide is murder. Putting it shortly, all acts of killing done:
i) with the intention to kill, or
ii) to inflict bodily injury likely to cause STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 61 OF PAGE 69 62 death, or
iii) with the knowledge that death must be the most probable result,are prima facie murder, while those committed with the knowledge that death will be a likely result are culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
In Laxminath v. State of Chhattisgarh AIR 2009 (SC) 1383 Hon'ble Supreme Court has made distinction between Section 299 and 300 IPC as under:
The academic distinction between 'murder and culpable homicide not amount to murder' has always vexed the Courts. The confusion is cause, if Courts losing sight of the true scope and meaning of the terms used by the legislature in these sections, allow themselves to be drawn into minute abstractions. The safest way of approach to the interpretation and application of these provisions seems to be keep in focus the keywords used in the various clauses of Section 299 and 300. The following comparative table will he helpful in appreciating the points of distinction between the two offences".
Section 299 Section 300
A person commits culpable Subject to certain exceptions,
homicide, if the act by which culpable homicide is murder,
STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 62 OF PAGE 69
63
the death is caused is done if the act by which the death is
(a) with the intention of caused is done.
causing death
1) With the intention of causing death;
2) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused;
(b) with the intention of causing such bodily 3) With the intention of causing bodily injury as is likely to injury to any person, and the bodily cause death; injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death;
(c) With the knowledge 4) With the knowledge that the act is that .... the act is likely so imminently dangerous that it must to cause death. in all probability cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
9. "Clause (b) of Section 299 corresponds with clauses (2) and (3) of Section 300. The distinguishing feature of the mens rea requisite under clause (2) is the knowledge possessed by the offender regarding the particular victim being in such a peculiar condition or state of health that the internal harm caused to him is likely to be fatal, notwithstanding the fact that such harm would not in the ordinary way of nature be sufficient to cause death of a person in normal STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 63 OF PAGE 69 64 health or condition. It is noteworthy that the "intention to cause death", is not an essential requirements of clause (2). Only the intention causing the bodily injury coupled with the offender's knowledge of the likelihood of such injury causing the death of the particular victim., is sufficient to bring the killing within the ambit of this clause. This aspect of clause (2) is borne out by illustration(b) appended to Section 300.
Clause (b) of Section 299 does not postulate any such knowledge on the part of the offender.
Instances of cases falling under clause (2) of section 300 can be where the assailant causes death by a fistblow intentionally given knowing that the victim is suffering from an enlarged liver, or enlarged spleen or diseased heart and such blow is likely to cause death of the particular person as a result of the rupture of the liver, or spleen or the failure of the heart, as the case may be. If the assailant had no such knowledge about the disease or special rality of the victim, nor an intention to cause death or bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the offence will not be murder, even if the injury which caused the death, was intentionally given. In clause (3) of Section 300, instead of the words "likely to cause death" occurring in the corresponding clause (b) of Section 299, the words "sufficient in the ordinary course of nature"
have been used. Obviously, the distinction lies STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 64 OF PAGE 69 65 between a bodily injury likely to cause death and a bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The distinction is fine but real and if overlooked, may result in miscarriage of justice. The difference between clause (b) of Section 299 and clause (3) of Section 300 is one of degree of probability of death resulting from the intended bodily injury. To put it more broadly, it is the degree of probability of death which determines whether a culpable homicide is of the gravest, medium or the lowest degree. The word "likely" in clause (b) of Section 299 conveys the sense of probable as distinguished from a mere possibility. The words"bodily injury.... sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death"
result of the injury, having regard to the ordinary course of nature.
10. For cases to fall within clause (3), it is not necessary that the offender intended to cause death, so long as the death ensues from the intentional bodily injury or injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
Rajwant and Anr. v. State of Kerala, (AIR 1966 SC 1874) is an apt illustration of this point.
In case State of Andhra Pradesh vs Rayavarapu Punnayya & Another 1977 AIR 45, 1977 SCR (1) 601, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under : STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 65 OF PAGE 69 66 "Whenever a court is confronted with the question whether the offence is 'murder' or 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder', on the facts of a case, it will be convenient for it to approach the problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the first stage would be, whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death of another. Proof of such casual connection between the act of the accused and the death, leads to the, second stage for, considering whether that act of the accused amounts to culpable homicide as defined in s.299. If the answer to this question is prima facie found in the affirmative, the stage for considering the operation of s. 300, Penal Code, is reached. This is the stage at which the Court should determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four clauses of the definition of 'murder' contained in s. 300, if the answer to this question is in the negative the offence would be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder', punishable under the first or the second part of s.304, depending, respectively, on whether the second or the third clause of s.299 is applicable. If this question is found in the positive, but the case comes within any of the Exceptions enumerated in s.300, the offence would still be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder', punishable under the First Part of s.304, Penal Code".
STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 66 OF PAGE 69 67 It was further observed as under : "In the scheme of the Penal Code, 'culpable homicide' is genus and 'murder' its specie.
All 'murder' is 'culpable homicide' but not vice versa. Speaking generally, 'culpable homicide' sans 'special characteristics of murder', is 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder'. For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of this generic offence, the Code practically recognizes three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is, what may be called, culpable homicide of this first degree. This is the gravest form of culpable homicide which is defined in s.300 as 'murder'. The second may be terms as 'culpable homicide of the second degree'.
This is punishable under the 1st part of s.
304. Then, there is 'culpable homicide of the third degree.' this is the lowest type of culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it is, also, the lowest among the punishments provided for the three grades. Culpable homicide of this degree is punishable under the second Part of s.304".
68. Now reverting back to the present case, it is evident that, accused had intentionally caused injuries to the deceased STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 67 OF PAGE 69 68 Harbhajan Kaur. As stated above from the PM report EXPW12/A it is proved that deceased Harbhajan Kaur was having stab wound 7.3cmX3cmX about 17 cm deep oblique placed in inner front of upper third of right side of abdomen. The depth of the injury proved that the knife blow has been given in her abdomen portion with great force had caused 17cm deep injury. His opinion proved that she had died due to said injuries. As per PM report injuries are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The accused had intentionally caused the injuries to the deceased Harbhajan Kaur on her vital portion of body i.e. abdomen. Hence, taking into account of all the circumstances, I am of the view that, accused had caused the injuries to deceased with intention to commit her murder and act of accused squarely fall with in first clause of section 300 IPC, hence in these fact and circumstances, I convict him for offence u/s. 302 IPC.
69. The accused has also been charged for offence u/s. 307 IPC for attempting to commit murder of the PW24 Jaswinder Kaur, but from the MLC of Jaswinder Kaur Ex.PW5/B, it is proved that accused had only caused injury on her left hand and on the back portion, which are not vital part of the body. Had the accused intended to committed the murder of Jaswinder Kaur then he could STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 68 OF PAGE 69 69 also stab her on some vital part of the body. Hence, it is apparent that accused had no intention to commit the murder of the Jaswinder Kaur, and he only want to injured her, therefore, in my view it would not be appropriate to convict him for offence u/s. 307 IPC. But since he has caused to PW24 and in the MLC it is not mentioned whether injuries are simple or grievous. Therefore, I give the benefit of doubt to accused and held that accused had only caused hurt to PW24 Jaswinder Kaur with sharp edged weapon. Hence, I also convict the accused Harjeet Singh @ Raju for offence u/s. 324 IPC. Now to come up for order on sentence.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (SANJEEV KUMAR) ON 16.05.2013 ASJ01(NORTH):ROHINI COURTS: DELHI. STATE VS HARJEET SINGH @ RAJU FIR NO.253/11//SC NO.84/11//U/S. 302/324/325 IPC PAGE 69 OF PAGE 69