Sulekh Chand Vs. State of Haryana
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 741 of 1992
Petitioner: Sulekh Chand
Respondent: State of Haryana
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 741 of 1992
Judges: Dr. A.S. ANAND, CJI., R.C. LAHOTI & DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 02, 2001
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 302 with Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 3 – Murder – Ac-cused going to brick-kiln and asking his parents-in-law to send their daughter (his own wife) – Accused told to take her after meals – Accused also invited – Wife refused to go back with him as he would give beatings – Accused giving 7-8 blows with knife – Incident seen by father-in-law and one more person – Accounts given by them inspiring confidence – Accused was handed over with knife to investigation officer – Said witnesses though given up, I.O. not cross examined on this fact. Held that trial court and High Court committed no infirmity in relying upon the evidence of two witnesses and convicting the accused. Appeal dismissed. (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The appellant was tried for an offence under Section 302 IPC on the allegations that he had committed the murder of his wife Kusum by inflicting knife blows on her. The occurrence took place on 23rd April, 1988 at about 12:15 p.m. in the area near the brick-kiln of Shakru PW-5. The trial court relying upon the testimony of Shakru, PW-5, father of the deceased and Hukma, PW-10, who were both examined as eye-witnesses, accepted the prose-cution version and convicted the appellant for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. The appellant questioned his conviction and sentence through an appeal in the High Court. Vide judgment dated 19th February, 1991, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant. By special leave, the appellant is before us.
2. Prosecution case in short is: that on 23rd April, 1988, the appellant went to Shakru PW-5 at the brick kiln, for the second time, and asked him and his wife Shanti (father and mother-in-law of the appellant) to send back his wife – Kusum with him to his house. They told him that they will send Kusum with him after taking meals and invited the appellant to have his meals also. While Shakru and Shanti were going towards the house, Kusum told the appellant that she was not willing to go back with him as she was afraid that he would again start beating her as he had been doing earlier. Hearing this appellant got furious. The appellant took out a knife and gave 7 to 8 blows with it to Kusum which hit her on different parts of her body. Effort made by Hukma, PW-10 to rescue Kusum proved futile since the appellant threatened him also with the knife. Ram Dass, Sidh Nath and Mahabir, who were present near the brick kiln, over-powered the appellant and snatched the knife, Ex.P-4 from him. PW-5 Shakru along with his son Tulsi took injured Kusum to the Civil Hospital at Panipat for treatment. She however, succumbed to the injuries and was de-clared dead at the hospital. On the basis of Rukka, Ex.PB/1 sent by the hospital to police station, the police rushed to the hospital, after registering the receipt of Rukka, Ex.PB/1 in the daily- diary register. ASI Balwant Singh, PW-11, on reaching the hospital, recorded the statement of Shakru Exhibit PD/1. This statement was treated as the FIR in which the manner in which the occurrence took place, was clearly disclosed. The investigation was taken over by ASI Dev Dutt, PW/12 who was then posted as the Station House Officer of Police Station Sadar, Panipat. He ar-rived at the spot and Sidh Nath (given up as PW), produced the appellant as well as the blood-stained knife, Ex.P-4 before him, which was taken into possession. After preparing an inquest report, the dead body of Kusum was sent for post mortem examina-tion, which was conducted by Dr. Dahiya.
3. The prosecution, in support of its case, basically relied upon the medical evidence and the ocular testimony of PW-5 Shakru and PW-10, Hukma. Satbir, who had been examined as PW-2, was given up by the prosecution as having been won over. He later on appeared on behalf of the appellant as DW-2. Both the trial court and the High Court carefully appreciated the evidence on record. They found the testimony of Shakru, PW-5 and Hukma, PW-10 as totally reliable, trustworthy and inspiring confidence and the defence put up by the appellant as unconvincing. On the basis of evidence of these two eye witnesses coupled with the medical evidence, both the courts recorded the order of conviction and sentence against the appellant.
4. With a view to satisfy our judicial conscience, we have gone through the evidence of PW-5 and PW-10, the two eye-witnesses relied upon by the courts below. Our independent appraisal of their evidence shows that these two witnesses have given a con-sistent and cogent version of the occurrence. Their credibility has not been shaken in any manner whatsoever during the cross-examination. Both the High Court and the trial court were, there-fore, fully justified in accepting their testimony which inspires confidence. Insofar as the defence version and testimony of Satbir, DW-2 is concerned, it was rightly rejected by both the courts. We see no infirmity in that behalf. That Sidh Nath handed over the appellant with the knife to investigating officer, PW-12 has not been questioned during the cross-examination of PW-12. This factor lends further corroboration of the prosecution ver-sion. The eye witness account of PW-5 and PW-10 coupled with the medical evidence and the statement of PW-12 goes to show that prosecution has established its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. Nothing has been brought to our notice from which any inference may be drawn that either the trial court or the High Court have committed any error while recording the conviction of the appellant, which is well merited. We do not find any merit in this appeal. The same is hereby dismissed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled and he shall be taken into custody to undergo the remaining part of his sentence.
1. The appellant was tried for an offence under Section 302 IPC on the allegations that he had committed the murder of his wife Kusum by inflicting knife blows on her. The occurrence took place on 23rd April, 1988 at about 12:15 p.m. in the area near the brick-kiln of Shakru PW-5. The trial court relying upon the testimony of Shakru, PW-5, father of the deceased and Hukma, PW-10, who were both examined as eye-witnesses, accepted the prose-cution version and convicted the appellant for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. The appellant questioned his conviction and sentence through an appeal in the High Court. Vide judgment dated 19th February, 1991, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant. By special leave, the appellant is before us.
2. Prosecution case in short is: that on 23rd April, 1988, the appellant went to Shakru PW-5 at the brick kiln, for the second time, and asked him and his wife Shanti (father and mother-in-law of the appellant) to send back his wife – Kusum with him to his house. They told him that they will send Kusum with him after taking meals and invited the appellant to have his meals also. While Shakru and Shanti were going towards the house, Kusum told the appellant that she was not willing to go back with him as she was afraid that he would again start beating her as he had been doing earlier. Hearing this appellant got furious. The appellant took out a knife and gave 7 to 8 blows with it to Kusum which hit her on different parts of her body. Effort made by Hukma, PW-10 to rescue Kusum proved futile since the appellant threatened him also with the knife. Ram Dass, Sidh Nath and Mahabir, who were present near the brick kiln, over-powered the appellant and snatched the knife, Ex.P-4 from him. PW-5 Shakru along with his son Tulsi took injured Kusum to the Civil Hospital at Panipat for treatment. She however, succumbed to the injuries and was de-clared dead at the hospital. On the basis of Rukka, Ex.PB/1 sent by the hospital to police station, the police rushed to the hospital, after registering the receipt of Rukka, Ex.PB/1 in the daily- diary register. ASI Balwant Singh, PW-11, on reaching the hospital, recorded the statement of Shakru Exhibit PD/1. This statement was treated as the FIR in which the manner in which the occurrence took place, was clearly disclosed. The investigation was taken over by ASI Dev Dutt, PW/12 who was then posted as the Station House Officer of Police Station Sadar, Panipat. He ar-rived at the spot and Sidh Nath (given up as PW), produced the appellant as well as the blood-stained knife, Ex.P-4 before him, which was taken into possession. After preparing an inquest report, the dead body of Kusum was sent for post mortem examina-tion, which was conducted by Dr. Dahiya.
3. The prosecution, in support of its case, basically relied upon the medical evidence and the ocular testimony of PW-5 Shakru and PW-10, Hukma. Satbir, who had been examined as PW-2, was given up by the prosecution as having been won over. He later on appeared on behalf of the appellant as DW-2. Both the trial court and the High Court carefully appreciated the evidence on record. They found the testimony of Shakru, PW-5 and Hukma, PW-10 as totally reliable, trustworthy and inspiring confidence and the defence put up by the appellant as unconvincing. On the basis of evidence of these two eye witnesses coupled with the medical evidence, both the courts recorded the order of conviction and sentence against the appellant.
4. With a view to satisfy our judicial conscience, we have gone through the evidence of PW-5 and PW-10, the two eye-witnesses relied upon by the courts below. Our independent appraisal of their evidence shows that these two witnesses have given a con-sistent and cogent version of the occurrence. Their credibility has not been shaken in any manner whatsoever during the cross-examination. Both the High Court and the trial court were, there-fore, fully justified in accepting their testimony which inspires confidence. Insofar as the defence version and testimony of Satbir, DW-2 is concerned, it was rightly rejected by both the courts. We see no infirmity in that behalf. That Sidh Nath handed over the appellant with the knife to investigating officer, PW-12 has not been questioned during the cross-examination of PW-12. This factor lends further corroboration of the prosecution ver-sion. The eye witness account of PW-5 and PW-10 coupled with the medical evidence and the statement of PW-12 goes to show that prosecution has established its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. Nothing has been brought to our notice from which any inference may be drawn that either the trial court or the High Court have committed any error while recording the conviction of the appellant, which is well merited. We do not find any merit in this appeal. The same is hereby dismissed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled and he shall be taken into custody to undergo the remaining part of his sentence.
