SULEKH CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was tried for an offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code 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 pm in the area near the Brick Kiln of Shakru public Witness-5. The trial Court relying upon the testimony of Shakru, Public Witness-5, father of the deceased and Hukma, Public Witness-10, who were both examined as eye witnesses, accepted the prosecution version and convicted the appellant for an offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. The appellant questions 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 public Witness-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 wifekusum 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, Public Witness- 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. Public Witness-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 declared 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, Public Witness-11, on reaching the hospital, recorded the statement of Shaku 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 Datt, Public Witness- 1.2, who was then posted as the Station House officer of Police Station Sadar, Panipat. He arrived at the spot and Sidh Nath (given up as public Witness) , 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 examination, 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 Public Witness-5 Shakru and Public Witness- 10 Hukma. Satbir, who had been examined as public Witness-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, Public Witness-5 and Hukma, Public Witness- 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.