SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant Satish Kumar has been found guilty by the trial court for the offence of committing the murder of one Kamlesh Kumari and convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The appeal preferred by him was dismissed by the High court. Hence the present appeal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is as follows: the deceased Smt. Kamlesh kumari, a married woman had litigation with her husband Vijay Kumar and she was living away from him. Vijay Kumar wanted divorce but Kamleah Kumari refused. In that litigation she was being helped by one Rajinder refused. In that litigation she was being helped by one rajinder Kumar, the brother of the accused who was annoyed at the way his brother Rajinder Kumar was spending lavishly for the cause of Kamleah Kumari. He had also previously quarrelled with kamlesh Kumari and abused her. It was also suspected that Rajinder Kumar was having illicit connections with her,, kamlesh. Kumari was living in a one-room tenement alongwith her both minor sons. Public Witness 4 Vikas was one of them and he was aged about five years. Public Witness 2, Puro, the mother of Kamlesh Kumari was living in a different house in the same City, on 17.1.79 at about 8.30 or 9 P. M. the deceased Kamlesh Kumari was present in the room and she was going to light the stove for the purpose of cooking and public Witness 2, her mother on that day was with her. Public Witness 4, Vikas was doing some home work. While so, the accused entered the room and declared that he would hill the deceased and whipped out a knife and gave three successive blows with the knife on the chest and flank of the deceased. Kamlesh Kumari and P. W8 2 and 4 raised a hue and cry. The accused ran away. Public Witness 2 put her in a rikshaw and took her to the hospital but the doctor pronounced her dead. The information was sent to the police and the A. S. I. came to the hospital and recorded the report of Public Witness 2, which is the F. I. R. in the case. The Doctor, who conducted the postmortem, found five incised wounds, some of them on the left side of the chest piercing the left lung and spleen. The Doctor opined that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, The accused pleaded not guilty.

(3.) The prosecution examined 8 witnesses. P. Ws 2 and 4 figured as eye-witnesses. Public Witness 3, Sham Lal, the brother of the deceased, who came to the scene of occurrence almost immediately, saw the accused leaving the house after causing the injuries. The learned trial Judge placed reliance on the evidence of Public Witness 4 but was not prepared to place reliance on the evidence of Public Witness 2, the mother of the deceased, on the ground that Public Witness 4's evidence created a doubt about the presence of Public Witness 2 at the time of occurrence. The trial court relying on the evidence of P. Ws 4 and 3 convicted the accused, in the appeal, the High Court having considered the evidence of P. Ws 2 and 4 disagreed with the view of the trial court in respect of the evidence of Public Witness 2 and relying on her evidence, the High Court confirmed the conviction. The High court, however, was not prepared to place reliance on the evidence of Public Witness 4.