RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Allegations or patricide were levelled against Raj Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the accused). It was alleged that he along with his mother Smt. Chandra Wati were responsible for homicidal death of Ramesh Kumar, (hereinafter referred to as the deceased). The accused faced trial for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, I860 (in short Indian Penal Code). Learned Additional Ses- sions Judge found accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.

(2.) On 5.4.1991 at about 11.45 p.m. a message was received at Ashok Vihar Police Station from Police Control Room about information having been received from one Surindcr Kumar of JJ Colony, Wazirpur, about some quarrel in house No. 251. On getting such information DD entry No.'24A was registered and a copy was given to ASI Raghbir Singh who reached at the spot. There he learnt that deceased Ramesh Kumar had been taken to hospital in injured condition. Accordingly, he went to Hindu Rao Hospital where he obtained MLC. The attending doctor had recorded a dying declaration of the injured in the MLC. The injured was declared to be in a fit condi- tion to make a statement. Accordingly, his statement was recorded by the Police of- ficer. As per the statement recorded, the deceased was a tailor by profession and was married to Smt. Chandra Wati. His brother-in-law's wife Prem Wati used to visit their house sometimes. Chandra Wati and the accused suspected illicit relation between the deceased and the said Prem Wall. On the fateful day, he was present at his house. The accused alleged that he (deceased) was spending his entire earning on Prem Wati, but his family members were being harassed, and additionally he returned home daily con- suming liquor. This resulted in a quarrel. Accused brought a knife from inside the house and told the deceased that he would leach him a lesson and attacked the deceased. Chandra Wati and his daughter Seema tried to intervene, but the accused gave blows on various parts of the body of the deceased. In the meantime PCR van came and the deceased was admitted in Hindu Rao Hospital. FIR No. 122/91 was registered under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and an another statement in the nature of dying dec- laration was recorded by the SDM at about 12 noon. However, after the death of the deceased on 15.4.1991 the case was converted into under Section 302 Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Prosecution examined 23 witnesses to further its case. Urmila (public witness3) and Seema (public witness6) were two daughters of the deceased, who claimed to be eye-witnesses. One Swinder Kuroar (public witness11) also claimed to be an eye-witness. As noted above, three dying declarations were pressed into service. One is MLC recorded by the doctor (Ex. public witness21/A). Out of the other two, one (Ex. public witness16/B) was recorded by ASI Raghbir Singh (public witness16), and the other (Ex. public witness10/A) recorded by the SDM (public witness10). Two wit- nesses were examined by the accused persons to prove their innocence. During trial Urmila (public witness3), Seema (public witness6) and Constable Surender Kumar (public witness11) resiled from the version recorded during investigation but learned Trial Judge leaving out evidence of these witnesses, considered the three dying declarations. The declaration made before the doctor (public witness21) and that before SDM (public witness10) were disbelieved. However, reliance was placed on the evidence of public witness16 and placing reliance on the dying decla- ration (Ex. public witness16/B) the accused was found guilty. Reference was made to the quarrel that took place and assault made by the accused with the knife brought from the house after the quarrel started. As indicated above he was convicted for commission of of- fence punishable under Section 302 and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. However, it was held that the prosecution has not been able to make out a case against Chandra Wati and she was given the benefit of doubt.