SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to the last question: 'Have you anything else to say?' The appellant answered: -

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that Madhu was married to the accused on 15.5.1996. The accused was her second husband and from her first husband she had two daughters. This was the second marriage of the accused and from the first marriage he was blessed with two children. On 14.4.1997 Madhu and the accused were blessed with a daughter whom they named Rano. Hoping that a son would be bom and unhappy with a daughter being bom the accused seized the opportunity to do away with the unfortunate infant child when Madhu went to the nearby dispensary as she required some medical assistance, inasmuch as Rano was a caesar-ean child, at around 9:00 AM on 10.5.1997 leaving Rano in the care of her husband i.e. the accused. The appellant strangulated Rano to death and which was detected by Madhu when she returned from the dispensary at around 9:30 AM.

(3.) We note that Madhu PW-5 has deposed in support of the case of the prosecution and learned counsel for the appellant would concede that except for trivial omissions or additions in the deposition of Madhu vis-a-vis her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. nothing of substance needs to be noted by this Court with respect to Madhu's testimony, for the apparent reason the appellant admitted that Madhu had gone to the dispensary and the child was in his custody, but gave a reason for the child dying. The reason given by the appellant, is as per his statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and as noted in para 1 above. Thus, counsel concedes that everything would turn upon the post-mortem report Ex.PW-1/A of Rano and the testimony of Dr.A.K.Tyagi who conducted the post-mortem of the child.