SURESH CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgement of the Additional Sessions Judge. Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 2 of 1969, convicting the appellant herein for an offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and also for an offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code . and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) The prosecution case against the appellant is that about two years prior to the date of offence, he had married Ansuya, daughter of Balbir Singh, the deceased in this case. The appellant was living with his wife at Muzzafar Nagar and a daughter was also born to them. The appellant and his wife were. however, quarrelling frequently and the appellant was also beating his wife. as he suspected that she was having some affair with her brother-in-law, i.e. sister husband, who was also living in the same village. On receiving information that his daughter was being ill-treated by the appellant, the deceased went to Muzzafar Nagar about a month prior to the date of offence and brought his daughter to his house at Delhi. The appellant did not allow his wife and father-in-law to take the infant daughter with them but, later on, he sent the child to Delhi. On 14-8-1968, the appellant came to the house of the deceased at about 7.00 P.M. and after having his food with the deceased and the other members of the family, he asked the deceased to send Ansuya with him. The deceased replied that he would send her after the appellant had found some employment. But when the appellant insisted that his wife should be sent back with him immediately, the deceased called Ansuya and asked her whether she was willing to go with her husband. Ansuya flatly refused to go with the appellant in view of his ill-treatment in the past. The appellant then got excited and started abusing the deceased. The latter got up from the cot where he was sitting. The appellant then whipped out a knife from the pocket of p his trousers and stabbed the deceased on the right-side of his chest. He stabbed the deceased again on the left-side of his head. Ansuya and her younger brother Devinder Singh and her younger sister Sunita, who were present at that time, tried to intervene. The appellant then inflicted an injury with the knife on the left elbow of Ansuya. On hearing the alarm raised by these persons. Ram Avtar, Chet Ram and Hem Chand, who happened to be standing at the Halwai shop on the ground floor of the same house, and Narinder Singh the elder son of the deceased who happened to be on the roof of the house at that time, came rushing to the scene of offence. All of them santched away the knife from the hands of the appellant. The deceased, who appeared to be in a serious condition, was removed to the hospital by Narinder Singh and Ansuya. By the time they reached the hospital, the deceased was found to be dead. Meanwhile, somebody had informed the police control room by telephone and the police arrived at the scene of offence shortly thereafter and recorded the statement of Sunita. the younger daughter of the deceased. The police also seized the knife which was produced by Ram Avtar, who was one of those persons who had snatched the knife from the hands of the appellant. The police then arrested the appellant. The shirt, pants and the bunyan then worn by the appellant were found to be blood-stained and were, therefore, seized by the police. The appellant was also found to be having a number of injuries on his person and he was also sent to the hospital for examination of these injuries. Later, Ansuya, the wife of the appellant, was also got examined by the doctor and she was also found to be having some injuries on her person,

(3.) Several pleas have been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant either by way of self-defence or by way of extenuating circumstances. The first plea taken is that of self-defence. According to the appellant, he did not come to the house of the deceased armed with the knife Ex. P/1 and that it was only when the deceaase caught hold of his neck and Public Witness 13 pointed the knife Ex. P/1 at his chin with a view to compel him to execute a deed of divorce that he snatched away the knife from the hand of Public Witness 13 and inflicted one stab-injury on the chest of the deceased only with a view to extricate himself from the hold of the deceased. According to the learned counsel for the appellant this plea is supported or at least probablised by the injuries on the person of the appellant which, according to him, have not been explained by the prosecution. The following injuries were found on the person of the appellant when he was examined on 15-8-1968 at 10 A.M. by Public Witness 21, Dr. S. S. Kaushal :-