RAMCHANDER Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAM Chander has preferred this appeal against his conviction by impugned judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 24.07.2008 under Sections 302 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for murder of Dhunu Lal and for having caused injuries to Kamla, Ram Prasad and Makdum. By the order of sentence dated 31.07.2008, the appellant has been sentenced to Imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 with fine of Rs.5,000/- and rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 307 IPC. In case of default for payment of fine of Rs.5,000/-, the appellant is to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month.

(2.) HOMICIDAL death of Dhunu Lal is established from the evidence of PW-16 (Dr.Kulbhushan Goel) who had conducted post- mortem of the body of Dhunu Lal. There were five external injuries on the dead body. Injury No.1 consisted of lacerated penetrative wound over the right side base of the neck of the size 3.4 cm X 1.8 cm X 2 cm with contused margins and which had abraded area 3 X 1.25 cm. The wound had pierced the soft tissues at the base of the right side of the neck and went downwards at an angular route to the right side of the chest cavity and had entered into the upper lobe of the right lung and came out from the middle lobe anteriorly making an exit from the lung. It fractured the sternum at fourth rib site on the right side and the third and fourth ribs. The second injury was a lacerated penetrative wound 1.25 X 0.8 cm just on the medial end of the left clavicle with contused margins and which had an abraded area of 3.5 X 1.25 cm and had fractured the underlying clavicle bone at the medial end and entered into the left chest cavity taking a downward and angular route which had pierced the left lung and fractured 1 to 6 ribs and costal cartilages. The death was caused due to asphyxia and hemorrhagic shock consequent upon bilateral chest and lung injuries resulting into haemothorax. The injuries No.1 and 2 were caused by a moderately heavy weapon with a cutting edge which was not so sharp and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature individually or collectively. Injuries No.3 to 5 were caused by a blunt force impact.

(3.) PW -2 (Kamla), PW-4 (Makdum) and PW-5 (Ram Prasad) were injured in the said occurrence allegedly by the appellant. They are the eye witnesses as per the prosecution case. PW-4 (Makdum) is the father of the appellant. In his statement, he had stated that on 22.07.2004 he was present with the appellant in his jhuggi. At about 11.00 P.M. there was a quarrel between him and the appellant on the question whether the appellants wife should come back to Delhi. The appellant became angry and took out a ,,getti', which is used for digging earth. He hit ,,getti on the head of PW-4 (his father) and also hit his mother with it. Thereafter, PW- 4 did not support the prosecutions case and did not state that the appellant had caused injuries on Dhunu Lal. PW-4 had stated that Dhunu Lal, the deceased who was a watchman, was sitting on the statue of George-V in the Coronation Park. He had stated that he was in his jhuggi and outside of the boundary wall of the statue of George-V. Dhunu Lal and his wife were inside the park. He however, identified the ,,getti which was used to cause injuries as Ex.P1. He was cross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor but PW4 had stated that he had not told the police that the appellant had given ,,getti blows on Dhunu Lal (deceased), his wife Kamla (PW-2) and Ram Prasad (PW-4) in his presence. He however, admitted that the Dhunu Lal died on the same night, while he was inside the boundary wall, after sustaining injuries. In the cross-examination on behalf of the appellant, PW-4 had stated that he had not seen the appellant causing injury with ,,getti to deceased Dhunu Lal, his wife Kamla and Ram Prasad.