BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Balbir Singh, by the impugned judgment dated 23rd September, 2008 has been convicted for murder of his wife Santosh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short). By order of sentence dated 24th September, 2008, he has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of which, he has to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The offence in question, as per prosecution version, was committed on 19th January, 2007 at about 9.00 A.M. at House No. L-109, Laxman Puri, Nabi Karim, Delhi, where the appellant, the deceased and their children were residing.

(2.) Sneha, daughter of the deceased and the appellant is the eye-witness who had deposed as PW-2. She was aged about 20 years at the time of her deposition which was recorded on 25th April, 2008, nearly one year after the occurrence. She has stated that her two brothers and one sister had left the house for school at 8.15 a.m. and her father, i.e. the appellant, was having tea when her father and mother started quarreling. Both of them used to quarrel often and her father used to beat her mother. She went to the kitchen where she used to take bath due to paucity of space. She bolted the kitchen door from inside. Her father also bolted the door of the kitchen from outside and the main door of the house. Thereafter, he started beating her mother. When she heard the screams of her mother, PW-2 asked her mother to open the door. Her mother was unable to do so because she was also locked in the room. She tried to open the kitchen door from inside but was unsuccessful. She saw the occurrence from the window after climbing up. Her father was beating her mother with danda and one kripan type double dagger which was kept in the house for marriage ceremonies. The relevant words in the deposition made by PW-2 for the sake of convenience are reproduced below:-

(3.) Pw-2 has deposed that the dagger and the danda were seized by the police and the sketches were prepared and she identified the same. She testified that her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded before the Metropolitan Magistrate and the same was marked as Ex. PW2/L. She identified the danda as Ex. P-1 and dagger as Ex. P-2. Another dagger which was part of the Kirpan was identified as Ex. P-3. She identified the clothes worn by the appellant on the date of the incident and the same was marked as Ex. P-4. She identified the clothes worn by her mother at the time of incident as Ex. P-4/1-4. In the cross-examination, she has vehemently denied the suggestion that her mother did not have good character. She has further deposed that her mother and father used to quarrel often and it was not an unusual affair. A night before also her father had a quarreled with her mother. Her father had asked her to take a bath and she had gone while they quarreled. It is later that her mother raised cries and asked to save her that she was alerted. She had raised an alarm and the neighbours gathered outside the house. The appellant had first given 10-12 danda blows on her mother's head and, thereafter, on different parts of the body. The appellant was having Kirpan in the pocket of his jacket which he was wearing and he gave 4-5 blows to her mother. However, PW-2 could not state how many blows were given by the second dagger. The whole incident had taken place in half an hour. The maternal uncle who resides near the house came to the spot at about 9.00 a.m. At that time, the appellant was present in the room but large number of persons had gathered in the street as the area was thickly populated. Police reached at the spot at about 9.00 a.m. The appellant opened the door of the house and he was apprehended by the persons in the neighbourhood. At that time, the police had not come. The police came and took her mother in an ambulance and she, along with her maternal uncle, went to the hospital in a TSR. Minor discrepancy in the statement is noticed as she had not deposed in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that the appellant had locked the door of the kitchen or the appellant had cut off nipples of her mother. However, as noticed below, the nipples of the deceased were cut off as is confirmed by the post mortem report (Ex. PW19/A) and the death summary (Ex. PW16/H). There cannot be any doubt on the veracity of PW-2's statement. She is a young girl who had lost her mother and has implicated her father as the culprit.