BHUPENDER SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the appellant and the State and having perused the evidence led at the trial, we commence our decision in the appeal which challenges the appellant being convicted for the offence of having murdered his son, rather unconventionally for an appeal at a murder trial, by noting the answers given by the appellant when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The reason being it would save us the trouble to note the testimony of the various witnesses who have proved the appellant being present in the house with his son and his wife and daughter not being in the house and he being seen with a hammer in his hand and when the crime was detected he having admitted to have clubbed his son with a hammer on his head resulting in the death of his son. We shall only be constrained to note the evidence led at the trial concerning motive for the crime because incriminating circumstances concerning the motive were denied by the appellant. To questions No. 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19 and 21 the appellant answered; and we note each question and the answer thereto : -

(2.) THE appellant has admitted that 10 -15 days prior to October 10, 2010 he had quarrelled with his wife and because of that she had gone to the house of her parents with her two children and that his wife returned with the two children to the matrimonial home on October 08, 2010. The appellant admits that on October 10, 2010 he was in his house at 12.30 P.M., at which time his wife, their daughter Tania and their son Arpit were in the house and that his wife left the house to collect rent and took along the daughter. The appellant admits that when his wife and daughter came back, he was holding a hammer in his hand and his wife saw Arpit lying in a pool of blood on the bed. The appellant admits that he came out from the house on to the crossing and called his cousin admitting that he had injured his son, but claimed that he did so at the instigation of his wife. Appellant claims that he was not mentally fit because a dose was given by his wife to him.

(3.) APPELLANT 's wife named Sudesh has appeared as PW -6 and we find that during cross -examination no suggestion whatsoever has been put to her that she had administered any medicine to her husband. We note that a suggestion was put to her that her brother had brought some medicine for the appellant concerning appellant's mental sickness, which she denied. That takes away the fulcrum of the imaginary explanation given by the appellant concerning the circumstance under which he inflicted hammer blows on the head of his son.