NARENDER SINGH RAWAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Narender Singh Rawat has been held guilty of having murdered his wife Sunita. The incriminating evidence relied upon against Narender Singh Rawat is the testimony of Shakuntala PW-3, the wife of the brother of Sunita who was an eye witness. The motive has been held proved through the testimony of Shakuntala and Abhishek PW-4, the son of Narender Singh Rawat and his deceased wife. Clothes which Narender Singh Rawat was wearing when the crime was committed on which human blood of group 'B' was detected has been held to be further incriminating evidence and lastly a hammer got recovered by the appellant which was capable of inflicting the injuries on the skull of the deceased which led to the bones being broken and embedded in the dura-matter is the additional incriminating circumstance relied upon.

(2.) Narender Singh Rawat challenges his conviction alleging that the testimony of Shakuntala is unworthy of credence and that the recovery of the hammer from an open space after one month and thirteen days of the crime is a useless recovery. In the absence of the FSL Report linking the group of the blood detected on the shirt and the pant recovered from the bag with the appellant when he was apprehended to that of the deceased, it is urged that the last incriminating circumstance relied upon by the learned Trial Judge is wrong.

(3.) As regards the last plea, the argument overlooks the fact that the FSL report Ex.PW-28/E has categorically opined that human blood of group 'B' was detected on the karni, pieces of wood planks and a dupatta seized from the scene of the crime, which blood was obviously that of the deceased. Further, human blood of group 'B' was detected on the brassiere which the deceased was wearing when she was killed as also on the gauze cloth piece handed over by the doctor who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased. Thus, it is apparent that the prosecution has proved that blood group of the deceased was 'B' and thus the argument as advanced is worthy of no credence, but as would be reasoning hereinafter, we would be overlooking the evidence concerning a pant and the shirt recovered from the bag, as claimed by Insp.Dinesh Kumar Sharma PW-28, which the appellant was carrying with him when he was apprehended.