HARPAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is a judgment dated 22.04.2015 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.59/1/12 arising out of FIR No.58/2012 at PS Rani Bagh whereby Harpal Singh - the appellant was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. By an order dated 28.04.2015, the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine Rs.10,000/-.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge-sheet is that on 19.02.2012 at about 07.30 p.m. at 642, Ground Floor, Rishi Nagar, Delhi (Saya Beauty Parlour), the appellant committed murder of his wife Jaspreet Kaur by inflicting injuries on her body. The incident was conveyed to the police and DD No.32A (Ex.PW-4/C) came into existence on 19.02.2012 at 07.50 p.m. at PS Rani Bagh. The investigation was assigned to SI Kuldeep Singh who along with HC Jai Chand went to the spot. On enquiry, the Investigating Officer came to know that the injured had already been taken to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital by PCR. Leaving HC Jai Chand to guard the spot, SI Kuldeep went to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital and collected victim's MLC; she was unfit to make statement. The Investigating Officer returned to the spot and lodged FIR after recording statement (Ex.PW-6/A) of one Raj, an employee at the beauty parlour. In the complaint, Raj gave detailed account as to how and in what manner, the appellant had inflicted injuries to Jaspreet Kaur on 07.30 p.m. that day. Crime team was summoned at the spot; scene of incident was photographed. Necessary proceedings were conducted at the spot and various exhibits including appellant's driving licence was recovered. Efforts were made to find out the appellant but he was untraceable. On the night intervening 19/20.02.2012, the victim succumbed to the injuries at AIIMS and Section 302 IPC was added. The investigation was taken over by Insp.Dheeraj Narang, SHO Police Station Rani Bagh. Post-mortem examination on the body was conducted. The appellant was arrested. Pursuant to his disclosure statement, certain recoveries were effected. During further investigation, statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The exhibits collected were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined twenty-five witnesses. In 313 Cr.P.C . statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication due to property dispute with his brothers. No defence evidence was produced. After considering the rival submissions of the parties and on appreciation of the evidence, the appellant was convicted for commission of offence mentioned previously. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Admitted position is that the victim was the appellant's wife and they lived at WZ-592A, Rani Bagh, Delhi; they had two sons aged 6 years and 3 A 1/2 years. It is also not at issue that the victim used to run a beauty parlour in the name and style of Saya Beauty Parlour at 642, Ground Floor, Rishi Nagar, Delhi and PW-6 (Raj) was an employee there. It is not at dispute that PW-5 (Surender Kaur) was earlier married to Gian Singh and had four children from the said marriage i.e. PW-15 (Malkeet Singh Bhullar), Sardara Singh, Manjeet Kaur and Daljeet Kaur. After the death of her husband Gian Singh, PW-5 (Surender Kaur) married his younger brother Gurdeep Singh and from the said marriage had a daughter Karamjeet Kaur and the accused Harpal Singh as son. It is not in controversy that the appellant owned a Maruti Zen car No.DL-8CJ-6987.