NARENDER SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH reference to the testimony of Manish Kumar PW-1, the son of the appellant and the testimony of Anil Kumar PW-3, the appellant has been convicted for the offence of having murdered his wife. The additional evidence held incriminating against the appellant is the recovery of the rapi (chisel)Ex. P-1 at the instance of the appellant, which was ostensibly used as the weapon of offence.

(2.) WITH reference to the 4 injuries caused on the deceased as recorded in the post-mortem report Ex. PW-12/a by Dr. Sarvesh Tandon PW-12 who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased on 1. 1. 2001, learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that the said injuries make out a case to hold that the act resulting in the injuries constitutes the offence of murder.

(3.) IT is urged by learned counsel for the appellant that the son of the appellant; namely Manish Kumar PW-1 had a motive to get rid of the appellant who was addicted to smack and had made a nuisance of himself to the family. Thus, learned counsel urges that the testimony of PW-1 should be discarded. Since Anil Kumar PW-3 is the nephew of the appellant, learned counsel urges that even Anil Kumar had a motive to falsely implicate the appellant due to anil Kumar being of the same age as the son of the appellant and hence on friendly terms with him. Learned counsel urges that as deposed to by Manish kumar, the appellant had an injury on his head on the day of the incident and said injury having not been explained by the prosecution, the defence of the appellant that he told everybody that some stranger had inflicted the injuries on his wife and an injury on him had to be accepted.