HARBHAJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Even after 14 years of the marriage, Harbhajan Singh (appellant) and Satendra Kaur @ (Lavil (informant) were issueless. The appellant used to reside with the informant in the house of his mother-in-law Devendra Kaur (deceased). On the fateful day the appellant caused severe cut injuries with sword on the person of deceased. It is the prosecution case that because of the greed the appellant killed his mother-in-law. Whereas the appellant says that the deceased insulted him and gave a slap on his face as a result of which his Pagri (turban) fell down. Having lost his control he picked up the sword and inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased. Be that as it may let us find out the origin and genesis of the occurrence.

(2.) The appellant after being found guilty under section 302 Indian Penal Code was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months by learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities) Sri Ganganagar vide its judgment dated August 7, 2000 in Sessions Case No.34, 1998. The prosecution case as unfolded during trial was that Samun Ali Khan (Pw. 10) SI. Incharge of Police Station Kotwali Sri Ganganagar received a telephonic call on February 2, 1998 at 4.00 PM that in Setiya colony a murder had taken place. Samun Ali Khan rushed to the spot and recorded the statement of Satendra Kaur @ Lavli (Pw.2). She stated that some 14 years back she was married to the appellant. Her mother, Devendra Kaur (deceased), who was a nurse in village Fakirwali, often used to visit her. Her mother did not like the drinking habit of the appellant and many a time asked him not to do so but the appellant never cared and his relations with his mother-in-law became strained. On the previous night of the incident when appellant consumed liquor his mother-in-law objected. The appellant became furious and punished the informant for the act of her mother by twisting the left hand of the informant. On the fateful day around 3.00 PM the appellant came to the house and asked the informant to serve the meals. As the informant was feeling pain in her hand, the food was cooked by her mother, the appellant was enraged, entered the room of her mother and inflicting injuries with Kripan on the person of her mother as a result of which she died. On the basis of said parcha bayan a case under sections 302, 323 and 324 Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Kotwali Sri Ganganagar and investigation commenced. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities) Sri Ganganagar. Charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code was framed against the appellant, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 10 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant claimed innocence and stated that on the date of incident when his wife declined to serve food to him there were altercations between him and his wife. When he made complaint of his wife to his mother-in-law Devendra Kaur, she became furious and told him: ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...

(3.) The only contention advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the appellant could not have been convicted and sentenced under section 302 Indian Penal Code since Exception I of Section 300 Indian Penal Code is attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposed this submission and urged that it was a calculated act on the part of the appellant and no interference is called for.