Mr. P. K. Bahri, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 29/05/1990, of an Additional Sessions Judge, by which he has convicted theappellant for the offence puunishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Codeand has sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and topay a fine of RS. 100. 00 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for onemonth more.

( 2 ). Facts of the case, in brief, are that one Kundan Lal with his wife Laxmi (deceased) and children was residing in house No. 1/28a, Seema Nagari and theappellant, who is a junk dealer, had taken a shop on rent from Kundan Lal in thatarea. Appellant was on visiting terms at the house of Kundan Lal and he was alsovisiting the said house in absence of Kundan Lal. It is the case of the prosecution thaton 28/03/1986, at about I P. M. the appellant had brought Laxmi (since deceased)to a room in house No. E-51, Mansarovar Park, Shahdara. One Vijay is stated to bea tenant in one of the rooms in that house. Vijay was known to the appellant and theappellant had come to that room with the said lady on that date at that time. Dhianpal Singh, son of the landlord, was residing in the adjacent room in that housewith his father and one of his cousins, namely, Mahavir Singh was at that timeresiding in one of the rooms on the ground floor. Another tenant, who is a residentof that house, is Gangeshwari Prasad. Dhianpal Singh was present in his room atthe time the appellant had brought that lady to the said room tenanted by Vijaykumar at I P. M.

( 3 ). It has come out in the testimony of Dhianpal Singh that appellant has beenvisiting that room of Vijay Kumar earlier also. At about 1. 30 P. M. or so, Dhianpalsingh had heard the shrieks of the lady coming from the said tenanted room of Vijaykumar and he rushed to the said room which he found bolted from inside. Hepushed open the window of the said room and witnessed the appellant stabbinglaxmi on different parts of her body at random. The appellant was heard by him andpw2 to have uttered the words that Laxmi had betrayed him in his love and hewould teach her the lesson of her life and saying that he had also stabbed himself inhis abdomen with the same knife. Dhianpal Singh PW1 had called PW2 Mahavirsingh and PW3 Gangeshwari Nath to the spot. PW2 had also witnessed from thesaid window of the room of Vijay Kumar that appellant had stabbed himself in theabdomen with the knife and had fallen down. They bolted the room from outsideand Gangeshwari Nath went away to call the police.

( 4 ). A telephone message was given to the police by Gangeshwari Nath whichwas recorded at 2. 15 P. M. in Daily Diary No. 8a of the Police Station Shahdara, copyof which is Ex. PW10a. Shri Balister Singh ASI accompanied by Constable Surinderpal reached the place of occurrence and statement of PW1 Dhianpal Singh wasrecorded, which is Ex. PWI/a on the basis of which the case was registered undersection 302 of the Indian Penal Code as per F. I. R. No-155/86 at Police Stationshahdara on the same day. The Investigating Officer had taken into possessionvarious articles i. e. one lady wrist watch, chain of steel broken into two pieces, bloodstained locket, one steel ring, some pieces of red broken bangles, one pair of ladysandals, blood stained pair of gents chhapals, blood stained angochha and one bloodstained towel lying near the dead body of Laxmi and had converted the same intosealed parcel and taken into possession vide recovery memo prepared at the spot. The weapon of offence a knife (chhuri) lying at the spot, which also bore blood stains,was also got sealed and taken into possession vide recovery memo. A sketch wasalso prepared and blood was also lifted from the spot and converted into sealedparcel. He prepared the inquest papers and had sent the dead body for postmortem.

( 5 ). The appellant. Who was found lying injured at the spot, was also sent to thehospital and in the medico legal report prepared by the doctor wi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document