SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Del) 2249

DELHI HIGH COURT
Sanjiv Khanna, S.P.Garg, JJ.
Subhash - Appellant
Versus
State - Resopndent
Criminal Appeal No. 584 of 2012
Decided On : 05-11-2012

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:Mr. A. J. Bhambliani, Ms. Nisha Bluiinbhani, Ms. Bhavita Mudi , Ms. Lakshila Sethi, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles related to witness credibility, forensic evidence, and causation in establishing guilt.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code - Murder - Sections 302, 452, 324 - The judgment discusses the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Nirmala, and under Sections 452 and 324 for house trespass and causing injuries to others. The court analyzed the statements of witnesses, forensic evidence, and the appellant's defense. The court found the appellant guilty of murder and causing injuries, and upheld the convictions and sentences.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted for the murder of Nirmala and causing injuries to others. The prosecution's case relied on the statements of the deceased's sisters, forensic evidence, and the appellant's relationship with the deceased.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the statements of the deceased's sisters to be credible and trustworthy, and rejected the appellant's defense. The court upheld the appellant's conviction for murder and causing injuries.

Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of witnesses, forensic evidence, and the appellant's defense of false implication.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the credibility of witnesses, forensic evidence, and the appellant's conduct to establish guilt. The court also applied legal principles related to causation and culpable homicide.

Final Decision: The court upheld the appellant's conviction for murder and causing injuries, and modified the order of payment of fine.

Sanjiv Khanna, J. (ORAL);—

The appellant, Subhash, by the impugned judgment dated 15th November, 2011 has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) for the murder of Nirmala; under Sections 452 and 324 IPC for committing house trespass and simple injuries to Sarita, Nita and Aache Lal. By the order of sentence dated 15th November, 2011, he has been sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence of murder and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years. For the offence under Section 324 IPC, he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. For the offence under Section 452, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

2. The prosecution’s case largely rests and is predicated upon the statements of the two sisters of the deceased (Nirmala), namely Urmila and Asha, who had appeared before the trial court as PW-1 and PW-2, respectively.

3. Urmila (PW-1) has stated that on 6th February, 2005 she, her five sisters, and one brother had gone to sleep in the same room at about 10 P.M. At about 3 – 3.30 A.M., she was woken up by the cries of her sister Nirmala, who had been sleeping with their sister Sarita on a separate cot. On waking up, PW-1 saw that the electric bulb had been switched ‘on’ and that the door of their room was open. She saw the appellant (Subhash), who was described as their maternal uncle, standing beside the said cot holding a jug in his hand. She then saw him throwing the contents of the jug on Nirmala, after which he threw the jug on the floor and ran out through the back door of the room, bolting the door from outside. She averred that despite her effort to stop the appellant, he managed to run away. Nirmala and her other sisters, Sarita and Nita, suffered burn injuries caused by the contents of the jug. Her father, who was sleeping in the adjoining room, came into the said room on hearing their cries. He poured water on her sisters, and called the police, who reached their house within five minutes. PW-1 also stated that earlier that day, i.e. on 6th February, 2005, at about 11 A.M., she had seen her sister Nirmala quarrelling with Subhash on the roof of their house. Nirmala was scolding the appellant, and the appellant was threatening her, saying that “he would see to her” if she would not agree to his terms. When PW-1 questioned Nirmala about the exchange, she replied that she was scolding the appellant because he had misbehaved with her. She further stated that on the said night Nirmala was first taken to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, and thereafter shifted to JPN Hospital, where she succumbed to her burn injuries.

4. Asha (PW-2) made a similar statement, that on 6th February, 2005, she had gone to sleep with her five sisters and one brother. Her sisters Nirmala and Sarita were sleeping on a separate cot. At about 3.30 A.M. she woke up when she heard Nirmala crying out. She saw the appellant standing by the side of the cot on which Nirmala was sleeping, and saw that he was holding a jug in his hand. She saw him throwing the jug on the floor of the room, and run out of the other door, after bolting it from the outside. Nirmala was completely burnt and her two sisters, namely Sarita and Nita, also received burn injuries. After the police arrived, the injured girls were taken to the hospital. She stated that Nirmala was first taken to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and then shifted to another hospital. PW-2 averred that at about 11 A.M. on the 6th of February, 2005, the deceased (Nirmala) had gone to the roof of their house and was seen quarreling with the appellant. The appellant was threatening Nirmala and saying that “he would see to her”. The examination-in-chief of Asha (PW-2) was recorded on 15th August, 2005 and her cross-examination was defe













































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top