Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 3100
DELHI HIGH COURT
Pradeep Nandrajog, Mukta Gupta, JJ.
Gurmeet Singh - Appellant
Versus
State - Resopndent
Crl. A. 1138/2014
Decided On : 29-09-2014
For the Appellant :Ms. Aishwarya Rao, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State with inspector Rajesh Kumar, PS Rajouri Garden.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of medical evidence in contradicting ocular evidence and the shift of onus on the accused to explain the circumstances of a homicidal death.
Headnote:
Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Indian Evidence Act, Section 106, Indian Penal Code, Section 302 - The court discussed the circumstantial evidence, the post mortem report, and the contradiction between ocular evidence and medical evidence. It highlighted the legal principle that when medical evidence completely rules out the possibility of ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved. The court held that the post mortem report completely ruled out the possibility of death due to a fall and opined that the injury was caused by a hammer, shifting the onus on the appellant to explain the homicidal death in terms of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Fact of the Case:
Gurmeet Singh is convicted of the murder of his sister Kanwaljeet Kaur by inflicting head injury on her with a hammer. The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence initiated by a call reporting a quarrel at the scene. The post mortem report revealed injuries consistent with hammer impacts, contradicting the family's claim of a fall.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction of Gurmeet Singh for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and the order on sentence, as his explanation was deemed implausible and he failed to explain the injuries to the deceased.
Issues: The issues revolved around the delayed registration of FIR, the contradiction between the family's account and the post mortem report, and the appellant's failure to explain the injuries to the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the legal principle that when medical evidence completely rules out the possibility of ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved, and it highlighted the shift of onus on the appellant to explain the homicidal death in terms of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was to suffer the remaining sentence.
Mukta Gupta, J.
1. Gurmeet Singh is convicted of the murder of his sister Kanwaljeet Kaur by inflicted head injury on her by a hammer. He assails the judgment on the ground that the FIR was registered belatedly after a period of two months, no blood was recovered on the hammer as per the seizure memo, however, strangely enough FSL report notes presence of blood on the hammer. The witnesses have stated that the deceased received injuries due to fall as told to them by the deceased. The learned Trial Court wrongly discarded the dying declaration. The injuries were compatible to that of fall.
2. The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence being initiated on a call received from wireless on May 28, 2011 at about 2.55 p.m. that an incident of quarrel had taken place at J-3/2, Rajouri Garden, near Bhandari Hospital vide DD No. 26A at Ex PW-10/A.
3. SI Abhishek Verma, PW-12 went to the spot and came to know that the injured Kanwaljeet Kaur had been removed to DDU Hospital. She was found in unconscious state and was not fit for statement. Gurmeet Singh and Amreek Singh, brothers of the Kanwaljeet Kaur and Baljeet Singh and Tejender Mohan Singh, brothers-in-law of Kanwaljeet Kaur were present in the Hospital. On enquiries they told that Kanwaljeet Kaur had fallen from the stairs in the house. He went to the spot, took photographs and searched for an eye witness, however, found none. Thus DD entry was kept pending and the observations were recorded vide DD No. 35A Ex.PW-12/A. On the same day at about 10.00 p.m. an information was received from DDU Hospital regarding the death of Kanwaljeet Kaur, dead body was preserved and the inquest proceedings conducted.
4. The post mortem examination of the deceased was done by Dr. Santosh Kumar (PW-4) who exhibited his report as Ex.PW-4/A and noticed the following external injuries:
“1. One bruise of size 5.0cm x 4.0 cm present on the lateral aspect of mid left forearm with reddish brown in colour.
2. One bruise of size 3.0 cm x 2.0 cm present on the medical aspect of the right arm with reddish brown in colour.
3. One bruise of size 4 cm x 4.0 cm present on the right forearm with reddish brown in colour.
4. Lacerated (stitched) wound of size 6.0 cm x 1.0 cm x bone deep present on the left parietal region of head with bruised and irregular margins on further exploration of the wound sub scalp extravasations of blood revealed in to adjacent area along with fractured (linear fracture) left parietal bone extended anteroposteriorly.
5. Lacerated (stitched) wound of size 4.0 cam x 10 cam x bone deep present on the left parietal region adjacent to external injury No. 4 and placed 1.5 cm apart. The margins of the wound irregular and ragged with collection of blood in Subscalp at adjacent area.
6. Lacerated (stitched) wound of size 6.0 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep present on the left perito-temporal region of the head with irregular and ragged margins. On further exploration of the wound the Subscalp blood collection at neighbouring site along with fractured left temporal and sphenoid bones of Skull.
7. One punched out lacerated wound of circular in shape with having diameter of 4 cm present on the left tempero- parietal region of head with loss of underlying scalp. On exploration of the wound the underlying bone found depressed fracture (signature fracture) having diameter of 4.0 cm with broken into pieces and driven into underlying brain tissue which caused laceration of parietal and temporal lobe of left cerebral hemisphere.”
5. On internal examination Dr. Santosh Kumar noticed some Sub scalp haematoma and contusions. He also noticed Subdural haematoma and subarachnoid haemorrhage on bilateral temporal, parietal and occipital region. Fracture of the left temporal and partial lobe with fracture of middle cranial fossa was also present. He opined that the cause of death was due to head injury subsequently to hard, heavy and forceful blunt impacts over the head. According to him all injuries were ante mo
