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

2016 Supreme(Del) 1735

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG & MUKTA GUPTA, JJ.
RAJ KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
CRL.A. 232/2016
Decided On : 19-04-2016

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Chetan Lokur, Advocate with Mr. Nitish Chaudhary, Advocate.
Mr. Varun Goswami, APP with Insp. Devendra Rathi, P.S. Sarai Rohilla.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal provisions related to the death of a wife in her matrimonial home, the presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the concept of grave and sudden provocation.

Headnote:

Homicidal Death - Section 302 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 302 IPC - The court discussed the presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and examined various categories of cases related to the death of a wife in her matrimonial home. It also referred to the legal principles established in the case of K.M. Nanavati Vs. State of Maharashtra regarding grave and sudden provocation. The court found the accused guilty under Section 302 IPC and dismissed the appeal.

Fact of the Case:

Gudia suffered a homicidal death at the hands of her husband Raj Kumar. The court analyzed the evidence including witness testimonies, post-mortem report, and the accused's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the accused guilty under Section 302 IPC based on the evidence presented, including the testimony of witnesses and the post-mortem report. It dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.

Issues: The issues revolved around the presence of the accused at the time of the incident, the credibility of witness testimonies, and the possibility of suicide. The court also considered the applicability of legal provisions related to the death of a wife in her matrimonial home and the concept of grave and sudden provocation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the testimony of witnesses, the post-mortem report, and the legal principles established in previous cases to reach its decision. It also considered the presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and the concept of grave and sudden provocation.

Final Decision: The court found the accused guilty under Section 302 IPC and dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction.

JUDGMENT :

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. Battered and tormented, Gudia has been held to have suffered a homicidal death in the afternoon of May 13, 2014 at the hands of her husband Raj Kumar resulting in his conviction under Section 302 IPC vide impugned judgment dated October 14, 2015 and a sentence of imprisonment for life vide impugned order dated November 16, 2015.

2. Gudia, working as a maid in different houses and Raj Kumar selling kachories as a mobile vendor were blessed with two sons aged 4 and 5 years respectively at the time when the unfortunate incident took place. Ordeal for Gudia started on the eve of May 12, 2014 when at around 8.00-9.00 PM a quarrel took place between Hemraj and Raj Kumar, resulting in Hemraj showing his photograph with Gudia to Raj Kumar. Shanti PW-4 a local resident of the jhuggi cluster, who witnessed the quarrel, kept Gudia at her Jhuggi that night but on the next day at about 1.30 pm found her unconscious. Shanti along with her husband and Raj Kumar took Gudia to the hospital where she was declared brought dead. Shanti got recorded her statement narrating the sequence of events on which FIR was registered.

3. Dr. S. Lal PW-12 conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Gudiya on May 14, 2014 at about 12.45 pm and found the following external injuries:-

1. Ligature Mark – A dry reddish brown, parchment type, ligature mark present around the neck is incomplete and oblique. In front- it is 2 cm broad and placed 4.6 cm below the tip of mandible. On left side it is 1.5 cm broad and placed 2 cm below angle of mandible and extent to mastoid area and merge in hair line. On right side it is 3 cm broad and placed 2.5 cm below angle of mandible and extent to right side back of neck up to midline and merge in hair line.

2. Reddish bruise 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm over left side chin placed 3 cm left to tip of chin and 1 cm above lower border of mandible.

3. Reddish bruise 0.8 cm x 0.4 cm on left side face over mandibular area place 1 cm posterior to injury no.2.

4. Reddish bruise 3 cm x 1.5 cm over left side face placed 1.2 cm posterior to injury no.3.

5. Nails mark 0.3 cm x 0.1 cm over left side upper lip placed 2.5 cm from midline.

6. Reddish bruise 4 cm x 2 cm on right inner middle of arm.

7. Reddish bruise 1 cm x 0.5 cm over middle lateral of right forearm.

8. Reddish bruise 1 cm x 0.5 cm over lower middle outer of right arm.

8A. Nails mark 0.5 cm x 0.1 cm over left lower lateral aspect of wrist (inadvertently given the 8 serial number in PM).

9. Nail marks 0.4 cm x 0.1 cm over upper outer back of left forearm.

10. Reddish bruise 1 cm x 0.8 cm over lateral aspect of left elbow.

11. Reddish bruise 2.5 x 1.5 cm over lower outer and lateral of left arm.

12. Multiple reddish bruise in area of 5 x 3 cm varies incise from 1 x 0.8 cm to 1 x 0.3 cm over outer upper 1/3rd of left arm.

13. Multiple small scattered reddish bruise over right leg, varies incise from 2 x 1 cm to 0.5 x 0.4 cm.

14. Reddish bruise 2 in number 0.5 x 0.5 cm each over middle front of left leg.

4. Dr.S.Lal opined the cause of death to be asphyxia due to ante mortem compression of neck produced by means of ligature and sufficient to cause of death in ordinary course of nature. All injuries were ante-mortem in nature, fresh in duration. Injury No.1 was produced by ligature, injury Nos. 5, 8 and 9 were caused by nails and injuries no.2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 were caused by blunt force impact and possible in assault. After examining the belts (black and brown colour) and the nylon cloth (yellowish Green), Dr.S.Lal opined that possibility of homicidal death cannot be ruled out and that ligature mark was possible by yellowish green colour nylon cloth and unlikely to be caused by black and brown colour belts.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant attacking the impugned judgment contends that the learned Trial Court on Shanti’s evidence erroneously inferred that Gudia was last seen alive with Raj Kumar whereas Shanti saw Gudia and Raj Kumar together


























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