The High Court dismissed the appeal in a murder case. The appellant claimed sudden provocation after witnessing an affair but failed to provide evidence, unlike the Supreme Court case referenced where the accused saw the act. Conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld.
Appeal dismissed; trial Court judgment upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~
Date of Order:13th April 2018
KULDEEP KUMAR ...Appellant Through: Mr. Harsh Prabhakar ( amicus curiae) , Mr. Anirudh Tanwar and Ms. Shaima Khan, Advocates.
versus
STATE (NCT) of Delhi ...Respondent Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA
J U D G M E N T
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. :
Crl.A.459/2002
Page 1 of 10
Crl.A.459/2002
Page 2 of 10
Crl.A.459/2002
Page 3 of 10
neighbours of the deceased, i.e. Nand Lal (PW4) and Mohan Lal (PW5), turned hostile. One of the neighbours, who was witness to the seizure and he was Rishi Mudgil (PW6). The father of the deceased, i.e. Munshi Ram, was examined as PW9. The Investigating Officer („IO‟) was Inspector Gurdev Singh, who was posted as Additional SHO in PS Dabri, who was examined as PW23. Inter alia , he mentioned how the Appellant kept on changing his versions.
Crl.A.459/2002
Page 4 of 10
against the Appellant were put to him under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure („Cr PC‟), he denied them and claimed to have been falsely implicated. When asked whether he had anything else to say, the Appellant stated as under:
Crl.A.459/2002
Page 5 of 10
murder of my wife.”
Crl.A.459/2002
Page 6 of 10
17.1 In this regard, Mr. Prabhakar placed considerable reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of UP v. Lakhmi (1998) 4 SCC 336 . The Court has perused the said judgment carefully. The facts therein were that the deceased was the young wife of the accused and that they had two children. With the accused dissipating his earning on alcohol, intermittent skirmishes used to erupt between husband and wife. In the early hours of 8th February 1970, the accused inflicted fatal blows on the head of the deceased with a phali (a spade like agricultural implement) on the head of the deceased. She died on the spot. One Ramey was working on the adjacent field and hearing the screams of the deceased, peeped through the window and witnessed the accused attacking his wife with the weapon. The hue and cry made by Ramey attracted his neighbours. Since the door of the room
Crl.A.459/2002
Page 7 of 10
was bolted from inside they broke it open, over-powered the accused, and trussed him up on a pole with a rope.
17.2. In his statement under Section 313 Cr PC, when confronted with the evidence of Ramey, the answer of the accused therein was, “It was not like that. I murdered her with a kunda and not with phali ”. However, the accused therein tried to plead under Section 84 IPC to show that he is of unsound mind. He, however, could not persuade the trial Court that at the time when he committed the act, he suffered from a mental impairment as a result of which he did not know the nature of his act. An alternative defence proffered was that the deceased and Ramey were together in bed during the early hours on the date of the occurrence and, therefore, the benefit of Section 300 IPC, Exception 1 should be extended to the accused.
17.3. After discussing the features of the case, in para 20 of the above judgment, the Supreme Court noticed that another witness, one Raje, had deposed that as he was rushing towards the house of the accused, he saw Ramey scampering away and then saw the accused inside the bedroom muttering that Ramey had done foul acts with his wife and that he would murder him. The Supreme Court noticed that although the public prosecutor had challenged that part of the testimony of Raje, he did not declare him hostile. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court concluded in paragraph 20 as under:
“20. The above features positively suggest that the accused would have seen something lascivious between his wife and PW2 just when he entered the house from the field.”
17.4. As a result, the Supreme Court viewed the offence as being one of
Crl.A.459/2002
Page 8 of 10
culpable homicide not amounting to murder and converted the conviction to one under Section 304-I IPC.
Crl.A.459/2002
Page 9 of 10
v. State 2016 SCC OnLine Del. 2844 in support of the plea that a killing committed in the heat of passion on receiving sudden provocation would constitute an offence punishable under Section 304-I IPC and not Section 302 IPC. However, for the reasons stated hereinbefore, the Court is not satisfied that in the present case, the Appellant has been able to show that he caused the death of his wife as a result of becoming enraged by sudden provocation.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
I.S. MEHTA, J.
APRIL 13, 2018 rd
Crl.A.459/2002
Page 10 of 10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to reduction of conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting murder under sudden provocation.
Whether the appellant witnessed a compromising position between his wife and another man as an alternative to his claim of abduction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of UP v. LakhmiReferred¶17
State of UP v. Lakhmi (1998) 4 SCC 336 · Who else cites this
Akhtar v. StateReferred¶20
Akhtar v. State AIR 1964 (All) 262 · Who else cites this
Narbahadur Darjee v. The StateReferred¶20
Narbahadur Darjee v. The State AIR 1965 Gau 89 · Who else cites this
Raj Kumar @ Rajesh Pandit v. StateReferred¶20
Raj Kumar @ Rajesh Pandit v. State 2012 SCC-OnLine Del. 1013 · Who else cites this
Sabra v. StateReferred¶20
Sabra v. State 2016 SCC OnLine Del. 2844 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
KULDEEP KUMAR
STATE
S. MURALIDHAR
I.S. MEHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
S. MURALIDHAR and I.S. MEHTA
Parties & counsel
