LexGURDEV RAJ versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
) GURDEVRAJ A V. THE STATE OF PUNJAB OCTOBER 9, 2007 B [C.K. THAKKER AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 302 and 304 Part-I: Murder-Accused allegedly attacked his mother-in-law with an c iron mungli in the presence of his wife, PW4 and another relative, PWJ-Mother-in-law succumbed to injuries-FIR-:Jnvestigation- Believing the testimony of PW4 and PWJ, eye-witnesses, trial Court found accused guilty of committing offence punishable u/s.302 /PC and sentenced him to life imprisonment-Affirmed by High Court- D On appeal, Held: Courts below did not commit any error in believing evidence of PWJ and PW4-Delay in filing FIR has been properly explained-Trial Court rightly held that though PW4 and PWJ were relatives of the deceased but they could not be treated as interested witnesses-Medical Officer opined that out of the three injuries E inflicted by the accused, injury Nos. 1 and 2 were sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death-High Court found that both the injuries could be caused with one blow-Taking into account totality of facts and circumstances, the accused committed an offence .,, punishable u/s.304 Part-I !PC-Hence, conviction of accused- appellant altered from Section 302 !PC to an offence punishable u/s. F 304 Part-I !PC-Testimony of relative eye-witnesses-Interested ·witnesses. According to the prosecution, since marriage of appellant and PW4, relations between them were not cordial. Because of frequent G . ,) quarrels between them, PW 4 was taken by her father at her parental home. A complaint was also made to the Women Cell of Police by the father of PW4 against the appellant. Later, because of. intervention ofln-charge, Women Cell, a compromise was entered 835 H 836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R. A into between them. Pursuant to the said compromise, PW 4 went back to her husband. Before about a week of the incident, she came back to her parent's house with the consent of her husband, the appellant. On receipt of a message from her husband that he was not well, PW 4 along with her mother and sister-in-law, PWl, came to her husband's B house to enquire about his health. There, a quarrel ensued between PW 4 and her mother on the one side and the appellant on the other side. The appellant got picked up an iron mungli lying inside the room and inflicted blows on the head of his mother-in-law. As a result of those injuries, she died at about 6.30 p.m. on that day. Both, PW4 c and PWl, raised hue and cry, but nobody from the neighbourhood came to their rescue. In the meanwhile, accused fled away with the weapon of crime. Both PW 4 and PWl got frightened, they left the dead body of the deceased in the house itself and locked the house. Then, PW4 along with PWl went back to her father's house to inform D him about the incident. On the next day, she along with her father reached the place of incident and lodged an FIR in the Police Station. After completion of investigation, the case was committed to the Sessions Court and charges for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC were framed. Believing the testimony of PWl E and PW4, the eye-witnesses, and taking into consideration opinion of the Medical officer in the post-mortem report, trial Court found accused-appellant guilty of committing the offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine Qf Rs. 500/-. Aggrieved, appellant preferred an appeal F before the High Court. Division Bench of the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused. Hence the present appeal. Accused-appellant contended that there was gross and unexplained delay in filing the FIR which went to the root of the matter and he was entitled to acquittal; that neither PW4, his wife G nor PWl, sister-in-law of PW4, could be said to be an eye-witness as they were subsequently brought by the prosecution to give evidence to support the case against him; that there were material contradictions in their evidence which went to show that they had not seen the incident and their evidence, therefore, could not have H been relied upon; that according to the prosecution case, the incident GURDEVRAJv. STATE 837 took plaee at about 6.30 p.m. in a locality where several houses were A there and neighbours were staying in those houses, in spite of that, no independent witness bad been examined by the prosecution; that bot
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.