Ajmer v. State of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRA-D-884-DB-2017 Reserved on :03.12.2025 Pronounced on: 11.12.2025

AJMER …. Appellant Versus STATE OF HARYANA …. Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARIo

Present : Mr. Kewal Singh, Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Munish Sharma, DAG, Haryana. ****

RAMESHoKUMARI, J.

¶1The instant appeal is filed by the appellant-Ajmer (hereinafter referred as 'accused') for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 31.07.2017 and order of quantum of sentence dated 01.08.2017 in a case arising out of FIR No.136 dated 24.04.2016 registered under Section 302 of IPC at Police Station Pundari (Kaithal) vide which he has been held guilty for causing murder of his wife-Rajo Devi and has been sentenced as under:- U/Section Imprisonment Fine In default of payment 302 of IPC Rigorous Rs. 30,000/- To further imprisonment undergo R.I. for life for six months

Fine of Rs.30,000/- as imposed upon the accused Ajmer was ordered to be paid as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased-Rajo Devi.

2. COMPLAINANT'S VERSION

On 23.04.201 from the Go receipt of thi officials reac EX.PU writt recorded the accused-Ajm Kumar got re "I We are t elder bro Singh w resident Ajmer ha about 17 of intoxic Devi. Yes influence Bhabhi, hearing Ajmer in Bhabhi R alarm, m While we

16, a telephonic message was rec overnment Hospital Kaithal rega is information , PW8 SI Manish ched at Government Hospital Ka ten by Dr. Ashmit Laler. There e statement of PW1-Suresh K mer and brother-in-law of decea ecorded his statement as under:- I am resident of the above state three brothers Pritam is my elde other and I am youngest. The was solemnized with Rajo Dev of Dharar District Karnal at abo as two sons, one Ravinder age 20 7 years. My brother Ajmer used cation and he had doubt on the sterday on 23.04.2016 my broth e of liquor and started quarrelli Rajo Devi. My room is adjoin the commotion, I went to the ro nflicted the injuries on chest, a Rajo Devi with the vegetable cut my nephew Ravinder and my wif e were attending to my Bhabhi

ceived at Police Station, Pundari arding death of Rajo Devi. On h Kumar along with other Police aithal and obtained medical ruqa eafter, PW-8 SI Manish Kumar Kumar, complainant, brother of ased Rajo Devi. PW-1 Suresh ed address and do labour work. est brother. Ajmer is my second marriage of my brother Ajmer i, daughter of Raghbir Singh, out 25/26 years ago. My brother 0 years and second Balinder age to drink liquor and other types e character of my Bhabhi, Rajo her Ajmer came home under the ng and hurled bad words to my ning the room of Ajmer. After oom of Ajmer. In the meantime arm, stomach and body of my tter knife in my presence. On my fe Reena also came at the spot. i Rajo, then my brother Ajmer, i n e a r f h

d r

r e s o e y r e y y

along wi Ravinder medical where d murdered brother A has been

3. POLICE INV

(a) After rec made endorsem to Police Statio ASI Mahipal.

PW8 Ins dead body (in h the dead body.

PW8 Ins the dead body inquest papers and postmortem who prepared p

PW9 Dr. after signing th of deceased (we HC Shubhkaran

th his knife, ran away from ther r and my neighbor Rajesh son o treatment at G.H. Kaithal af doctor declared Rajo Devi as d my Bhabhi with knife. Kindly Ajmer son of Ganeshi. I have go read over to me and I admit it to VESTIGATION cording of statement Ex. PA, P ment Ex. PN on the same and se on on the basis of which FIR E spector Munish Kumar took pho hospital). Dr. Bhira Ram reache

spector Munish Kumar prepared . He handed over application E Ex. PO to PW4 HC Shubhkara m was conducted by PW9 Dr. V postmortem report Ex. PT. . Vivek Sheoran, after conducing he inquest papers Ex. PO and pa earing clothes and bangles), han n.

re. Then I along with my nephew of Ramdhari took Rajo Devi for fter arranging private vehicle, dead. My brother Ajmer has y take legal action against my ot my statement recorded which o be correct". PW8 Inspector Munish Kumar end ruqa through EASI Shishpal Ex.PA/1 was registered by PW5 otographs Exs. P1 to P7 of the ed at the mortuary and inspected d inquest proceedings Ex. PO of Ex. PQ, dead body along with an for postmortem examination Vivek Sheoran, Medical Officer g post mortem examination and arcels containing the belongings nded over the dead body to PW4 w r

s y h r l e d f h n r d s

PW8 Ins with Dr. Bhira which was conv possession vide blood stained b separately seale Ex. PD. Specim to EASI Suresh also prepared. The post and parcels con HC Shubhkaran body was hande

(b) On the s Mahipal went in When PW gate, Pundari, enquired from h On inter regarding his in used by him in Pundri and nob PF, accused-Aj place where he

spector Munish Kumar also visi Ram and Ravinder and lifted b verted into parcel and sealed wi e memo Ex. PC. One pair of bed sheet were also recovered ed by him with seal 'SS' and ta men of seal was prepared and se h Kumar. Rough site plan of p t mortem report Ex.PT, police ntaining the belongings of dece n to PW7 Inspector Mahavir Sin ed over to PW1-Suresh Kumar v same day, PW7 Inspector Maha n search of accused at his house W7 Inspector Mahavir Singh rea Rajesh Kumar produced ac him and arrested him in this case rrogation, accused-Ajmer suffer nvolvement in the present case a n the occurrence had been kept body else knew about it. Pursuan jmer led the Police party to his e had inflicted injuries to his w

ited the spot of occurrence along blood stained soil from the spot ith seal 'SS' and taken in police blood stained chappal and one from the spot which too were aken in possession vide memo ealed after use was handed over place of occurrence Ex. PR was papers (inquest report Ex. PO) ased were handed over by PW4 ngh vide memo Ex.PF. The dead vide receipt PB. avir Singh along with PW5 ASI but he was not found there. ached at Brahmanand Chowk Pai ccused-Ajmer before him. He e. red disclosure statement Ex.PF and also disclosed that the knife concealed by him on Pilni road nt to his disclosure statement Ex. s house and got demarcated the wife Rajo Devi and demarcation g t e e e o r s ) d I i e F e d . e n

memo Ex. PJ w Surinder Singh recovered knife was taken into named witness prepared by PW In due c Singh. The scal from PW6 Ram Constable Asho PRESENTAT PROCEEDING

(i) After presenta Section 207 Cr. P Sessions.

(ii) The accused guilty and claimed

5. PROSECUTIO

(A) In order to pro The prosecution

(i)(a)Statement complainant s recorded by the also stated abo

was prepared which is signed b h. Thereafter, accused-Ajmer as e Ex.MO/1 and sketch Ex. PG o o Police possession vide memo ses. Site plan Ex. PL of place W7 Inspector Mahavir Singh. course, case property was depo led site plan Ex. PK of place of m Niwas Draftsman. The case p ok Kumar to FSL Madhuban. TION OF CHALLAN A GS ation of the challan in the Cou P.C. was complied with. The ca was charged under Section 302 d trial. ON EVIDENCE ove its case, prosecution has exa n evidence can be discussed und of complainant and eye w stepped into the witness box an e Police on the basis of which F out the manner of inflicting inj

by PW5 ASI Mahipal and EASI per his disclosure statement got of knife was prepared and knife Ex.PH attested by both above of recovery of knife was also osited with PW11 HC Joginder f recovery was also got prepared property was sent through PW3 AND COMMITMENT OF urt of learned Illaqa Magistrate, ase was committed to Court of of IPC to which he pleaded not amined as many as 12 witnesses. der the following heads:- itness-PW1-Suresh Kumar, nd proved the statement Ex.PA FIR Ex.PA/1 was registered. He uries by accused-Ajmer on the I t e e o r d

F , f t . , A e e

fateful night of the post mortem

(b) PW 2 Rav corroborated th inflicting injuri

6. INVESTIGAT

(a) PW8 Inspec case. He depos PU from Gover and he reached met him and h following doc investigation.

¶1Ex. PN

¶2Exs. P

¶3Ex. PO

¶4Ex. P Devi.

¶5Ex. P blood with s

¶6Ex.PD pair o

¶7Ex. PR

6.(b) PW7 Inspe this case from parcels (one c stained chappa containing the

f 23.04.2016 at 8 PM and memo/ m the dead body was taken by him vinder Kumar, son of decea he testimony of PW1-Suresh K es by the accused-Ajmer on Rajo TIVE EVIDENCE ctor Munish Kumar had condu sed that on 23.04.2016 at about rnment Hospital Kaithal regardi d at Government Hospital Kait e recorded statement Ex.PA of cuments which were prepared N endorsement on PA. P1 to P7 photographs of dead bo O-inquest proceedings (Form No Q-application for conducting po

PC-memo regarding taking into d stained earth lifted from the seal 'SS'. D memo regarding taking into p of blood stained chappal and one R site plan of place of occurrenc ector Mahavir Singh stated tha PW-8 SI Munish Kumar on 24 ontaining blood stained soil a al and bed sheet). He also to belongings of deceased from PW

/ receipt Ex. PB vide which after m from Police. ased and accused-Ajmer also Kumar regarding the manner of o Devi. ucted initial investigation in this 10:55 PM, he received ruqa Ex. ing the dead body of Rajo Devi thal where PW1-Suresh Kumar f Suresh Kumar. He proved the d by him in the course of dy (taken in hospital). o. 25:35 (1)(B)) ost mortem of dead body of Rajo o possession parcel containing spot of occurrence duly sealed possession parcel containing one blood stained bed sheet. ce. at he took over investigation of

4.04.2016 along with two sealed and the other containing blood ook into possession the parcel W4 HC Shubhkaran vide memo r o f s . i r e f o g d e f d d l o

Ex.PF (after furtherance of d occurrence and disclosure state which was prep Ex.PH. Site pla 7 MEDICAL EV PW9 Dr. Vivek S and he in suppo proved the follow

(i) Ex of

(ii) Ex

(iii) Ex De

(iv) Ex The parcel contai produced in the Ex.MO/5 (salwar

7.(b) PW 10 Dr. sealed parcels w laboratory and he

8. LINK EVIDEN

postmortem). Thereafter, he disclosure statement Ex.PF, the a d memo Ex.PJ was prepared. ement Ex.PF, also got recovered pared vide memo Ex.PG and ta an of the place of recovery of kn VIDENCE Sheoran conducted post mortem rt of his examination-in-chief wing documents: x.PQ-application for conducting f deceased Rajo Devi. x.PT-post mortem report. x.PU-ruqa (initially sent to the evi in Civil/Government Hospit x.PO-inquest report on which he ining the belongings of Rajo De Court at the time of recording h r) Ex. MO/6 (shirt) and Ex. MO/ . Surjit, Senior Scientific Offic were received in FSL, Madhuba e prepared reports Exs. PV and P NCE

arrested the accused and in accused demarcated the place of The accused in furtherance of d knife Ex.MO/1, the sketch of aken into Police possession vide nife PL was prepared. m on the dead body of Rajo Devi tendered affidavit Ex. PS. He the post mortem of dead body Police regarding death of Rajo tal). identified his signatures. evi and weapon of offence were his statement and exhibited vide /7 (bangles), Ex.MO/1 (knife). cer in his statement deposed that an which were examined in the PV/1. n f f f e i e y o e e t e

(a) PW4 HC Sh conducted on the over the post mo PW7 Inspector M Rajo Devi vide re

8.(b) PW6 Ram

11.05.2016.

8.(c) PW11 HC Ex.PW11/A and a Mahavir Singh de handed over the c the office of FSL till it was in his cu

8.(d) PW3 Con corresponding to regarding taking o of FSL, Madhuba also deposed abou 8(e) PW 12 Insp statements of PW Section 161 Cr.P. Draftsman and pre 9 STATEMENT PLEA

hubhkaran stated about getting dead body of Rajo Devi and th ortem's report, Police papers, de Mahavir Singh vide memo Ex.PF eceipt Ex.PB. m Niwas Draftsman prepared Joginder Singh in his examina as per averments of this affidavit eposited case property of this ca case property to PW3 Constable L. He is specific that case proper ustody. stable Ashok Kumar tendered o the affidavit Ex.PW11/A o of case property from him and d an and handing over the receipt t ut the integrity of the case proper pector Angrej, during the cours W11 HC Joginder Singh, PW3 .C and he got prepared scaled si epared report under Section 173 T OF ACCUSED UNDER SEC

g the post mortem examination at after post mortem, he handed ead body and sealed parcels to and dead body to legal heirs of d scaled site plan Ex.PK on ation-in-chief tendered affidavit t, on 24.04.2016, PW7 Inspector ase with him. On 03.05.2016, he Ashok Kumar for its deposit in rty remained in intact condition d his affidavit Ex. PE, which is of PW11 HC Joginder Singh depositing the same in the office to PW11 HC Joginder Singh. He rty. se of investigation, recorded the Constable Ashok Kumar under ite plan from, PW6 Ram Niwas Cr.P.C. CTION 313 Cr. P.C AND HIS n d o f n t r e n n s h e e e r s S

After closure recorded under false implicatio never suffered signatures on b accused to lead closed his defen

¶10The learned tri

(i)

Ra

Se

¶11After hearing of oral and doc favour of prose conviction and 12 SUBMISSION Learned counse

(i) that the invest While the injur the FIR Ex.PA arrested on the weapon have al investigation cr

of prosecution evidence, stat r Section 313 Cr.P.C. He again on. He took the plea that no reco any disclosure statement before blank papers in Police custody. d evidence but without examin nce evidence. ial Court framed following issues Whether on 23.04.2016, accuse ajo Devi and thereby committe ection 302 IPC? of arguments of learned APP, d cumentary evidence, learned tria ecution and against the accused-A order of sentence as stated in pa N OF LEARNED COUNSEL F el for the accused-appellant conte igation is not proper and as it i ries are alleged to have been cau A/1 was registered on 24.04.2 e same day and confessional sta lso been made on the same day reates doubt in the investigation

tement of accused-Ajmer was pleaded innocence and claimed overy was effected from him. He e the Police. Police obtained his Opportunity was granted to the ning any witness in defence, he s for determination in this case:- ed committed murder of his wife d an offence punishable under defence counsel and on perusal al Court determined the issue in Ajmer, rendered the judgment of ara No.1 of this judgment. FOR THE ACCUSED ended; is conducted in a hasty manner. used on 23.04.2016 at 8:00 p.m., 2016, and accused-Ajmer was atement and recovery of alleged and that such promptness in the itself; s d e s e e

e r l n f . , s d e

(ii) that PW1-Sur drunk and that been made by t

(iii) that there are while PW7 Ins of occurrence a stated that first of occurrence. were conducte otherwise;

(iv) that PW1-Sure are interested Ravinder Kum of occurrence had not seen occurrence;

(v) that false reco independent w the possession ocular version vehemently pr sentence by wa

13. SUBMISSION

resh Kumar, complainant state PW 2 Ravinder Kumar was als hese witnesses to save Rajo Dev e discrepancies in the statement pector Mahavir Singh stated tha and thereafter the place of recov tly the weapon was recovered an PW7 Inspector Mahavir Singh ed while sitting in vehicle w esh Kumar, complainant and PW witnesses. There is no inde mar stated that he and Reena Dev after the accused-appellant had n the occurrence, and that the overy of knife has been implante witness was joined at the time of n of the accused-Ajmer. There is n regarding injuries on the body rayed for setting aside the judgm ay of acceptance of appeal. N OF LEARNED STATE COU

ed that accused was allegedly so present but no efforts having vi from the accused-Ajmer; ts of the witnesses inasmuch as at they first reached at the place very whereas, PW5 ASI Mahipal nd thereafter they went to place h stated that entire proceedings whereas other witnesses stated W 2 Ravinder Kumar eye witness ependent corroboration. PW 2 vi, his aunt reached at the place d stabbed the deceased and they ere is no eye witness to the ed upon the accused and that no f alleged recovery of knife from contradiction in the medical and y of Rajo Devi and as such he ment of conviction and order of UNSEL y g s e l e s d s e y e o m d e f

Learned State witnesses exam record, prayed f

14. DISCUSSION

(i) In the prese Ajmer is not in Ajmer. PW 2 R Suresh Kumar, Ex.PA/1 agains

(ii) Allegations Kumar are tha Devi under the taken to hospita

(iii) The post Dr. Vivek Sheo PT and testimo following injuri

¶1wi rig On he pre

counsel while relying upon the mined during the trial and the do for dismissal of the appeal. N ent case, the relationship of the de n dispute i.e. deceased-Rajo D Ravinder Kumar is none but son complainant is brother of accu st his own brother i.e. accused-Aj s by PW1-Suresh Kumar, com at accused-Ajmer inflicted knife e influence of liquor on 23.04.2 al where she succumbed to her in mortem on the dead body of Raj oran on the basis of application ony of PW9 Dr. Vivek Sheora ies were found on the body of de An incised wound near right ar ith dimension 3x.05x8 cm (Bone ght nipple. On further dissection n further dissection right middle emithorox of approximately 1. esent.

e statements of the prosecution ocumentary evidence brought on eceased-Rajo Devi and accused-evi being the wife of accused-of deceased and accused. PW1-used-Ajmer on whose statement Ajmer, the FIR was lodged. mplainant and PW 2 Ravinder e blows on the person of Rajo 016 at about 8 PM and she was njuries. jo Devi was conducted by PW9 Ex. PQ. Post mortem report Ex. an, Medical Officer proved that eceased Rajo Devi :- reola with clotted further blood deep) present anterior lateral to n 2nd and 3rd rib are fractured. e lobe of lung is punctured with .2-1.5 liters of clotted blood n n - - - t r o s . t d o

h d

¶2siz fur On app

3.

¶4asp

5.

8.5 Regarding the c Officer in his stated that "the to injury to vi sufficient to cau No.1 and 2 are The place of cr Inspector Mun stained chappal and in due cour through PW3 C accused was als was lodged on

Another Lacerated wound med ze 3x.6 cm x 7.5cm bone deep rther dissection 2nd and 3rd rib n further dissection left mid pproximately 1.5 liter hecmothora Lacerated wound 2cm x.2 cm pr A lacerated wound 5cm x2.5 c pect of left leg middle 1/3rd port Two similar wounds with j 5x2.5x3.5 cm bone deep present p cause of death of Rajo Devi, PW affidavit Ex. PS and post mor e cause of death in this case is du ital organs like lungs which is use death in ordinary course of deep injuries which resulted into rime is the house inhabited by a nish Kumar lifted blood stained l and one blood stained bed she rse, deposited with PW11 HC Jo Constable Ashok Kumar to the so arrested on the same day i.e. n the basis of statement Ex.PA

dial and lower to left areola of p present on the left areola on bs are fractured on the left side. ddle lobe is punctured with ax present. resent just lateral to angle lewis. cm present over anterio lateral tion. joint lower margins of size proximal to 4. W9 Dr. Vivek Sheoran, Medical rtem report Ex. PT specifically ue to shock and hemorrhage due s antemortem in nature and is f life." As noticed above, injury o the death of Rajo Devi. accused-Ajmer from where PW8 d soil besides a pair of blood et which were separately sealed oginder Singh who sent the same office of FSL, Madhuban. The

24.04.2016, when FIR Ex.PA/1 A of PW-1 Suresh Kumar and f n

h

l e l y e s y d d e e

d

recovery of kni that total 4 parc Parcel No. N Im 2-1-1-

¶42-

As per report bangles which postmortem rep suicidal but hom

(iv) PW1-Sure accused-Ajmer children. He h stated that on 2 adjacent to roo and his children

ife Ex. MO/1 was also effected f cels were deposited in the office No. & Seal mpression Description of parce -SS It contained exhibit-Exhibit-1. Flakes o 50 gm.) described a -SS It contained exhibit Exhibit-2a. One mu stained with browni Exhibit-2b. One pai with dark brown sta -Doctor It contained exhibit Exhibit 3a. One mu lady's shirt stained w Exhibit 3b. One stained with dark br Exhibit 3c. One yell dark brown stains. Exhibit 3d. Few br with a metallic kada -MS It contained exhibit-Exhibit-4. One knif metallic blade and w Ex. PV/1, human blood was f were found broken/disintegra port Ex.PT proved that the death micidal. esh Kumar in his statement sp under the influence of liquor ad doubt on the character of R

23.04.2016 at about 8 PM he w om of his brother-Ajmer and at n were also present. Accused-A

from accused. Report PV proved of FSL which are as under:- el(s) -1. f earth and loose earth (approx s blood stained earth 2a and 2b. ulticoloured stripped bed sheet ish stains. r of black hawai chappal stained ains. 3a to 3d. ulticoloured cut and torn printed with dark brown stains. multicoloured printed salwar rown stains. low/saffron dupatta stained with roken red glass bangles stained a. -4. fe (approx 19 cm.) having rusty wooden handgrip. found on all the articles except ated. This report coupled with h of Rajo Devi was not natural or pecifically stated on oath that used to quarrel with wife and Rajo Devi. He also specifically was present in his room which is that time his nephews, his wife Ajmer came to house and started d x t d d r h d y t h r t d y s e d

quarreling with room of accus nephew Ravind sister-in-law R brother-Ajmer Ajmer abscond Government ho declared dead. PW 2 Ravinde Ravinder Kuma Court on 25.07 in the Court on thereby, PW 2 position to und testimony spec Suresh went to his uncle, wher various parts o accused-Ajmer Thus, both of t witnessed the o and to save re injuries on the Devi is also sp

h his wife Rajo Devi. On hearing ed-Ajmer and he was followed der. He saw that accused-Ajmer Rajo Devi on various parts of bo left Rajo Devi and they starte ded from the spot and Rajo ospital, Kaithal where she wa er Kumar, also deposed to the ar was 20 years at the time of r .2017. Thus, he was not minor w n the said date. The occurrence Ravinder Kumar was about 19 y derstand the gravity of situation ifically stated that after hearing the room occupied with them. H re he saw his father inflicting inju of body including chest. They absconded from the spot along w them i.e. PW-1 Suresh Kumar a occurrence. They had no reason eal culprit, had there been any person of Rajo Devi. The reaso pecifically stated by PW1-Sures

g the noise of quarrel, he went to d by his wife Reena Devi and gave various knife blows to his ody. They raised alarm and his ed looking after her. Accused-o Devi was got admitted in as checked by the doctors and same effect. The age of PW 2 ecording of his statement in the when his statement was recorded e is dated 23.04.2016, meaning years of age at that time and in a n. PW 2 Ravinder Kumar in his g the noise of quarrel, his uncle He along with his aunt followed uries to his mother with knife on raised alarm. In the meantime, with knife. and PW-2 Ravinder Kumar had to falsely implicate the accused y, who allegedly inflicted fatal on for inflicting injuries on Rajo sh Kumar, complainant and by o d s s - n d e d g a s e d n , d d l o y

PW2 Ravinder character of Raj beat her. The Kumar, compla would have sav injuries were g they intervene concern of PW members was to reason, they did to the hospital. taken on the ho report Ex.PO). PW 2 Ravinder

(v) The conten writing work w stated that it wa are susceptible officials are inv official duties, proceedings of officials or in Kumar could be

r Kumar that accused-Ajmer ajo Devi and under the influence contention of learned defence ainant and PW 2 Ravinder Kuma ved Rajo Devi or would have in given by the accused-Ajmer in d, accused-Ajmer absconded W1-Suresh Kumar and PW 2 Ra o save Rajo Devi and provide he d not follow the accused to catch The occurrence took place at 8 ospital immediately and declare This shows the promptness on r Kumar to provide medical assis ntion of learned defence couns was done while sitting in the veh as done at another place, has no e to forgetfulness with the pass volved in the multifarious duties they can miss out the narration investigation. No major discrep that of PW1-Suresh Kumar, co e pointed out by the learned coun

was having doubt about the of liquor, he used to quarrel and counsel that had PW1-Suresh ar been present on the spot, they ntervened has no merit because 5 a couple of seconds and when d from the spot. The primary avinder Kumar and other family er medical treatment and for this h him and rather, took Rajo Devi PM on 23.04.2016 and she was ed dead at 10:55 (as per inquest part of PW1-Suresh Kumar and stance to Rajo Devi. sel that one witness stated that hicle and another Police official merit because human memories sage of time. Moreover, Police s and under the pressure of their of the minute nitty gritty of the pancy in the statements of Police omplainant and PW 2 Ravinder nsel. e d h y n y y s i s t d t l s e r e e r

(vi) The conten was joined at accused-Ajmer Inspector Maha recovery. The disclosed by a Police officials commission of implicated in th raise finger abo

(vii) The conte falsely implica Kumar becaus particulars of a have been a bon Kumar, compla

(viii) The accus wife Rajo Dev definition of Cl under:- "3 ho wi

ntion of learned defence couns the time of recovery of knife is also without any merit becau avir Singh to join independent w recovery of knife Ex. MO/1 accused-Ajmer and PW7 Inspe s had no reason to falsely impl f offence. Moreover, had the his case, PW1-Suresh Kumar wo out Police investigation to save h ention of learned defence coun ated by PW1-Suresh Kumar, co e of property dispute also ca any property worth the name is b ne of contention between accuse ainant and PW 2 Ravinder Kuma sed inflicted deep injuries by me vi. The act done by the acc lause thirdly of Section 300 of IP

¶00Murder. Except in the cases omicide is murder, if the act by w ith the intention of causing death

sel that no independent witness MO/1 from the possession of use it is not imperative for PW7 witness at the time of effecting is effected from the place as ector Mahavir Singh and other licate the accused-Ajmer in the e accused-Ajmer been falsely ould have been the first person to his real brother. nsel that the accused-Ajmer is omplainant and PW 2 Ravinder annot be accepted because no brought on record which would ed on one hand and PW1-Suresh ar on the other hand. eans of knife on the body of his cused-Ajmer comes within the PC. Section 300 of IPC reads as s hereinafter excepted, culpable which the death is caused is done h, or-s f g s r e y o s r o d h s e s e e

Se inj pe Th any suf Fo im or ac suc xxx The accused in Ex.MO/1, whic wife Rajo Devi sufficient in th because as per Vivek Sheoran puncturing the body inflicted inflicting injuri the prosecution of his wife whi trial Court righ

econdly-If it is done with the in jury as the offender knows to be erson to whom the harm is caused hirdly-If it is done with the inten ny person and the bodily inju fficient in the ordinary course of ourthly-If the person committin mminently dangerous that it must such bodily injury as is likely to t without any excuse for incurri ch injury as aforesaid. x

xxx

xxx nflicted five injuries on the body ch proves that his intention was i and these bodily injuries, which he ordinary course of nature to r postmortem report Ex.PT and n, out of five injuries, three inj lungs with fractured ribs. These with sharp weapon i.e. knife E ies likely to cause death in the o n has duly proved that accused c ich falls within Clause 'thirdly' o htly appreciated the evidence an

ntention of causing such bodily e likely to cause the death of the d, or-ntion of causing bodily injury to ury intended to be inflicted is f nature to cause death, or-ng the act knows that it is so t, in all probability, cause death o cause death, and commits such ing the risk of causing death or x" y of his wife by means of knife s to cause bodily injury to his h he intended to be caused were cause the death of Rajo Devi d affidavit Ex.PS of PW-9 Dr. juries were found on the chest e injuries are on vital part of the Ex.MO/1, with the intention of ordinary course of nature. Thus ommitted the offence of murder of Section 300 IPC. The learned nd rightly determined the issue y e o s o h h r e s e i . t e f s r d e

regarding culp infirmity, illega the appeal in ha Copy of the jud

( GURVINDER

JU

11.12.2025 Jyoti-IV

pability of accused in the mur ality or irregularity in the impu and is dismissed. dgment be sent to the quarter con

R SINGH GILL )

UDGE

√Yes/N √Yes/N

rder of his wife. There is no ugned judgment. Consequently, ncerned for compliance. (RAMESH KUMARI)

JUDGE o ,