Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, Mr. Binwant Singh, Mr. Pulkit Jolly, Mr. Rahul Bhaskar, Ms. Ankita v. STATE

Judgment

1. The present appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 filed against the Judgment dated 03.05.20232 convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 and the Order on Sentence dated 24.08.20234 sentencing the Appellant imprisonment. In addition, he has been fined an amount of Rs.15,000/- under Section 302 of the IPC, and in the event of default in payment 1Cr.P.C. 2Impugned judgement 3IPC 4Impugned sentencing order Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:03.07.2025 17:05:50 CRL.A. 164/2024 of the fine, he has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. At this juncture, it will be apposite to advert to the salient facts presented before the Ld. Trial Court, which led to the Appellant‟s conviction and the subsequent filing of the present Appeal. 3. On 23.04.2018, Constable Ajay Rana (PW-10), who was on duty at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, received information, at around 10 a.m., from the on-duty doctor that a woman had been brought in already deceased. He telephonically passed information to the Police Post at the hospital, and the incident was recorded in the Daily Diary5 No. 11PP (Ex.PW-8/A) by Constable Ishwar (PW-8). The information was then passed on to ASI Jai Kishan, and a copy of the DD was handed over to SI Praveen Atri (PW-17) for further investigation. 4. Upon receiving the DD, SI Praveen Atri, accompanied by Constable Ghanshyam (PW-6) and Constable Somdev (PW-2), went to the emergency ward of the hospital and collected the Medico-Legal Case6 Report No. 1300/18 (Ex.PW-12/A) of the deceased woman, Savita, who had been declared “brought dead”. The deceased's body was moved to the hospital mortuary. At the hospital, SI Atri met Ritika (PW-5), the daughter of the deceased, who gave a detailed statement (Ex.PW-5/A). She informed the police that her father, Vinod (the Appellant/ Accused), had a history of domestic abuse towards her mother. The couple had not been on speaking terms for the past four to five months, and the Accused had also stopped 5DD 6MLC Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:03.07.2025 17:05:50 CRL.A. 164/2024 providing any household expenses. As per her statement, the Accused

was residing separately on the first floor with his own mother. 5. On the morning of the incident, Ritika and her brother Piyush (PW-7) were awakened by a commotion. They rushed out to find their father violently hitting their mother with a hammer (Ex.P1). Ritika stated that her father had one hand around her mother's neck while repeatedly hitting her with the hammer using the other. She managed to snatch the hammer away from him, after which he fled the scene. With the help of a neighbor, namely, Karan, they rushed their mother to the hospital. Based on Ritika‟s statement, SI Atri prepared a rukka (Ex.PW-17/A) and handed it to Constable Ghanshyam (PW-6) for registration of the First Information Report7. 6. The FIR was registered by Head Constable Rakesh, who was on duty as the DD writer at PS Mangol Puri. He recorded the FIR (Ex.PW-16/C) and made the necessary endorsement on the rukka. He also issued a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 18728 (Ex.PW-16/D). Constable Ghanshyam returned to the spot and handed over the FIR and rukka to Inspector Vijay Kataria (PW- 19), who took charge of the investigation. Inspector Kataria summoned the crime team. 7. SI Jagdeep (PW-9), who was in-charge of the crime team, reached the spot with photographer Constable Umed (PW-11). SI Jagdeep conducted an inspection of the crime scene and prepared a report (Ex.PW-9/A). Constable Umed took twenty photographs (Ex.PW-11/A) of the scene and prepared a CD (Ex.PW-11/B), which 7FIR 8Evidence Act Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:03.07.2025 17:05:50 CRL.A. 164/2024 was supported by a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act (Ex.PW-11/C). 8. Inspector Vijay Kataria collected various pieces of physical evidence from the crime scene, including bloodstains from a gas stove, a piece of cloth, the hammer used in the assault, hair strands of the victim found on the hammer, blood samples, and earth control. These items were sealed using the seal of PK and were seized via proper seizure memos (Ex.PW-6/B). The hammer was sketched (Ex.PW-17/B), placed in a plastic box, sealed, and seized. Inspector Vijay Kataria was assisted in these actions by SI Praveen Atri and Constable Ghanshyam, who signed the seizure memos. Ritika also helped the inspector in preparing the site plan of the incident location (Ex.PW-19/A). 9. On 24.04.2018, Inspector Vijay Kataria visited the hospital with a private photographer, Mukesh (PW-1). He recorded the statement (Ex.PW-3/A) regarding the identification of the deadbody of the deceased‟s brother, Rajesh Raju (PW-3), and father, Manohar Lal (PW-4). Subsequently, he applied (Ex.PW-19/B) to the concerned Chief Medical Officer to conduct the postmortem. Brief facts of the case (Ex.PW-19/C) and a death report (Ex.PW-19/D) were prepared for official use. 10. The postmortem was conducted by Dr. Manoj Dhinagra (PW- 14), who opined in his report (Ex.PW-14/A) that the cause of death was craniocerebral damage due to blunt force trauma. Mukesh documented the postmortem procedure in a CD, supported by a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act (Ex.PW-1/A). After the autopsy, the doctor handed over two sealed exhibits with sample seals to Constable Ishwar (PW-8), who further delivered them to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:03.07.2025 17:05:50 CRL.A. 164/2024 Inspector Vijay Kataria. This exhibit (Ex.PW-8/B) was deposited with the Malkhana9. 11. On 18.05.2018, Dr. Manoj Dhinagra received a sealed parcel containing the hammer. Upon examination, he confirmed by his report (Ex.PW-14/B) that the injuries mentioned in the postmortem could have been caused by the recovered hammer. 12. On 25.04.2018, based on secret information, the Investigating Officer10, Inspector Vijay Kataria, located and apprehended, vide memo (Ex.PW-17/C), the Accused, who was found consuming alcohol near a wine shop at ITI ground, Delhi. He was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memo (Ex.PW-17/D). A disclosure statement (Ex.PW-17/E) was recorded, and the IO noticed blood stains on the Accused‟s shirt. The shirt was sealed and seized as evidence vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-17/F). The Accused then pointed out the place of incident, which was documented through a pointing- out memo (Ex.PW-17/G). 13. On 19.05.2018, Constable Dharmender (PW-15) prepared a scaled site plan (Ex.PW-15/A) of the incident spot. 14. On 24.05.2018, all collected exhibits were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory11 through Constable Ghanshyam. Ms. Anita Chari, Scientific Officer (PW-13), submitted her findings in a report (Ex.PW-13/A), which was received by the Police Station with a forwarding letter (Ex.PW-19/E) from the Director of FSL. In the FSL report, the Scientific Officer concluded that the DNA profiling SDR12 performed on the received Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 9 (all containing blood 9 MHC(M) 10IO 11 FSL 12 Short-Chain Dehydrogenases/Reductases Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:03.07.2025 17:05:50 CRL.A. 164/2024 gauze of the deceased), Exhibit 11 (hammer) and Exhibit 13 (shirt of the Accused) was similar to the blood gauze of the deceased. 15. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the Appellant/ Accused under Section 302 of the IPC for the alleged murder of his wife Savita. 16. The Ld. Trial Court then framed charges under Section 302 of the IPC against the Appellant/Accused. The Accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and thus the case proceeded for the trial. 17. Upon evaluation of the evidence on record and after the conclusion of the trial, the Ld. Trial Court found the Accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC vide judgment dated

03.05.2023. Accordingly, the Accused was convicted for the murder of his wife, Savita. Following the conviction, the sentencing order dated 24.08.2023 was passed, whereby the Appellant was sentenced to imprisonment. Additionally, he was fined an amount of Rs.15,000/- under Section 302 of the IPC, and in the event of default in payment of the fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The Court also granted him the benefit under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. which allows for the set- off of the period already spent in custody against the term of imprisonment. 18. The Ld. Trial Court, in its evaluation, held that the Prosecution successfully established the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. The post-mortem report, which revealed that the injuries leading to the victim‟s death were caused by a hammer blow to the head, remained unchallenged during the trial. The defence was given an opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Manoj Dhinagra (PW-14) but failed to do so, which left the medical opinion intact and credible. This Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:03.07.2025 17:05:50 CRL.A. 164/2024 medical evidence further supported the testimonies of eyewitnesses, who consistently stated that the deceased was attacked with a hammer. 19. The Ld. Trial Court further opined that the Prosecution also established a strong motive for the crime. Testimonies from the deceased's family members, namely, her brother, father, and two children, revealed that the relationship between the Accused and the deceased had deteriorated. They often quarrelled, had started living separately shortly before the incident, and the Accused had stopped providing financial support. A complaint had even been filed by the deceased against the Accused. These facts indicated ongoing discord and suggested that the Accused‟s anger and frustration might have triggered the fatal act. 20. The Ld. Trial Court analyzed the defence evidence and held that the defence presented two witnesses to establish the Accused's innocence. DW-2, a neighbour, claimed to have seen the Accused in the balcony between 9:00 and 10:00 A.M. on the day of the incident, but his statement lacked precision. DW-1, the Accused‟s mother, stated he was with her at the time, but her testimony conflicted with DW2‟s and was undermined by her failure to report any false implication to authorities. The Court viewed her statement as biased and uncorroborated. 21. Weighing all evidence, the Court found the testimonies of the Prosecution credible and supported by medical and police records, leading to the conviction of the Accused under Section 302 of the IPC. 22. Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed this Appeal challenging the judgment dated 03.05.2023 and the sentencing order dated

24.08.2023. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:03.07.2025 17:05:50 CRL.A. 164/2024 APPELLANT’S SUBMISSIONS: 23. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant/ Accused would submit that the Prosecution failed to establish intent or premeditation, which is crucial to a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC. 24. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant/ Accused would further submit that domestic rifts are common in marriages and that the presence of long-standing minor disputes cannot be equated with a motive to kill. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant/ Accused would rely upon the statements of PW-3 (brother of the deceased), as he admitted the couple initially had a good marriage. 25. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant/ Accused would also submit that the conflict over dowry signatures, cited by the Prosecution as part of the motive, was too trivial and outdated, occurring nearly 18 years earlier, to have driven the Accused to murder. 26. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant/ Accused would point out several inconsistencies in the testimony of Ritika (PW-5) and submit that her story was fabricated and unreliable; for instance, she contradicted herself regarding where the Accused lived in the house - first claiming it was the first floor and later correcting to the second. Further, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant/ Accused would point out that her statements about the time frame during which her father stopped paying household expenses were also inconsistent. Similarly, conflicting versions were given about who exactly took the hammer from the Accused, whether it was Ritika or her brother. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant/ Accused would also point out another contradiction that emerged from her initial claim that all three siblings were home during the incident, which later changed to saying her sister was away. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:03.07.2025 17:05:50 CRL.A. 164/2024

27. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant/ Accused would also point out the lapses by the police during the investigation. Constable Ghanshyam‟s statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. differed from his in-court testimony regarding when and how Ritika‟s statement was recorded and how the initial evidence was gathered. 28. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant/ Accused would submit that no independent witnesses were examined, and there was no effort to verify the origin of the hammer, which the defence claimed was a common household tool and not a weapon premeditated for murder, and this lack of inquiry into the weapon's procurement undermined the allegation of deliberate intent. 29. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant/ Accused would argue that the incident appeared to result from a sudden quarrel rather than a calculated act. The use of a household hammer, absence of planning, and lack of any clear provocation or advantage taken by the Accused suggested the act could fall under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant/ Accused would further argue that this exception applies when a homicide occurs in the heat of the moment, without premeditation, and without cruelty or undue advantage. 30. To support his arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant cited numerous case laws including the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh13, Arumugam v. State14 and Rambir v. State (NCT of Delhi)15, emphasizing that courts have repeatedly held that such sudden altercations do not warrant a murder conviction under Section 302 of the IPC.