11.12.2025 AJMER … v. STATE OF H OF HARYANA
Case Details
IN THE H AB AND HARYANA HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A RH AT CHANDIGARH CRA-D- Reserved Pronounc -884-DB-2017 erved on :03.12.2025 nounced on: 11.12.2025 AJMER …. Appellant Versus STATE OF H OF HARYANA …. Respondent CORAM: H H HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GUR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAM GURVINDER SINGH GILL RAMESH KUMARI(cid:7) Present : Mr. Mr. Kewal Singh, Legal Aid Counse Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Munish Sharma, DAG, Haryana Mr. aryana. (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8) **** (cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:1)(cid:10), J. 1. The instant ap ant appeal is filed by the appellant-Aj Ajmer (hereinafter referred as ‘accused’) for for setting aside the judgment of c nt of conviction dated 31.07.2017 and order of qu r of quantum of sentence dated 01.08. 01.08.2017 in a case arising out of FIR No.136 d .136 dated 24.04.2016 registered un ed under Section 302 of IPC at Police Station tation Pundari (Kaithal) vide which hich he has been held guilty for causing murde murder of his wife- Rajo Devi and has has been sentenced as under:- U/Section Imprisonment Fine 302 of IPC Rigorous Rs. 30,0 s. 30,000/- imprisonment for life In default of payment To further undergo R.I. six for months Fine of Rs.30 Rs.30,000/- as imposed upon the accu accused Ajmer was ordered to be paid as compe compensation to the legal heirs of dec deceased-Rajo Devi. 2. COMPLAIN LAINANT’S VERSION JYOTI 2025.12.16 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D884-DB-2017 -2- On 23.04.2016 4.2016, a telephonic message was rece ndari as received at Police Station, Pundari from the Gov e Government Hospital Kaithal regar . On regarding death of Rajo Devi. On receipt of this f this information , PW8 SI Manish olice anish Kumar along with other Police officials reach reached at Government Hospital Kait a al Kaithal and obtained medical ruqa EX.PU written written by Dr. Ashmit Laler. Therea umar hereafter, PW-8 SI Manish Kumar recorded the the statement of PW1-Suresh Kum of h Kumar, complainant, brother of accused-Ajme Ajmer and brother-in-law of deceas resh deceased Rajo Devi. PW-1 Suresh Kumar got rec recorded his statement as under:- “I a I am resident of the above stated rk. ated address and do labour work. We are th e three brothers Pritam is my eldes nd ldest brother. Ajmer is my second elder brot brother and I am youngest. The m er he marriage of my brother Ajmer Singh wa was solemnized with Rajo Devi, gh, evi, daughter of Raghbir Singh, resident of nt of Dharar District Karnal at abou her about 25/26 years ago. My brother Ajmer has has two sons, one Ravinder age 20 ge 20 years and second Balinder age about 17 y 17 years. My brother Ajmer used t pes ed to drink liquor and other types of intoxica oxication and he had doubt on the ajo the character of my Bhabhi, Rajo Devi. Yest Yesterday on 23.04.2016 my brothe the other Ajmer came home under the influence o nce of liquor and started quarrelling my elling and hurled bad words to my Bhabhi, R i, Rajo Devi. My room is adjoini fter joining the room of Ajmer. After hearing th g the commotion, I went to the roo me e room of Ajmer. In the meantime Ajmer infl inflicted the injuries on chest, ar my t, arm, stomach and body of my Bhabhi Ra i Rajo Devi with the vegetable cutte my cutter knife in my presence. On my alarm, my my nephew Ravinder and my wife ot. wife Reena also came at the spot. While we we were attending to my Bhabhi er, bhi Rajo, then my brother Ajmer, JYOTI 2025.12.16 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D884-DB-2017 -3- along with with his knife, ran away from there. ew here. Then I along with my nephew Ravinder der and my neighbor Rajesh son of for n of Ramdhari took Rajo Devi for medical t al treatment at G.H. Kaithal afte , after arranging private vehicle, where d doctor declared Rajo Devi as d has as dead. My brother Ajmer has murdered red my Bhabhi with knife. Kindly my ndly take legal action against my brother Aj er Ajmer son of Ganeshi. I have got ich got my statement recorded which has been r en read over to me and I admit it to to be correct”. 3. POLICE INVE INVESTIGATION (a) After reco r recording of statement Ex. PA, PW umar PW8 Inspector Munish Kumar made endorseme rsement Ex. PN on the same and send shpal d send ruqa through EASI Shishpal to Police Station
Legal Reasoning
tation on the basis of which FIR Ex PW5 IR Ex.PA/1 was registered by PW5 ASI Mahipal. PW8 Insp 8 Inspector Munish Kumar took phot f the k photographs Exs. P1 to P7 of the dead body (in ho (in hospital). Dr. Bhira Ram reached ected ached at the mortuary and inspected ody. the dead body. PW8 Insp 8 Inspector Munish Kumar prepared of pared inquest proceedings Ex. PO of the dead body. . He handed over application Ex with Ex. PQ, dead body along with inquest papers Ex. PO to PW4 HC Shubhkaran ation hkaran for postmortem examination and postmortem ortem was conducted by PW9 Dr. Vi ficer Dr. Vivek Sheoran, Medical Officer who prepared po postmortem report Ex. PT. PW9 Dr. V 9 Dr. Vivek Sheoran, after conducing and ucing post mortem examination and after signing the the inquest papers Ex. PO and parc ings nd parcels containing the belongings of deceased (wea (wearing clothes and bangles), hand PW4 handed over the dead body to PW4 HC Shubhkaran karan. JYOTI 2025.12.16 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D884-DB-2017 -4- PW8 Insp 8 Inspector Munish Kumar also visite long visited the spot of occurrence along with Dr. Bhira R hira Ram and Ravinder and lifted blo spot ted blood stained soil from the spot which was conve converted into parcel and sealed with olice with seal ‘SS’ and taken in police possession vide vide memo Ex. PC. One pair of bl one r of blood stained chappal and one blood stained be ned bed sheet were also recovered were from the spot which too were separately sealed sealed by him with seal ‘SS’ and tak emo nd taken in possession vide memo Ex. PD. Specime pecimen of seal was prepared and sea over nd sealed after use was handed over to EASI Suresh uresh Kumar. Rough site plan of pla was of place of occurrence Ex. PR was also prepared. The post m post mortem report Ex.PT, police p PO) lice papers (inquest report Ex. PO) and parcels conta s containing the belongings of deceas PW4 deceased were handed over by PW4 HC Shubhkaran karan to PW7 Inspector Mahavir Sing dead r Singh vide memo Ex.PF. The dead body was handed handed over to PW1-Suresh Kumar vid vide receipt PB. (b) On the sam the same day, PW7 Inspector Mahavi ASI ahavir Singh along with PW5 ASI Mahipal went in ent in search of accused at his house b ouse but he was not found there. When PW PW7 Inspector Mahavir Singh reach k Pai reached at Brahmanand Chowk Pai gate, Pundari, dari, Rajesh Kumar produced accu He accused-Ajmer before him. He enquired from hi rom him and arrested him in this case case. On interro interrogation, accused-Ajmer suffere x.PF uffered disclosure statement Ex.PF regarding his inv his involvement in the present case an knife ase and also disclosed that the knife used by him in t m in the occurrence had been kept co road kept concealed by him on Pilni road Pundri and nobo body else knew about it. Pursuant Ex. suant to his disclosure statement Ex. PF, accused-Ajm Ajmer led the Police party to his h d the o his house and got demarcated the place where he re he had inflicted injuries to his wif ation is wife Rajo Devi and demarcation JYOTI 2025.12.16 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D884-DB-2017 -5- memo Ex. PJ wa PJ was prepared which is signed by ASI ed by PW5 ASI Mahipal and EASI Surinder Singh ingh. Thereafter, accused-Ajmer as pe t got as per his disclosure statement got recovered knife knife Ex.MO/1 and sketch Ex. PG of knife of knife was prepared and knife was taken into P into Police possession vide memo bove emo Ex.PH attested by both above named witnesses tnesses. Site plan Ex. PL of place o also lace of recovery of knife was also prepared by PW7 PW7 Inspector Mahavir Singh. In due co ue course, case property was deposi inder deposited with PW11 HC Joginder Singh. The scale scaled site plan Ex. PK of place of r red ce of recovery was also got prepared from PW6 Ram Ram Niwas Draftsman. The case pr PW3 ase property was sent through PW3 Constable Ashok Ashok Kumar to FSL Madhuban. 4 PRESENTAT TATION OF CHALLAN AN OF AND COMMITMENT OF PROCEEDING DINGS (i) After presentati sentation of the challan in the Court , Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate, Section 207 Cr. P. Cr. P.C. was complied with. The cas rt of he case was committed to Court of Sessions. (ii) The accused w sed was charged under Section 302 o d not 302 of IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed aimed trial. 5. PROSECUTIO UTION EVIDENCE (A) In order to prov prove its case, prosecution has exam . s examined as many as 12 witnesses. The prosecution ution evidence can be discussed under under the following heads:- (i)(a)Statement o ent of complainant and eye wit , e witness- PW1-Suresh Kumar, complainant ste stepped into the witness box and PA x and proved the statement Ex.PA recorded by the y the Police on the basis of which FI . He ich FIR Ex.PA/1 was registered. He also stated abou about the manner of inflicting injur the g injuries by accused-Ajmer on the JYOTI 2025.12.16 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D884-DB-2017 -6- fateful night of 2 ht of 23.04.2016 at 8 PM and memo/ r after / receipt Ex. PB vide which after the post mortem ortem the dead body was taken by him y him from Police. (b) PW 2 Ravin Ravinder Kumar, son of deceas also ased and accused-Ajmer also corroborated the ed the testimony of PW1-Suresh Ku er of sh Kumar regarding the manner of inflicting injuries njuries by the accused-Ajmer on Rajo Rajo Devi. 6. INVESTIGAT GATIVE EVIDENCE (a) PW8 Inspecto spector Munish Kumar had conduc this onducted initial investigation in this case. He depose eposed that on 23.04.2016 at about 10 Ex. out 10:55 PM, he received ruqa Ex. PU from Govern overnment Hospital Kaithal regardin Devi garding the dead body of Rajo Devi and he reached ached at Government Hospital Kaith umar Kaithal where PW1-Suresh Kumar met him and he nd he recorded statement Ex.PA of the A of Suresh Kumar. He proved the following docum documents which were prepared e of pared by him in the course of investigation. 1. Ex. PN 2. Exs. P1 3. Ex. PO 4. Ex. PQ . Devi. 5. Ex. PC blood s with se 6. Ex.PD pair of 7. Ex. PR x. PN endorsement on PA. xs. P1 to P7 photographs of dead body PO-inquest proceedings (Form No. x. PQ-application for conducting post d body (taken in hospital). m No. 25:35 (1)(B)) Rajo g post mortem of dead body of Rajo into possession parcel containing ining ealed the spot of occurrence duly sealed x. PC-memo regarding taking into lood stained earth lifted from the sp ith seal ‘SS’. x.PD memo regarding taking into po air of blood stained chappal and one b one blood stained bed sheet. rrence. x. PR site plan of place of occurrence. one possession parcel containing one 6.(b) PW7 Inspec nspector Mahavir Singh stated that n of d that he took over investigation of this case from PW-8 SI Munish Kumar on 24.0 ealed n 24.04.2016 along with two sealed parcels (one con ne containing blood stained soil and lood and the other containing blood stained chappal appal and bed sheet). He also too arcel o took into possession the parcel containing the the belongings of deceased from PW emo PW4 HC Shubhkaran vide memo JYOTI 2025.12.16 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D884-DB-2017 -7- Ex.PF (after po ter postmortem). Thereafter, he a d in he arrested the accused and in furtherance of di e of disclosure statement Ex.PF, the ac ce of the accused demarcated the place of occurrence and and memo Ex.PJ was prepared. T of red. The accused in furtherance of disclosure statem statement Ex.PF, also got recovered h of vered knife Ex.MO/1, the sketch of which was prepa prepared vide memo Ex.PG and take vide nd taken into Police possession vide Ex.PH. Site pla plan of the place of recovery of knif of knife PL was prepared. 7 MEDICAL EVI EVIDENCE PW9 Dr. Vivek Sh vek Sheoran conducted post mortem o Devi m on the dead body of Rajo Devi and he in support upport of his examination-in-chief te . He hief tendered affidavit Ex. PS. He proved the followin llowing documents: (i) Ex.PQ-application for conducting t Ex. body cting the post mortem of dead body of deceased Rajo Devi. of d (ii) Ex.P Ex.PT-post mortem report. (iii) Ex.P Ex.PU-ruqa (initially sent to the P Rajo the Police regarding death of Rajo Devi in Civil/Government Hospital Dev ospital). (iv) Ex. Ex.PO-inquest report on which he id h he identified his signatures. The parcel containi ontaining the belongings of Rajo Dev were o Devi and weapon of offence were produced in the C the Court at the time of recording his vide ing his statement and exhibited vide Ex.MO/5 (salwar) alwar) Ex. MO/6 (shirt) and Ex. MO/7 MO/7 (bangles), Ex.MO/1 (knife). 7.(b) PW 10 Dr. S Dr. Surjit, Senior Scientific Officer that fficer in his statement deposed that sealed parcels we ls were received in FSL, Madhuban n the huban which were examined in the laboratory and he p nd he prepared reports Exs. PV and PV and PV/1. 8. LINK EVIDEN IDENCE JYOTI 2025.12.16 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D884-DB-2017 -8- (a) PW4 HC Shu Shubhkaran stated about getting ation etting the post mortem examination conducted on the d the dead body of Rajo Devi and that nded that after post mortem, he handed over the post mort t mortem’s report, Police papers, dea ls to rs, dead body and sealed parcels to PW7 Inspector Ma or Mahavir Singh vide memo Ex.PF a irs of PF and dead body to legal heirs of Rajo Devi vide rece receipt Ex.PB. 8.(b) PW6 Ram Ram Niwas Draftsman prepared on pared scaled site plan Ex.PK on 11.05.2016. 8.(c) PW11 HC J HC Joginder Singh in his examinat davit amination-in-chief tendered affidavit Ex.PW11/A and as and as per averments of this affidavit, ector davit, on 24.04.2016, PW7 Inspector Mahavir Singh dep deposited case property of this case e is case with him. On 03.05.2016, he handed over the ca the case property to PW3 Constable A sit in table Ashok Kumar for its deposit in the office of FSL. FSL. He is specific that case propert ition roperty remained in intact condition till it was in his cus his custody. 8.(d) PW3 Const Constable Ashok Kumar tendered h ch is ered his affidavit Ex. PE, which is corresponding to g to the affidavit Ex.PW11/A of ingh of PW11 HC Joginder Singh regarding taking of ing of case property from him and de ffice and depositing the same in the office of FSL, Madhuban huban and handing over the receipt to He eipt to PW11 HC Joginder Singh. He also deposed about about the integrity of the case property roperty. 8(e) PW 12 Inspe Inspector Angrej, during the course d the course of investigation, recorded the statements of PW1 PW11 HC Joginder Singh, PW3 C nder W3 Constable Ashok Kumar under Section 161 Cr.P.C Cr.P.C and he got prepared scaled site iwas site plan from, PW6 Ram Niwas Draftsman and prep d prepared report under Section 173 C 173 Cr.P.C. 9 STATEMENT ENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECT HIS SECTION 313 Cr. P.C AND HIS PLEA JYOTI 2025.12.16 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D884-DB-2017 -9- After closure ure of prosecution evidence, statem was statement of accused-Ajmer was recorded under S nder Section 313 Cr.P.C. He again imed pleaded innocence and claimed false implication cation. He took the plea that no recove He recovery was effected from him. He never suffered an ered any disclosure statement before t his efore the Police. Police obtained his signatures on bla on blank papers in Police custody. O o the ody. Opportunity was granted to the accused to lead lead evidence but without examinin e, he amining any witness in defence, he closed his defenc defence evidence. 10. The learned trial ed trial Court framed following issues f - ssues for determination in this case:- (i) Whether on 23.04.2016, accused (i) W ife used committed murder of his wife Rajo Devi and thereby committed Rajo der itted an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC? Sect 11. After hearing o ring of arguments of learned APP, de , defence counsel and on perusal rusal of oral and docu documentary evidence, learned trial ue in d trial Court determined the issue in favour of prosecu rosecution and against the accused-Aj nt of Ajmer, rendered the judgment of conviction and order of sentence as stated in para in para No.1 of this judgment. 12 SUBMISSION
Legal Reasoning
ION OF LEARNED COUNSEL FO EL FOR THE ACCUSED Learned counsel unsel for the accused-appellant conten contended; (i) that the investig vestigation is not proper and as it is nner. s it is conducted in a hasty manner. While the injurie injuries are alleged to have been cause , caused on 23.04.2016 at 8:00 p.m., the FIR Ex.PA/ x.PA/1 was registered on 24.04.20 was .04.2016, and accused-Ajmer was arrested on the s n the same day and confessional state eged l statement and recovery of alleged weapon have als ve also been made on the same day n the and that such promptness in the investigation crea on creates doubt in the investigation its tion itself; JYOTI 2025.12.16 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D884-DB-2017 -10- (ii) that PW1-Sures Suresh Kumar, complainant stated stated that accused was allegedly edly drunk and that PW 2 Ravinder Kumar was also ving s also present but no efforts having been made by the these witnesses to save Rajo Devi Devi from the accused-Ajmer; (iii) that there are d e are discrepancies in the statements ments of the witnesses inasmuch as h as while PW7 Inspe 7 Inspector Mahavir Singh stated that place d that they first reached at the place of occurrence an nce and thereafter the place of recover hipal ecovery whereas, PW5 ASI Mahipal stated that firstly firstly the weapon was recovered and place ed and thereafter they went to place of occurrence. P nce. PW7 Inspector Mahavir Singh ings ingh stated that entire proceedings were conducted ducted while sitting in vehicle wh tated le whereas other witnesses stated otherwise; (iv) that PW1-Sures Suresh Kumar, complainant and PW 2 tness d PW 2 Ravinder Kumar eye witness are interested sted witnesses. There is no indep W 2 independent corroboration. PW 2 Ravinder Kuma Kumar stated that he and Reena Devi place a Devi, his aunt reached at the place of occurrence ence after the accused-appellant had s they d stabbed the deceased and they had not seen seen the occurrence, and that ther the there is no eye witness to the occurrence; (v) that false recov recovery of knife has been implanted o lanted upon the accused and that no independent wit nt witness was joined at the time of from e of alleged recovery of knife from the possession o sion of the accused-Ajmer. There is co l and re is contradiction in the medical and ocular version rsion regarding injuries on the body he body of Rajo Devi and as such he vehemently pray ly prayed for setting aside the judgme of judgment of conviction and order of sentence by way y way of acceptance of appeal. 13. SUBMISSION ION OF LEARNED STATE COUN COUNSEL JYOTI 2025.12.16 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D884-DB-2017 -11- Learned State co tate counsel while relying upon the ution n the statements of the prosecution witnesses examin examined during the trial and the docu ht on e documentary evidence brought on record, prayed fo yed for dismissal of the appeal. SION 14. DISCUSSION (i) In the present resent case, the relationship of the dec - the deceased-Rajo Devi and accused- Ajmer is not in not in dispute i.e. deceased-Rajo Dev - jo Devi being the wife of accused- Ajmer. PW 2 Ra 2 Ravinder Kumar is none but son o - son of deceased and accused. PW1- Suresh Kumar, c mar, complainant is brother of accus ment accused-Ajmer on whose statement Ex.PA/1 against gainst his own brother i.e. accused-Ajm Ajmer, the FIR was lodged. (ii) Allegations tions by PW1-Suresh Kumar, comp inder complainant and PW 2 Ravinder Kumar are that that accused-Ajmer inflicted knife Rajo knife blows on the person of Rajo Devi under the er the influence of liquor on 23.04.201 was .04.2016 at about 8 PM and she was taken to hospital spital where she succumbed to her inj her injuries. (iii) The post m post mortem on the dead body of Rajo PW9 Rajo Devi was conducted by PW9 Dr. Vivek Sheor Sheoran on the basis of application E t Ex. tion Ex. PQ. Post mortem report Ex. PT and testimon stimony of PW9 Dr. Vivek Sheoran, that eoran, Medical Officer proved that following injurie injuries were found on the body of dec of deceased Rajo Devi :- 1. An incised wound near right are 1. A od t areola with clotted further blood with dimension 3x.05x8 cm (Bone d with l to ne deep) present anterior lateral to right nipple. On further dissection 2 righ ed. ion 2nd and 3rd rib are fractured. On further dissection right middle On ith dle lobe of lung is punctured with hemithorox of approximately 1.2 hem od 1.2-1.5 liters of clotted blood present. pres JYOTI 2025.12.16 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D884-DB-2017 -12- 2. Another Lacerated wound media 2. A of edial and lower to left areola of size 3x.6 cm x 7.5cm bone deep size on eep present on the left areola on further dissection 2nd and 3rd ribs furt de. ribs are fractured on the left side. On On further dissection left midd middle lobe ith is punctured with approximately 1.5 liter hecmothorax app orax present. 3. Lacerated wound 2cm x.2 cm pre 3. L is. present just lateral to angle lewis. 4. A lacerated wound 5cm x2.5 cm 4. A ral .5 cm present over anterio lateral aspect of left leg middle 1/3rd portio aspe ortion. 5. Two similar wounds with jo 5. ize h joint lower margins of size 8.5x2.5x3.5 cm bone deep present p 8.5x nt proximal to 4. Regarding the ca the cause of death of Rajo Devi, PW dical PW9 Dr. Vivek Sheoran, Medical Officer in his af his affidavit Ex. PS and post morte cally mortem report Ex. PT specifically stated that “the c the cause of death in this case is due ue due to shock and hemorrhage due to injury to vita vital organs like lungs which is is is antemortem in nature and is sufficient to caus cause death in ordinary course of li ry of life.” As noticed above, injury No.1 and 2 are de are deep injuries which resulted into t d into the death of Rajo Devi. The place of crim of crime is the house inhabited by acc PW8 by accused-Ajmer from where PW8 Inspector Munis Munish Kumar lifted blood stained lood tained soil besides a pair of blood stained chappal a appal and one blood stained bed sheet ealed sheet which were separately sealed and in due course course, deposited with PW11 HC Jog same C Joginder Singh who sent the same through PW3 Co W3 Constable Ashok Kumar to the o The the office of FSL, Madhuban. The accused was also as also arrested on the same day i.e. 2 PA/1 i.e. 24.04.2016, when FIR Ex.PA/1 was lodged on d on the basis of statement Ex.PA and x.PA of PW-1 Suresh Kumar and JYOTI 2025.12.16 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D884-DB-2017 -13- recovery of knife f knife Ex. MO/1 was also effected fro oved ted from accused. Report PV proved that total 4 parce parcels were deposited in the office of ffice of FSL which are as under:- No. & Seal Parcel No. No Impression Imp 2- -SS 1 2 3 1- -SS 1- -Doctor 4. 2- -MS Description of parcel( parcel(s) -1. prox es of earth and loose earth (approx ed as blood stained earth hibit 2a and 2b. sheet e multicoloured stripped bed sheet ownish stains. ined e pair of black hawai chappal stained n stains. hibit 3a to 3d. inted e multicoloured cut and torn printed ned with dark brown stains. lwar ne multicoloured printed salwar rk brown stains. with e yellow/saffron dupatta stained with It contained exhibit- Exhibit-1. Flakes of 50 gm.) described as It contained exhibit 2 Exhibit-2a. One mul stained with brownish Exhibit-2b. One pair with dark brown stain It contained exhibit 3 Exhibit 3a. One mult lady’s shirt stained w Exhibit 3b. One m stained with dark brow Exhibit 3c. One yello dark brown stains. ined w broken red glass bangles stained Exhibit 3d. Few bro kada. with a metallic kada. -4. It contained exhibit- Exhibit-4. One knife metallic blade and wo rusty knife (approx 19 cm.) having rusty and wooden handgrip. As per report E port Ex. PV/1, human blood was fou cept as found on all the articles except bangles which w hich were found broken/disintegrate with tegrated. This report coupled with postmortem repo report Ex.PT proved that the death o ral or eath of Rajo Devi was not natural or suicidal but hom t homicidal. (iv) PW1-Suresh Suresh Kumar in his statement spe that nt specifically stated on oath that accused-Ajmer jmer under the influence of liquor u and quor used to quarrel with wife and children. He had e had doubt on the character of Ra cally Rajo Devi. He also specifically stated that on 23 on 23.04.2016 at about 8 PM he was ch is he was present in his room which is adjacent to room room of his brother-Ajmer and at th wife at that time his nephews, his wife and his children n were also present. Accused-Ajm arted Ajmer came to house and started JYOTI 2025.12.16 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D884-DB-2017 -14- quarreling with h with his wife Rajo Devi. On hearing t nt to aring the noise of quarrel, he went to room of accused ccused-Ajmer and he was followed and owed by his wife Reena Devi and nephew Ravinde avinder. He saw that accused-Ajmer o his jmer gave various knife blows to his sister-in-law Raj Rajo Devi on various parts of bod d his of body. They raised alarm and his brother-Ajmer le mer left Rajo Devi and they started - started looking after her. Accused- Ajmer absconde sconded from the spot and Rajo d in Rajo Devi was got admitted in Government hos nt hospital, Kaithal where she was and was checked by the doctors and declared dead. PW 2 Ravinder inder Kumar, also deposed to the sa W 2 the same effect. The age of PW 2 Ravinder Kumar umar was 20 years at the time of rec n the of recording of his statement in the Court on 25.07.2 5.07.2017. Thus, he was not minor wh rded nor when his statement was recorded in the Court on rt on the said date. The occurrence ning rence is dated 23.04.2016, meaning thereby, PW 2 R W 2 Ravinder Kumar was about 19 ye in a 19 years of age at that time and in a position to unde understand the gravity of situation. n his ation. PW 2 Ravinder Kumar in his testimony specif specifically stated that after hearing t ncle aring the noise of quarrel, his uncle Suresh went to th nt to the room occupied with them. He wed em. He along with his aunt followed his uncle, where where he saw his father inflicting injur fe on injuries to his mother with knife on various parts of rts of body including chest. They ra time, hey raised alarm. In the meantime, accused-Ajmer a jmer absconded from the spot along w ong with knife. Thus, both of th of them i.e. PW-1 Suresh Kumar an had ar and PW-2 Ravinder Kumar had witnessed the oc the occurrence. They had no reason to used ason to falsely implicate the accused and to save rea ve real culprit, had there been any fatal any, who allegedly inflicted fatal injuries on the p the person of Rajo Devi. The reason Rajo reason for inflicting injuries on Rajo Devi is also spe so specifically stated by PW1-Suresh by Suresh Kumar, complainant and by JYOTI 2025.12.16 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D884-DB-2017 -15- PW2 Ravinder inder Kumar that accused-Ajmer w the mer was having doubt about the character of Rajo Rajo Devi and under the influence o l and ence of liquor, he used to quarrel and beat her. The co The contention of learned defence co resh nce counsel that had PW1-Suresh Kumar, complain mplainant and PW 2 Ravinder Kumar they umar been present on the spot, they would have save e saved Rajo Devi or would have inte use 5 ve intervened has no merit because 5 injuries were giv ere given by the accused-Ajmer in a hen in a couple of seconds and when they intervened, vened, accused-Ajmer absconded mary nded from the spot. The primary concern of PW1 f PW1-Suresh Kumar and PW 2 Ravi mily 2 Ravinder Kumar and other family members was to as to save Rajo Devi and provide her r this de her medical treatment and for this reason, they did n y did not follow the accused to catch h Devi catch him and rather, took Rajo Devi to the hospital. T . The occurrence took place at 8 P was at 8 PM on 23.04.2016 and she was taken on the hos he hospital immediately and declared quest clared dead at 10:55 (as per inquest report Ex.PO). T . This shows the promptness on pa r and s on part of PW1-Suresh Kumar and PW 2 Ravinder K inder Kumar to provide medical assista assistance to Rajo Devi. (v) The contenti ontention of learned defence counsel that ounsel that one witness stated that writing work wa rk was done while sitting in the vehi ficial e vehicle and another Police official stated that it was it was done at another place, has no m ories s no merit because human memories are susceptible tible to forgetfulness with the passa olice passage of time. Moreover, Police officials are invo re involved in the multifarious duties a their uties and under the pressure of their official duties, th ties, they can miss out the narration o the tion of the minute nitty gritty of the proceedings of of investigation. No major discrepan olice screpancy in the statements of Police officials or in th r in that of PW1-Suresh Kumar, com inder r, complainant and PW 2 Ravinder Kumar could be ld be pointed out by the learned couns counsel. JYOTI 2025.12.16 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D884-DB-2017 -16- (vi) The content ontention of learned defence counsel tness ounsel that no independent witness was joined at th d at the time of recovery of knife M n of nife MO/1 from the possession of accused-Ajmer i jmer is also without any merit becaus PW7 ecause it is not imperative for PW7 Inspector Mahav Mahavir Singh to join independent w cting ent witness at the time of effecting recovery. The r The recovery of knife Ex. MO/1 is as O/1 is effected from the place as disclosed by acc by accused-Ajmer and PW7 Inspect other nspector Mahavir Singh and other Police officials h icials had no reason to falsely implic the implicate the accused-Ajmer in the commission of n of offence. Moreover, had the lsely the accused-Ajmer been falsely implicated in this in this case, PW1-Suresh Kumar wou on to r would have been the first person to raise finger abou about Police investigation to save his ve his real brother. (vii) The conten contention of learned defence couns is counsel that the accused-Ajmer is falsely implicate licated by PW1-Suresh Kumar, com inder r, complainant and PW 2 Ravinder Kumar because cause of property dispute also can e no o cannot be accepted because no particulars of an of any property worth the name is br ould e is brought on record which would have been a bone a bone of contention between accused resh ccused on one hand and PW1-Suresh Kumar, complain mplainant and PW 2 Ravinder Kumar umar on the other hand. (viii) The accuse accused inflicted deep injuries by mea f his y means of knife on the body of his wife Rajo Devi Devi. The act done by the accus the accused-Ajmer comes within the definition of Cla of Clause thirdly of Section 300 of IPC ds as of IPC. Section 300 of IPC reads as under:- JYOTI 2025.12.16 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 300. Murder. Except in the cases "300 ble ses hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by wh hom ne y which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, with ath, or- CRA-D884-DB-2017 -17- Secondly-If it is done with the int Seco ily intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be l inju the be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, pers sed, or- Thirdly- If it is done with the intent Thir to tention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury any is njury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of n suff of nature to cause death, or- Fourthly-If the person committing Fou so itting the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, imm ath ust, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to c or s ch y to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurrin act or rring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. such xxx xxx xxx xxx” xxx” The accused infl ed inflicted five injuries on the body knife body of his wife by means of knife Ex.MO/1, which which proves that his intention was o his was to cause bodily injury to his wife Rajo Devi a Devi and these bodily injuries, which were which he intended to be caused were sufficient in the in the ordinary course of nature to c Devi re to cause the death of Rajo Devi because as per s per postmortem report Ex.PT and Dr. and affidavit Ex.PS of PW-9 Dr. Vivek Sheoran, oran, out of five injuries, three inju chest e injuries were found on the chest puncturing the lu the lungs with fractured ribs. These f the hese injuries are on vital part of the body inflicted w cted with sharp weapon i.e. knife Ex n of ife Ex.MO/1, with the intention of inflicting injuries njuries likely to cause death in the or us the ordinary course of nature. Thus the prosecution ution has duly proved that accused com urder committed the offence of murder of his wife which which falls within Clause ‘thirdly’ of rned of Section 300 IPC. The learned trial Court rightl rightly appreciated the evidence and issue ce and rightly determined the issue JYOTI 2025.12.16 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D884-DB-2017 -18- regarding culpab culpability of accused in the murd s no murder of his wife. There is no infirmity, illegal illegality or irregularity in the impug ntly, impugned judgment. Consequently, the appeal in han in hand is dismissed. Copy of the judg e judgment be sent to the quarter conc concerned for compliance. ( GURVINDER JUD DER SINGH GILL ) JUDGE (RAMESH KUMARI) JUDGE 11.12.2025 Jyoti-IV Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable √Yes/No √Yes/No √Yes/No √Yes/No JYOTI 2025.12.16 09:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document