VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2009 › High Court of Delhi

Moti Chander Mandal v. State of Delhi

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
12 January 2009
Bench
Pradeep Nandrajogauthor, Aruna Suresh
Case no.
CRL.A. 355/2002

Judgment

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

ARUNA SURESH, J. JANUARY 12, 2009 dk

Case details

Parties and counsel

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI % Date of Decision : January 12, 2009 + CRL.A. 355/2002 MOTI CHANDER MANDAL ..... Appellant Through: Ms.Charu Verma, Advocate. versus THE STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Richa Kapoor, Advocate. CRL.A. 177/2005 DEEPAK ..... Appellant Through: Ms.Charu Verma, Advocate. versus THE STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Richa Kapoor, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) 1. Appeal of co-accused Moti Chander Mandal is listed for hearing today along with the appeal of the accused Deepak. The Amicus Curiae appointed for Moti Chander Mandal has unfortunately not been appearing. Ms.Charu Verma, learned counsel appearing as the Amicus Curiae in the appeal filed by accused Deepak stated that she has comprehensively prepared the matter and would be in a position to argue the appeal on behalf of Moti Chander Mandal as well. By a separate order passed today we appointed Ms.Charu Verma, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae in the appeal filed by Moti Chander Mandal. 2. 17th January 1996 was the last day in the life of Jyotish Mandal. He was stabbed. The stab wound was on his back. As per the post mortem report, Ex.11/A, the exact nature and location of the injury is as under:- "5. Incised stab wound 5.5 x 2 cms margins cleanly and sharply cut present obliquely and vertically over left side of back of left abdomen, tailing of upper end present in an area of 1.5 cms. Lower end 3 cm away from mid line, upper end 5 cm from mid line, upper end 14 cms from interior angle of scapular, lower end 16 cms from iliacrest. 3. Four other injuries being abrasions were also noted on the person of Jyotish Mandal as under:- "Abrasion 1.5 x 1 cm over top of head 11 cm from medial end of left eye brow on left side just near the midline. 2. Abrasions 1 x 1 cm left side forehead, 2 cms from midline and 3 cms above medial end of left eyebrow. 3. Multiple small scattered abrasions in an area of 4 x 2.5 cms over lower front of right knee. 4. Mutliple abrasions in an area of 5.5 x 5 cm over lower front of left knee." 4. It is relevant to note that due to injury No.5 the left lung and the diaphragm suffered a cut due to which Jyotish Mandal died. 5. Appellants were charged with the offence of murdering Jyotish Mandal. Appellant Deepak, happens to be the son-in-law of the deceased, being married to Kamla, the daughter of the deceased. Accused Moti Mandal is stated to have facilitated the marriage of the two. 6. As per the prosecution, Deepak had a grievance against his in-laws because after his marriage with Kamla she had returned to the house of her parents and in spite of his repeatedly requesting his in-laws to send her back she was not being sent to her matrimonial house. 7. Further, case of the prosecution is that Moti Mandal and Jyotish Mandal used to vend eatables from hand-carts on the street abutting their jhuggis in Amar Jyoti Camp. 8. On the day of the incident when Jyotish Mandal was stabbed i.e. 17.1.1996, prosecution alleges that around 4.15 pm, Deepak had an altercation with his father-in-law i.e. Jyotish Mandal near the place where Jyotish Mandal and Moti Mandal had stationed their hand-carts. Moti Mandal facilitated the commission of the crime by not only exhaulting Deepak but even arming him with a knife and thereafter catching hold the deceased so that Deepak could inflict the stab wound. 9. PW-1, Shakuntla, wife of the deceased, his daughter Kamla, another daughter Anima and one Sushil Kumar were stated to be the alleged eye-witnesses of the incident. 10. The weapon of offence i.e. the knife used to inflict the wound was not recovered. 11. As per the testimony of Shakuntla, Kamla and Sushil Kumar, Deepak wanted Jyotish Mandal to impress that Kamla should return to her matrimonial ho

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.