- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 2 April 2009
- Bench
- Pradeep Nandrajog, Aruna Suresh
- Case no.
- CRL.A. 577/2006
Judgment
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
ARUNA SURESH, J. April 02, 2009 Dharmender
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI % Judgment reserved on : 30.03.2009 Judgment delivered on: 02.04.2009 + CRL.A. No.577/2006 SAJJAN KUMAR …Appellant Through : Ms.Rakhi Dubey, Advocate. versus STATE …Respondent Through : Mr.Pawan Sharma, 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. 1. Case of the prosecution is as per the statement Ex.PW- 3/A made at 9:05 PM on 2.4.2001 by Kartar Singh to SI Suresh Chand PW-5, on basis whereof the FIR Ex.PW-1/A was registered at the local police station at 9.25 PM. The statement of Kartar Singh reads as under:- "Statement of Kartar Singh S/o Late Shri Risal Singh R/o Village & PO Bijwasan New Delhi aged about 62 years :- I reside at the abovementioned address with my family and am a retired Air Force employee. That today at about 4:45 PM, I was present at my house when Naraini Devi the wife of my neighbour Naresh Kumar, whose roof is adjacent to the roof of my house, informed me that some noises of a quarrel were emanating from the tenanted portion of my house. At that I went to the house of Sajjan Kumar who resides along with his wife as my tenant towards the rear side of my house. The door of his house was closed from inside and the sound of a tape recorder playing in a high volume and the cries of the wife of Sajjan Kumar were emanating from the house. After I knocked at the door several times, Sajjan Kumar finally opened the door and I saw that Sajjan Kumar had blood on his hands and his wife Raj Bala aged about 42/43 years was lying on the floor smeared in blood. That on seeing me, Sajjan Kumar started washing his hands, in a bucket of water lying in the room. That a lot of blood was lying on the floor of the room and a blood stained darat was also lying there. That on seeing all this, I asked Sajjan Kumar as to what on earth had he done and I told him that I shall call the police right away, upon which Sajjan Kumar told me that there was no need for me to call the police as he would himself tell the police that he had murdered his wife because he was sick of their daily fights. That thereafter, I asked my son Surender to call the police. That after sometime the police arrived and took Raj Bala and Sajjan Kumar to the hospital. I have heard my statement, it has been recorded correctly." 2. Needless to state, at the trial, Kartar Singh PW-3 reiterated the facts which stand recorded in Ex.PW-3/A and SI Suresh Chand PW-5 who had reached the spot when information of the incident was recorded at the police station vide DD No.15A, Ex.PW-2/A corroborated Kartar Singh with respect to the arrest of the appellant in his house; the recovery of a blood stained darati Ex.P-1 in the house and blood stained clothes of the appellant being seized when he was arrested. 3. We need not note the testimony of the witnesses for the reason when the incriminating circumstances were put to the appellant when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the first six questions and question No.9 were answered in the affirmative by the appellant. The question and answer read as under:- "1. It is in evidence against you that on 2.4.2001 you were tenant in respect of a room of a house owned by Kartar Singh in village and PS Brijwasan where you used to reside along with your wife Smt. Raja Bala. What have you to say? A. It is correct. 2. It is further in evidence against you that on 2.4.2001 at about 4:30 PM Naraini Devi informed PW-2 Kartar Singh that a quarrel was going on in your house. What have you to say. A. It is correct. 3. It is further in evidence against you that Kartar Singh (PW-3) came to your house, gave a call and you responded by opening the door of your room. What have you to say. A. It is correct. 4. It is further in evidence against you that you were having blood on your han
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.