State v. Manbeer Singh

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

ARUNA SURESH, J. MARCH 02, 2009 Dharmender

i.3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 304/2008 % Date of Order: 2nd March, 2009 STATE ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Pawan Sharma, Advocate. versus MANBEER SINGH ..... Respondent Through: Nemo. 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. Heard learned counsel for the State. 2. The State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 4.8.2008 acquitting Manpreet Singh from the offence of having attempted to murder his wife. 3. The learned Trial Judge has given the benefit of doubt to the husband of the victim, inter alia, on the reason that there is evidence on record to suggest that the victim was in liaison with one Tejinder. The victim, Gurjinder Kaur PW-1, on cross- examination admitted having visited Ponta Sahib along with Tejinder Singh. She admitted that certain photographs were taken at Ponta Sahib and that one photograph Ex.PW-1/DA was taken. The said photograph shows Tejinder Singh hugging Gurjinder Kaur. 4. We have seen the photograph. The hug appears to be more than a friendly hug. 5. Though not expressly stated in the judgment, the underlying effect thereof could be a possible motive for the victim to falsely implicate her husband. 6. The second fact noted by the learned Trial Judge is the discrepant statements of PW-1, PW-5, PW-7, PW-8 and PW-9 as to what was the place where the injuries were inflicted. Whereas PW-1 i.e. the complainant stated that she had been attacked at flat No.96, Block No.7, PW-5 deposed that the flat was No.191. PW-7 deposed that the flat was No.171. PW-8 and PW-9 deposed that the flat was No.191 but gave a different block being block No.5. PW-5 deposed that the block was No.7. 7. The third fact noted by the learned Trial Judge is that in the MLC Ex.PW-6/A, while recording the history of the knife injury, the doctor concerned viz. Dr.Poonam Sharma PW-6 has firstly recorded: Alleged H/o injury by knife by unknown person. Thereafter, the words "unknown person" have been scored off and in their place the words "husband (Manbeer Singh)" have been penned by the doctor. 8. The learned Trial Judge has further noted that in her deposition Gurjinder Kaur PW-1, deposed that since she could not speak due to injuries on her neck, soon after the attack she gave a written complaint Ex.PW-1/A. The learned Trial Judge has accordingly opined that if PW-1, as claimed by her, was not in a position to speak after the assault, it remains unexplained as to who gave the information to the doctor. 9. Lastly, the learned Trial Judge has noted that the informant on whose information the initial DD entry was recorded disclosed that a lady had been attacked at the bus- stand of Block No.5. 10. Even the place and the manner of arrest of the respondent and recovery of a razor from him has been found to be mired in controversy, with respect to the deposition of Amarjit Singh PW-3, the father of Gurjinder Kaur and the testimony of PW-9. The discussion is to be found in paras 21, 22 and 23 of the decision which read as under:- "21. PW-3 deposed that he went to Vivek Vihar along with the police as the police had got some information. The accused was found standing near a school and he was apprehended on his pointing out. He further deposed that from the search of the accused, two razors were recovered from his pocket of pant, one having handle of green colour and one of white colour. When the case property was shown to the witness, both razors were found having plastic handle of white colour. In his cross-examination he was also confronted with his previous statement Ex.PW-3/DA when he deposed that he had not disclosed to the police that he was present in his house when the information was received about the incident. He admitted that he had not disclosed to th