{"id":237274,"date":"2011-04-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-rupinder-kumar-on-8-april-2011"},"modified":"2017-04-12T12:39:19","modified_gmt":"2017-04-12T07:09:19","slug":"state-vs-rupinder-kumar-on-8-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-rupinder-kumar-on-8-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"State vs Rupinder Kumar on 8 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
State vs Rupinder Kumar on 8 April, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog<\/div>\n
*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                        Judgment Reserved On: April 06, 2011\n                        Judgment Delivered On: April 08, 2011\n\n+                            CRL.A.53\/1999\n\n         STATE                                      ..... Appellant\n                        Through:   Mr.Pawan Sharma, Standing\n                                   Counsel (Crl.) with Mr.Harsh\n                                   Prabhakar, Advocate\n\n                                   versus\n\n         RUPINDER KUMAR                           ..... Respondent\n                  Through:         Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate with\n                                   Mr.Anirudh Wadhwa, Mr.Gaurav\n                                   Bhattacharya, Ms.Swati Gupta and\n                                   Ms.Mari Reba, Advocates\n\n          CORAM:\n          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG\n          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT\n\n     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed\n        to see the judgment?\n     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?\n     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\nPRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.               Vide    impugned     judgment     and    order       dated
\n26.08.1997, respondent Rupinder Kumar has been acquitted of
\nthe charge of having committed an offence punishable under
\nSection 302 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
2.               He was charged of having murdered his wife Manju
\nBala in their matrimonial house at around 11:30 PM on
\n24.5.1996.\n<\/p>\n
    Crl.A.No.53\/1999                                              Page 1 of 16<\/span><\/p>\n
 3.            The case of the prosecution unfolds on 24.05.1996,
\nwhen at about 11:30 PM, information was received by the
\nPolice Control Room that in House No.RZ-66, Gali No.11 West
\nSagarpuri (the admitted matrimonial house of the respondent
\nand his wife) a quarrel was taking place, which information
\nwas conveyed to the local police station and recorded vide DD
\nNo.37A.\n<\/p>\n
4.            HC Mahavir Singh (PW-4) and Ct.Mathew who were
\nin a PCR vehicle also picked up the wireless message flashed
\nand being nearest to the house in question proceeded to the
\nhouse.     The respondent was admittedly found in the house
\nholding a screw driver in his hand. Broken pieces of bangles
\nwere found scattered inside the house. Blood of the deceased
\nwas noted on the clothes of the respondent and as per the
\nprosecution people outside the house were saying that the
\nrespondent had killed his wife. SI Ganga Ram PW-12 to whom
\nDD 37A was assigned for investigation reached the house
\naccompanied          by    Ct.Vajinder   PW-5   and    he     recorded
\nCt.Mathew\u201fs statement Ex.PW-12\/B as per which Ct.Mathew
\nstated    that      when   he   and   HC   Mahavir    Singh   received
\ninformation over the wireless they drove their PCR van to the
\nhouse and saw a scared crowd outside the house expressing
\nfear to enter inside as people were saying that the respondent
\nwas armed with a screw driver and had murdered his wife.
\nThe two police officers entered the house and disarmed the
\nrespondent and by the time SI Ganga Ram and Ct.Vajinder
\nreached the house and therefore the screw driver as also the
\nrespondent was handed over to the two police officers.\n<\/p>\n
 Crl.A.No.53\/1999                                             Page 2 of 16<\/span><\/p>\n
 5.            The dead body of Manju Bala was seized and sent
\nto the mortuary for post-mortem and as per post-mortem
\nreport Ex.PW-6\/A following injuries were detected on her
\nbody:-\n<\/p>\n
      “1.     One linear abrasion on back at lumber region
\n              about 8cm X 0.5cm.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      2.      Bruises on left inguinal region 4cm X 2cm.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      3.      Bruises on left maxillary region 4cm X 2cm.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      4.      Multiple bruises on neck about 10 to 15 in
\n              number varying from 4mm to 1mm.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      5.      Bruises on the right side of the ear.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      6.      One puncture mark on posterior triangle of
\n              neck 8cm below right ear alone trapezius
\n              border 3mm X 1mm in size. Blood was present
\n              over it.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
6.            The   doctor   conducting    the   post-mortem       i.e.
\nDr.Komal Singh PW-6 opined the cause of death to be
\nhemorrhagic shock caused due to right corotive artery cut by
\npunctured penetrating injury No.6 on the neck.              Internal
\nexamination reveal subscalpular clots on the left frontal,
\ntemporal and occipital region. He was later on sent the screw
\ndriver Ex.P-1 which was recovered from the hand of the
\npetitioner and upon the post-mortem report, at the point mark
\n\u201eA\u201f, gave an opinion that the fatal injury on the person of
\nManju Bala could possibly have been caused by the said screw
\ndriver, sketch whereof he drew on the post-mortem report and
\nwhich shows that the screw driver has a handle of length 8.2
\ncm and the remainder having length of 15 cm.\n<\/p>\n
 Crl.A.No.53\/1999                                           Page 3 of 16<\/span><\/p>\n
 7.            Before noting the evidence led at the trial and the
\nreason given by the learned Trial Judge to acquit the
\nrespondent, it would be useful to note the statement of the
\nrespondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the cause of the
\ndeath of his wife. To the last question as to what did he have
\nto say, he replied as under:-\n<\/p>\n
       “On 24.05.1996 I became late in my office in
\n      connection of some official work. The name of my
\n      office is Nastle, D.L.F Centre, Connaught Place, New
\n      Delhi as Security Guard. On that day I left my office
\n      at about 10:45PM. I went at the bus stop of bus
\n      route no. 704. I boarded in the said bus from Jantar
\n      Mantar. At that time one Sh. Rakesh Kapur was also
\n      sitting in that bus. Said Rakesh Kapur is known to
\n      me as he is the resident of the same locality near
\n      Madanpuri, West Sagarpur. The name of my colony
\n      is Geetanjali Park, West Sagarpur, New Delhi. We
\n      have talks with each other in the bus and we left
\n      the bus at bus stand of Sagarpur, New Delhi. From
\n      there I went to my house at Madanpuri, West
\n      Sagarpur, New Delhi. It was about 11:45 PM when
\n      we left the bus route No. 704 at bus stop Sagarpur.
\n      At 11:45 PM I myself and above named Rakesh
\n      kapur proceeded towards our respective houses
\n      from the bus stop Sagarpur, New Delhi. At about 12
\n      Midnight I reached at my house I saw some persons
\n      collected in front of my house. When I entered my
\n      house I saw my wife Manju Bala in an injured
\n      condition lying in the kitchen in my house. At that
\n      time she was crying for help being injured. I took
\n      out the screw driver from the neck of my wife with
\n      a view to help her. Meanwhile two police personals
\n      came into my house and caught hold me.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8.            Relevant would it be to note that the respondent
\nadmitted being in his house at the time when the police came
\nand at that point of time he had the screw driver in his hand.
\nHe also admitted a crowd having collected outside his house.\n<\/p>\n
 Crl.A.No.53\/1999                                       Page 4 of 16<\/span><\/p>\n
 But claimed that when he reached the house after parting
\ncompany with his friend Rakesh he saw his wife crying for help
\nand in an injured condition. He took out the screw driver from
\nthe neck of his wife with a view to help her and claims that just
\nabout then the police came and arrested him.\n<\/p>\n
9.            At the trial, Ashu Ahluwalia PW-3, the son of the
\nrespondent turned hostile and claimed that he was sleeping in
\nthe house with his brother Hemant from around 9:30 PM a
\npoint of time when his father was not in the house and that his
\nneighbours broke his and his brother\u201fs slumber.         He denied
\nhaving witnessed his father assault his mother or that the
\nrelationship between the two were bad. Harinder Kumar PW-2,
\nthe brother of the respondent who resides in a separate
\nportion of the same house also turned hostile and denied
\nhaving told the police that he had seen the respondent assault
\nhis wife.\n<\/p>\n
10.           The two stated eye witnesses did not support the
\ncase of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
11.           Evidence   of   a   motive   surfaced   through    the
\ntestimony of Smt.Vedwati PW-8, the mother of Manju Bala who
\nstated that for 10 years Manju had returned to her parental
\nhouse due to being ill-treated by the respondent who she
\nimputed having illicit relations with another lady.\n<\/p>\n
12.           Rakesh Kapur, the person named by the respondent
\nas his friend in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
\ndeposed as DW-1, and stated that he and the respondent had
\nleft together from the bus stop at Connaught Place and had<\/p>\n
 Crl.A.No.53\/1999                                         Page 5 of 16<\/span>
\n reached together the bus stop at Madanpuri and parted
\ncompany with each other at around 11:45 midnight when they
\nwent to their respective houses.\n<\/p>\n
13.           The learned Trial Judge has disbelieved the defence
\nwitness on the ground that being a friend of the respondent he
\nwould be an interested witness, a reasoning with which we do
\nnot agree, but concur with the alternative reasoning of the
\nlearned Trial Judge that the fact that Rakesh Kapur could not
\neven give the particulars of the house of the respondent belied
\nthe claim of both that they were good friends. Now, Rakesh
\nKapur claims to reside in the same colony i.e. claims to be a
\nresident of House No.RZ-22, West Sagarpuri. The respondent
\nresides in House No.RZ-66, West Sagarpuri and thus we find it
\nstrange that in spite of claiming himself to be a good friend of
\nthe respondent, Rakesh Kapur could not even give the house
\nnumber and particulars of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
14.           In view of the fact that the two eye witnesses
\nturned hostile and in view of the fact that the witness to
\nsustain the plea of alibi, a plea which we find was fairly
\ntenuous in view of the defence which the respondent finally
\ntook i.e. of being in the house with the screw driver which
\ncaused the death of his wife in his hand i.e. a point of time
\ncoinciding fairly closely to the point of time when his wife died,
\nthe learned Trial Judge, in para 35 of the impugned order held
\nthat, Quote: \u201eThe prosecution was bound to establish that
\naccused alone was present in the house and could have killed
\nhis wife. Such evidence have not been led. The circumstance
\nhas not been cogently confirmed.\u201f<\/p>\n
 Crl.A.No.53\/1999                                        Page 6 of 16<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 15.           Learned counsel for the State has rightly pounced
\nupon the said reasoning of the learned Trial Judge, stated in
\nimperfect language, but meaningfully read means that the
\nlearned Trial Judge has held that when respondent\u201fs wife died
\nhe was in the house but since the prosecution has not
\nestablished that he alone was in the house, the prosecution
\ncould not succeed.\n<\/p>\n
16.           In the very next paragraph, i.e. paragraph 36 of the
\nimpugned judgment, the Trial Judge has thrown further light on
\nthe reasoning wherein he has observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
      “36. The third circumstance is not much in
\n      dispute. It is the case of the prosecution as well as
\n      of the defence that when HC Mahavir Singh and
\n      Constable P.M.Mathew of PCR came to the house
\n      of accused then unconscious Manju was lying in
\n      injured condition and the accused was holding
\n      blood stained screw driver in his right hand. The
\n      evidence create suspicion against the accused.
\n      The circumstance is quite strong but still it has not
\n      travelled beyond the stage of suspicion. It has
\n      been held by the D.B. of our Hon\u201fble High Court in
\n      case reported in 1966 (2) Delhi Lawyers 26 that
\n      suspicion cannot be clothed with the garments of
\n      proof. Mere suspicion or suspicion circumstances
\n      cannot relieve the prosecution of its primary duty
\n      of proving the case against the accused persons
\n      beyond reasonable doubts. If the process of
\n      evidence on which the prosecution chooses to rest
\n      its case are so brittle that they crumble when
\n      subjected to close and critical examination so that
\n      the whole super structure built on such insecure
\n      foundation collapses, proof of some incriminating
\n      circumstances, which might have given support to
\n      merely defective evidence cannot avert a failure of
\n      prosecution\u201fs case. In another case the Hon\u201fble
\n      Supreme Court has expressed similar views. In
\n      case reported in AIR 1977 SC 530 Dateer Singh vs.<\/p>\n
 Crl.A.No.53\/1999                                        Page 7 of 16<\/span>
\n       State of Punjab, the Hon\u201fble Apex Court has
\n      observed that it is often difficult for courts of law
\n      to arrive at the real truth in criminal cases. The
\n      judicial process can only operate on the firm
\n      foundations of actual and credible evidence on
\n      record. Mere suspicion or suspicion circumstances
\n      cannot relieve the prosecution of its primary duty
\n      of proving its case against an accused persons
\n      beyond reasonable doubts.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
17.           We agree with learned counsel for the State that
\nhaving held that it stands established that the respondent was
\nin the house when his wife received the fatal injuries, in the
\nabsence of any explanation from the side of the respondent to
\nexplain the injuries on his wife and his plea that he was not in
\nthe house and saw his wife injured when he entered the house
\nbeing not believable, the learned Trial Judge was bound to
\nconsider the testimony of respondent\u201fs son as per whom only
\nhis parents and the 2 brothers were the residents of the house
\nand that when their mother was assaulted, the 2 brothers were
\nsleeping. Had the learned Trial Judge considered said fact i.e.
\nthe testimony of Ashu Ahluwalia PW-3, the son of the
\nrespondent, it would have dawned on the learned Trial Judge
\nthat there were only 4 residents of the house.                 The
\nrespondent, his wife Manju Bala and their two sons; who were
\nminor. This would demolish the reasoning of the learned Trial
\nJudge that there was no evidence to the effect that there was
\nno evidence to rule out the presence of somebody else. That
\napart, if the prosecution established that the respondent was
\nin the house when his wife was injured, he had to satisfactorily
\nexplain as to how his wife received injuries. In the absence of
\nany satisfactory explanation, Section 106 of the Evidence Act
\nhad to be applied and a presumption permissible to be raised
\n Crl.A.No.53\/1999                                        Page 8 of 16<\/span>
\n under Section 114 of the Evidence Act ought to have been
\nraised.    It is apparent that the learned Trial Judge has not
\nposed the questions which arose to be answered.\n<\/p>\n
18.           Further, the learned Trial Judge did not even bother
\nto consider the post-mortem report Ex.PW-6\/A and the injuries
\nnoted therein which were suffered by Manju Bala.         We have
\nnoted the injuries suffered by Manju Bala in para 5 above.
\nThere are 6 injuries suffered by the unfortunate lady.        Dead
\nbodies tell the tale of their death.    What does Manju Bala\u201fs
\ndead body have to tell? Injury No.4 i.e. multiple bruises on the
\nneck being 10 to 15 tell us that Manju Bala was caught by her
\nneck.     She had struggled to free herself but the vice like
\nstrangle-hold did not let her go free and in the struggle, which
\nhad lasted for some time, she was continuously caught hold of
\nby the neck. Injury No.1 is an abrasion on the back at lumber
\nregion which shows a hefty blow with a blunt object and
\npossibly the fist.    The second and the third injuries, being
\nbruises on the left inguinal and maxillary region tell us that
\nwhen Manju Bala was held on by her neck, 2 more blows other
\nthan the 1 at the back was struck with a fist on her upper jaw
\nand groin region. The fifth injury i.e. bruises on right side of
\near tell us that she was struck blows on the right side of the
\near. There then remains the sixth injury i.e. the puncture mark
\non the posterior triangle of neck which shows the screw driver
\nin question being pierced into her neck.         Internal injuries,
\nbeing clots detected in the subscalpular, frontal and temporal
\nareas also tell a story in tune with injury No.2, 3 and 5 that
\nextravasations of the arteries was the result when the face and
\nthe ear region of Manju Bala was pounded.         The 6 external<\/p>\n
 Crl.A.No.53\/1999                                         Page 9 of 16<\/span>
\n injuries and the internal injuries i.e. the clots due to
\nextravasations when the arteries ruptured tell a story which
\nthe learned Trial Judge unfortunately could not hear.\n<\/p>\n
19.           The story told is that whosoever assaulted Manju
\nBala did so out of anger and not for any other reason. Now, it
\nis either the respondent who killed Manju Bala or it was some
\nother outsider. If it was an outsider, the only motive could be
\nto seek revenge and kill Manju Bala or enter the house to
\ncommit robbery and upon finding resistance from Manju Bala
\nto kill her. In said scenario, the outsider would have straight
\naway lodged the fatal assault to silence Manju Bala and not
\npound her with a fist thereby making her cry in pain thereby
\nattracting rescue. Further, if the motive of the assailant was to
\nseek revenge and kill Manju Bala he would have entered the
\nhouse armed with a knife and not an ordinary screw driver. If
\nthe motive was to commit robbery, the robber would have
\nentered the house with a knife as the time was such that a
\nrobber would have reasonable expected the house inmates to
\nbe awake and he certainly would have planned to silent them
\ninto submissions by threatening them with a deadly\/dangerous
\nweapon.       The ordinary household screw driver being the
\nweapon of offence also tells us a part of the story which the
\nlearned Trial Judge could not hear. It tells us that the screw
\ndriver was lying in the house and not brought by an outsider
\nfor if it was an outsider, on the two possible motives which we
\nhave discussed hereinabove, the weapon with him would not
\nbe an ordinary screw driver.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.53\/1999                                        Page 10 of 16<\/span><\/p>\n
 20.           The injuries on Manju Bala are obviously the result
\nof somebody taking out his anger on Manju Bala; the ordinary
\nhousehold screw driver used as the weapon of offence adds on
\nto the theory that it was an insider\u201fs job. We have to further
\nfactor in the testimony of HC Mahavir Singh PW-4 which finds
\ncorroboration from the FIR Ex.PW-9\/A and suffice would it be to
\nstate that unlike statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.,
\nstatements\/complaints under Section 154 Cr.P.C. can be used
\nfor corroboration, as per which testimony HC Mahavir and
\nCt.Mathew proceeded to the house of the respondent and the
\ndeceased upon hearing information that a quarrel was going
\non in the house.      It is true that the person who gave the
\ninformation has not been examined, but the fact that
\ninformation of a quarrel was conveyed to the police is an
\nimportant piece of evidence proved through the testimony of
\nHC Mahavir.        This corroborates with the injuries on the
\ndeceased which suggests that she was beaten by somebody
\nwith that somebody clinching his hand in a fist.            Broken
\nbangles found scattered in the house as depicted in the site
\nplan    Ex.PW-7\/A    prepared   by   Insp.Gurudev   Singh    PW-7
\ncorroborate a quarrel.      Blood has been lifted from inside a
\nroom near the kitchen and the internal courtyard of the house.
\nThe scene of the crime, with evidence of a quarrel inside the
\nhouse and the assault on the deceased are all conclusively
\nindicative of an insider\u201fs job. The fear of the crowd outside as
\ndeposed to by HC Mahavir also indicates that the assailant was
\ninside the house. If the assailant had escaped and as claimed
\nby the respondent he came to the house later, the crowd
\nwould have joined in the act of rescue and not stood fearfully<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.53\/1999                                        Page 11 of 16<\/span>
\n outside. The conduct of the respondent is also important. If
\nhe claims that he saw his wife crying and injured with a screw
\ndriver stuck in her neck when he reached the house, his
\ninstant reaction would be to pull out the screw driver, which he
\nclaims he did, but then not sit around. He would have lifted
\nthe unfortunate lady in his arms to comfort her and not only
\nsummons a rescue for her by yelling out to the neighbours to
\nhelp him but by lifting her and carrying her outside the house,
\nto be transported to a hospital where medical aid could be
\ngiven to her.      We note that as per the post-mortem report
\nManju Bala weighed 50 kg and was a lady of thin built. The
\nconduct of the respondent is in conflict with that of an
\ninnocent and a loving husband and is in consonance with the
\nconduct of a husband having a motive to assault his wife.\n<\/p>\n
21.           Conscious of the law that a verdict of acquittal
\nreinforces the presumption of innocence in favour of an
\naccused, but law being that where a Trial Judge has ignored
\nvital and relevant evidence or has ignored vital and relevant
\ncircumstances, it becomes the duty of the Appellate Court to
\nhave a re-look at the evidence. We have already highlighted
\nhereinabove the incorrect reasoning of the learned Trial Judge
\nin paragraphs 35 and 36 of the impugned decision, we have
\nhighlighted hereinabove a non-discussion by the learned Trial
\nJudge with respect to the injuries on the deceased; we have
\nhighlighted hereinabove the non-discussion by the learned
\nTrial Judge with respect to an ordinary household screw driver
\nbeing the weapon of offence; we have highlighted hereinabove
\nthe non-discussion by the learned Trial Judge to the theory of
\nan outsider being the assassin with reference to the injuries on<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.53\/1999                                      Page 12 of 16<\/span>
\n the deceased and the weapon of offence; we have highlighted
\nhereinabove the non-consideration by the learned Trial Judge
\nto the evidence of Ashu i.e. the son of the deceased and the
\nrespondent as to the two sons and their parents being the only
\nresidents of the house; we have discussed hereinabove the
\nnon-consideration by the learned Trial Judge qua the conduct
\nof the respondent with reference to his claim of entering the
\nhouse and seeing his wife lying injured and crying for help.\n<\/p>\n
22.           These are our reasons for having a re-look at the
\nevidence and for the re-look given by us and as discussed
\nhereinabove, we see no escape from the conclusion that the
\nevidence on record unerringly points the finger of acquisition
\nupon the respondent and rules out his innocence.\n<\/p>\n
23.           The question would then be as to what offence has
\nbeen committed by the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
24.           He has beaten his wife and the assault on her
\nclearly indicates an intention to injure the unfortunate lady and
\nnot to kill her. As opined in the decisions reported as AIR 1990
\nSC 1459 Vijayee Singh Vs. State of U.P. and AIR 2001 SC 2902
\nKashi Ram & Ors. Vs. State of M.P., it is the duty of a Court to
\nlook at all the probabilities and circumstances emerging from
\nthe evidence at a criminal trial and thereafter find out that
\nelusive nugget of truth which is the object of discovery at
\nevery criminal trial.\n<\/p>\n
25.           The totality of the evidence probablizes that being
\nangry with his wife, the respondent launched a physical
\nassault on her. At the first instance he caught his wife by the<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.53\/1999                                        Page 13 of 16<\/span>
\n scuff of her neck and held on to the neck while pounding her
\nwith fist blows, some of which were directed towards the face
\nand    the     occipital   region.   Finding   an   object,   which
\nunfortunately happened to be an ordinary household screw
\ndriver, when in a fit of rage, little realizing what would be the
\nconsequences of his further act, respondent picked up the
\nscrew driver and jabbed the same in the neck of his wife and
\nas the blade of the screw driver pierced the soft neck tissue it
\ncut an artery and the excessive resultant bleeding coupled
\nwith the extravasations of the arteries in the occipital, frontal
\nand temporal region took their toll.\n<\/p>\n
26.           Now, the subscalpular clots in the occipital, frontal
\nand temporal area of the deceased are evidence of the ferocity
\nof the blows with which the respondent struck his wife and any
\nordinary person can safely be fastened with the knowledge of
\nknowing that if he strikes fist blows on the occipital and
\ntemporal region, extravasations of the artery may take place
\nand death being the likely result of the act. Further, a person
\nwho jabs a screw driver in the neck of a person can safely be
\nfastened with the knowledge of knowing that he may cut
\nthrough the trachea i.e. the wind pipe, which may prove fatal
\nor cut any of the arteries or veins carrying blood to and from
\nthe brain, which may prove fatal.\n<\/p>\n
27.           Thus, for the acts done by the respondent, while it
\nmay not be permissible to draw an inference that he intended
\nto kill his wife or intended to cause any particular injury to his
\nwife, it can safely be said that he can be attributed knowledge
\nthat his acts are likely to result in the death of his wife and for<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.53\/1999                                         Page 14 of 16<\/span>
\n which acts, in light of the knowledge which we can impute to
\nthe respondent one can safely say that the respondent has
\ncommitted an offence punishable under Part II of Section 304
\nIPC.\n<\/p>\n
28.           The date of the crime is 24.5.1996. The respondent
\nwas arrested at the spot. He was acquitted on 26.8.1997. It is
\nthus apparent that the respondent has remained in custody for
\none year and three months.\n<\/p>\n
29.           It is no doubt true that we are deciding the State
\nappeal as a result of leave to appeal be granted in
\nCrl.M.No.5758\/1998 after over 12 years of leave to appeal
\nbeing sought, but the nature of the brutal assault launched by
\nthe respondent on his wife has also to be kept in mind and
\nthus blending the two i.e. 12 years taken for the appeal to be
\ndecided and the act of brutality committed by the respondent,
\nwe think that the appropriate sentence to be imposed should
\nbe 5 years RI to be suffered by the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
30.           Disposing of the appeal we set aside the impugned
\njudgment       and    order   dated   26.8.1997   acquitting    the
\nrespondent.        We convict the respondent for the offence of
\nculpable homicide of his wife but not amounting to murder and
\npunish him for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II
\nIPC and direct him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5
\nyears and needless to state he would be entitled to the benefit
\nof Section 428 Cr.P.C. The respondent is directed to surrender
\nand suffer the remaining sentence.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.53\/1999                                        Page 15 of 16<\/span><\/p>\n
 31.           Copy of this decision be sent to the Superintendent
\nCentral Jail Tihar for his record and entry in the Jail Register.
\nTCR may be returned.\n<\/p>\n
                                    (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
\n                                           JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                       (SURESH KAIT)
\n                                            JUDGE
\nAPRIL 08, 2011
\nmm<\/p>\n
Crl.A.No.53\/1999                                        Page 16 of 16<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court State vs Rupinder Kumar on 8 April, 2011 Author: Pradeep Nandrajog * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved On: April 06, 2011 Judgment Delivered On: April 08, 2011 + CRL.A.53\/1999 STATE ….. Appellant Through: Mr.Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Mr.Harsh Prabhakar, Advocate versus RUPINDER KUMAR […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-237274","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState vs Rupinder Kumar on 8 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-rupinder-kumar-on-8-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs Rupinder Kumar on 8 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-rupinder-kumar-on-8-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-12T07:09:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-rupinder-kumar-on-8-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-rupinder-kumar-on-8-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs Rupinder Kumar on 8 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-12T07:09:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-rupinder-kumar-on-8-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":4262,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-rupinder-kumar-on-8-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-rupinder-kumar-on-8-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-rupinder-kumar-on-8-april-2011\",\"name\":\"State vs Rupinder Kumar on 8 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-12T07:09:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-rupinder-kumar-on-8-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-rupinder-kumar-on-8-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-rupinder-kumar-on-8-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs Rupinder Kumar on 8 April, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State vs Rupinder Kumar on 8 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-rupinder-kumar-on-8-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs Rupinder Kumar on 8 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-rupinder-kumar-on-8-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-12T07:09:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-rupinder-kumar-on-8-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-rupinder-kumar-on-8-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs Rupinder Kumar on 8 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-12T07:09:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-rupinder-kumar-on-8-april-2011"},"wordCount":4262,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-rupinder-kumar-on-8-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-rupinder-kumar-on-8-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-rupinder-kumar-on-8-april-2011","name":"State vs Rupinder Kumar on 8 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-12T07:09:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-rupinder-kumar-on-8-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-rupinder-kumar-on-8-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-rupinder-kumar-on-8-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs Rupinder Kumar on 8 April, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237274","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=237274"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237274\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=237274"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=237274"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=237274"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}