CRA-D-339-DB-2015 (O&M)           -1- 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

204

CRA-D-339-DB-2015 (O&M) 

Date of Decision: 23.09.2025

Jaswant alias Makhan …..Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana …..Respondent

CORAM:    HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL  

  HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI

Present: Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate

for the appellant. 

Mr. Varun Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.  

****

RAMESH KUMARI, J. 

1. The appellant (hereinafter referred as ‘accused’) namely, Jaswant

alias Makhan has filed this appeal against judgment of conviction dated

30.08.2014 and order of sentence dated 02.09.2014 whereby the accused named

above had been held guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

life besides payment of fine of Rs.10,000/6 and in default of payment of fine to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the commission of

offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code in case FIR No. 171

dated 07.08.2013 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police

Station Sadar Dabwali.

FACTS OF THE CASE 

2. On 07.08.2013, PW68 Inspector Bhartender Kumar, received

telephonic information on mobile number from SI Suraj Bhan, Incharge, Police

CRA-D-339-DB-2015 (O&M)           -2- 

Post, Chautala that accused Jaswant Singh committed murder of his wife Kavita

by causing injuries on her head and face. On the basis of this information, he along

with other officials reached at the house of accused Jaswant Singh, where SI Suraj

Bhan along with other officials were already present. Complainant Mangi Lal was

also present there. PW61 complainant Mangi Lal had made a statement, Ex.PA,

before police authorities to the effect that he runs a grocery shop and on the

intervening night of 06.08.2013/07.08.2013 at about 11.30 PM, he received a

telephonic call from his niece, Anjali (PW2) that her uncle (Mausa) i.e. the

accused was causing injuries on the head of her aunt (Mausi) Kavita with an iron

rod and accused had ousted them from the house. PW61 complainant also stated

in Ex.PA that marriage of his sister Kavita was solemnized in the year 2002 with

accused and they had three children. His niece Anjali (PW2) was residing with

Kavita for the last two years in village Chautala and was studying there. After

receipt of information of causing hurt to Kavita, he (complainant) and his cousin

Mahender (real brother of Kavita) reached the village and saw that Anjali and her

three children were in the house of neighbour. When they entered the house, they

saw that dead body of their sister Kavita was lying on a cot in the verandah in a

pool of blood and injuries were appearing on her head, caused by an iron rod.

They then informed about this incident to their family members and thereafter

informed the police. He further stated that accused was habitual of consuming

liquor and other intoxicants and he was consuming liquor for the last three days

and was quarrelling with Kavita deceased. On 06.08.2013, at about 9.00/10.00

PM, when accused was consuming liquor, Kavita asked him to consume liquor

outside the house and let them sleep but accused started quarrelling with Kavita.

CRA-D-339-DB-2015 (O&M)           -3- 

Thereafter Kavita had gone to sleep and while she was sleeping, she was murdered

by the accused causing injuries on her head and face. 

INVESTIGATION 

3(i). After recording statement Ex.PA of PW61 Mangi Ram PW68

Inspector Bhartender Kumar made endorsement Ex.PO, sent the same to Police

Station, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PM was recorded by ASI Bhoop Singh.

PW68 Inspector Bhartender Kumar photographed with his digital camera

the place of occurrence where the dead body was lying and took photographs

Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. Dead body of Kavita was lying on the cot and PW68 Inspector

Bhartender Kumar separated piece Ex.P68 of blood stained pillow cover, Ex.P69

of Dari, Ex.P610 of Jute of cot parceled and sealed the same. Blood lying on the

floor and blood stains on the walls were lifted with the help of cotton and

converted into parcel and sealed in box Ex.P611; one blood stained iron rod Ex.P6

7 lying near the dead body and blood stained hair was stuck to it, the blood stained

iron rod Ex.P67 and hair Ex.P612 were also separately parceled and sealed with

seal BK and all these parcels were taken into possession vide recovery memo

Ex.PB. PW68 Inspector Bhartender Kumar prepared the rough site plan Ex.PP and

also prepared inquest proceedings Ex.PJ.

3(ii) PW68 Inspector Bhartender Kumar handed over application

Ex.PH and dead body of Kavita to ASI Krishan Kumar for conducting autopsy

on the dead body of Kavita. Before sending the dead body of Kavita for autopsy,

sleeve6ring (bajuband) of silver, golden ring, two golden rings, one golden nose

pin were removed from the body at request of relatives and handed over to PW6

1 complainant Mangi Ram vide memo Ex.PC. PW68 Inspector Bhartender Kumar

CRA-D-339-DB-2015 (O&M)           -4- 

recorded statements of witnesses, namely, Dimple and Anjali under Section 161

Cr.P.C. and supplementary statement of PW61 Mangi Ram. 

3(iii) On the same date, PW68 Inspector Bhartender Kumar alongwith

other police officials on receipt of secret information arrested the accused while

he was going on Chetak Road, Dabwali. Accused was holding a bag in his hand.

On interrogation, accused disclosed that clothes which he was wearing at the time

of commission of crime, having blood stains were in the bag. Thereafter, Ex.P613

one shirt of black colour and Ex.P614 jeans of blue colour having blood stains

were taken out of bag and converted into parcel sealed with seal BK and taken

into police possession vide memo Ex.PN.

3(iv) After postmortem, ASI Krishan Kumar handed over clothes of the

deceased, which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PQ. The case property

was deposited with MHC and accused was locked up.

3(v) On 08.08.2013 accused was taken out of lockup and he suffered

disclosure statement Ex.PR describing the manner in which the crime was

committed by him and he also stated that he could demarcate the place where

crime was committed. Thereafter, accused led the police party to the disclosed

place and demarcated the same vide demarcation memo Ex.PS.

3(vi) HC Mohan Lal, Draftsman, on the direction of PW68 Inspector

Bhartender Kumar reached at the place of occurrence and inspected the same.

3(vii) During the course of investigation PW68 Inspector Bhartender

Kumar recorded the statements witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. After

completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted in

the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate for trial of the accused.

CHARGES 

CRA-D-339-DB-2015 (O&M)           -5- 

4. Learned Illaqa Magistrate supplied copies of challan and other

documents to the accused free of cost and on 23.09.2013 committed the case to

court of sessions.

On 03.10.2013, charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code

was framed against the accused, to which he had pleaded not guilty and claimed

trial. 

During trial, prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses and also

tendered in evidence reports of FSL, Madhuban as Ex.PF and Ex.PG. 

STATEMENT OF ACCUSED 

5. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein

he had denied all the incriminating evidence recorded against him and stated that

he had been falsely implicated in the present case as father of Anjali was

pressurizing him to transfer his land in the name of Kavita deceased. However, no

evidence was led in defence.

6. After hearing learned counsel for parties and perusal of oral as well as

documentary evidence placed on record, learned trial Court held that prosecution

has succeeded in proving the charges levelled against appellant6accused and

therefore, appellant6accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo life

imprisonment as stated in para No.1 of the judgment.

We have heard learned counsel for parties and hav e carefully

scrutinized the record with their able assistance.

CONTENTION OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT 

7. Learned counsel for appellant6accused has challenged the judgment

and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court, inter6alia, on the grounds that

CRA-D-339-DB-2015 (O&M)           -6- 

as per statement Ex.PA of PW61 complainant Mangi Lal, FIR Ex. PM and

statement of eye6witness PW62 Anjali and PW610 Dimple, accused was

consuming liquor continuously for three days, the murder was committed when

he was not in his senses and was under insanity, therefore, he is entitled for the

benefit of Section 86 of the IPC.

CONTENTION OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT/STATE 

8. After referring to statements of prosecution witnesses, learned Deputy

Advocate General appearing for respondent6State of Haryana contended that

conviction of appellant by learned trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity

or perversity, therefore, he vehemently prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 

9. As observed earlier, prosecution has examined 10 witnesses.  

9 (i) PW1 Mangi Lal complainant while deposing fully supported the

prosecution version and deposed as per his statement given to the police Ex.PA.

He further deposed that the police had lifted blood stained pillow, mat, iron rod

and blood stains from the wall and the same were taken in possession vide

recovery memo Ex.PB after sealing them separately. 

ii) PW2 Anjali, is eye witness of the occurrence, who informed PW61

that accused was hitting his wife. She specifically stated on oath that she was

residing with her maternal aunt (Mausi) for the last two years and was studying

in 10

th

class in village Chautala. She also deposed that she was brought by her

Mausi as her uncle was a drug addict and was admitted in Rehabilitation Centre.

She stated that her uncle i.e. accused used to quarrel with her Mausi Kavita

(deceased) under the influence of liquor. On 06.08.2013, accused was regularly

taking liquor and at about 9.00/10.00 PM, her aunt Kavita asked accused Jaswant

CRA-D-339-DB-2015 (O&M)           -7- 

Singh to consume the liquor while sitting outside and not to come and go out of

the room and due to this, accused started quarreling with her aunt. Thereafter, they

all went to bed lying in the verandah. On the first cot, her aunt Kavita and her son

Manish were sleeping and on the next cot she was sleeping and on the next cot

Dimple and Sanjana were sleeping. At about 11.00 P.M. on the noise raised by

Manish, they all woke up and saw that accused Jaswant Singh was causing injuries

on the head of Kavita with the help of an iron rod. On this sight, they all due to

fear took shelter in the house of their neighbour Arvind and she called her real

maternal uncle Mahender on mobile but failed to contact him. Thereafter, she

made a call to her other maternal uncle Mangi Lal (PW61 complainant) and

disclosed all the facts to him. Her uncles Mahender and Mangi Lal reached at the

spot. Her statement was recorded by the police. 

9 (iii) PW10, Dimple, aged about 10 years, daughter of deceased and

accused also corroborated the statement of her cousin PW62 Anjali. Before

recording her testimony the Court put a question to her to determine her capacity

to understand and after she was declared competent witness, her testimony was

recorded. She specifically deposed that Anjali, daughter of her aunt used to reside

with them. Her father was a drunkard and on 06.08.2013 in the evening, her father

was consuming liquor and her mother asked him to sit at a particular place where

he could drink and not to disturb other members, upon which her father Jaswant

Singh replied that the house belonged to him and he would do whatever he wanted

and thereafter they all had gone to sleep in the verandah. She further deposed that

her brother Manish was sleeping with her mother Kavita while Anjali was

sleeping on a separate cot and on the next cot, she alongwith her sister Sanjana

was sleeping. They woke up on hearing noise of his brother Manish and woke up

CRA-D-339-DB-2015 (O&M)           -8- 

and noticed that her father Jaswant Singh was giving blows on the head of her

mother Kavita with an iron rod and blood was oozing out of injuries. On seeing

that, they all got frightened and took shelter in the house of their neighbour Arvind.

She further deposed that Anjali made a call to her parents about this incident. Her

mother died at the spot due to the injuries. 

9 (iv) PW8 Inspector Bhartender Kumar is the Investigating Officer

and he deposed about various steps taken during investigation of the case. He

deposed that on 07.08.2013, he received a telephonic information on his

government mobile from SI Suraj that accused6appellant had committed murder

of his wife Kavita by causing injuries on her head and face. He reached at the spot

and got statement of Mangi Ram complainant Ex.PA and after making his

endorsement Ex.PO, sent the same to Police Station, on the basis of which FIR

Ex.PM was recorded. He further deposed that the place of occurrence was got

photographed and the photographer took photographs Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. He also

deposed that the dead body of Kavita was lying on the cot. Piece of blood stained

pillow6cover, Dari, jute of cot were separated and converted into sealed parcels.

Blood on the floor was lifted and converted into separate parcel. Blood stains on

the walls were also lifted with the help of cotton and converted into separate parcel.

Blood stained iron rod lying near the dead body was also taken into possession

and converted into separate parcel as well as the iron rod having blood stained

hair stuck on it. All the said parcels were sealed with the seal of ‘BK’ and taken

into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PB. He also prepared site plan Ex. PP of

the place of occurrence. He conducted inquest proceedings Ex.PJ of the dead body

and recorded statements of witnesses. He scribed application PH and sent the dead

body through ASI Krishan Kumar for post6mortem. Before sending the dead body

CRA-D-339-DB-2015 (O&M)           -9- 

for post6mortem, on the request of relatives of the deceased, sleeve6ring (baaju-

band) of silver, golden ring, two golden rings, one golden nose pin were removed

from the body and handed over to PW61 vide memo Ex.PC. He also recorded

statement of Arvind Sharma, who was a neighbour of accused Jaswant Singh,

where the children of deceased were present. He recorded the statement of Dimple

and Anjali under Section 161 Cr.P.C. As per his statement, he arrested the accused

on the same day on the basis of secret information at Sangria By6pass. Accused

was found carrying a bag in his hand. On checking, one shirt of black colour and

jeans of blue colour, stained with blood were found in it and these were converted

into parcel and sealed with seal ‘BK’ and taken in possession vide memo

Ex.PN. After post mortem, parcel of clothes of the deceased were taken in police

possession vide memo Ex.PQ. He deposited the case property with MHC. He

further submitted that disclosure statement Ex.PR of accused, demarcation memo

Ex. PS of the place of occurrence were prepared site plan was also prepared. Site

plan was also inspected by HC Mohan Lal, Draftsman. 

At the time of recording of his statement, case property was produced

in the Court, which is as under:6 

a) Iron rod Ex.P67, 

b) Piece of pillow Ex.P68, 

c) Piece of dari Ex.P69 

d) Jute Ex.P10, 

e) Box Ex.P611 containing blood, 

f) Box containing hair of deceased Ex.P612. 

g) T6shirt Ex.P613, 

h) Jeans Ex.P614. 

9(v) PW7 SI Suraj Bhan corroborated the testimony of PW68 as he is

attesting witness of memo of recoveries Ex.PB and Ex. PN. 

CRA-D-339-DB-2015 (O&M)           -10- 

9(vi) PW5  Dr.  Bharat  Bhushan,  Medical  Officer, tendered in his

evidence duly sworn affidavit Ex.PL wherein he stated about conducting of post6

mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Kavita on application Ex.PH

and duly proved copy of post mortem report as Ex.PK. He also described the

condition and nature of injuries on the dead body.  

Cause of death was stated to be due to shock and head injuries. He

also stated that injuries so described are antemortem in nature and sufficient to

cause of death in normal course of life. Probable time between injuries and death

was variable and between death and post6mortem examination was within 6 to 24

hours. 

PW3 SI Balwant Singh and PW9 HC Subhash Chander tendered in

their evidence their duly sworn affidavits Ex.PD and Ex.PT in order to complete

the chain of link evidence to the effect that till the time the sealed parcels

containing belongings of the deceased and accused remained in their possession,

they did not tamper with the same. 

9(vii) PW4 HC Mohan Lal, Draftsman, proved the scaled site6plan

Ex.PE of the place of occurrence. 

9(viii)               PW6 Constable Vijay Kumar stated the special report Ex.PM

sent to the Illaqa Magistrate and senior police officers on 07.08.2013. 

DISCUSSION 

10(i) Daughters of deceased and accused PW610 Dimple and PW6

2 Anjali, who were staying with accused and deceased at the relevant time, in their

testimonies before learned trial Court specifically stated that on 06.08.2013 in the

evening accused was consuming liquor and was repeatedly coming in and going

outside the house. The deceased asked him to sit at a particular place where he

CRA-D-339-DB-2015 (O&M)           -11- 

could drink and not to disturb other members, but accused told her that the house

belong to him. A quarrel ensued. Thereafter, when they had gone to sleep inside

the verandah, at night time, on hearing the noise of Manish son of deceased and

accused, other children i.e. PW62 Anjali and PW610 Dimpal woke up and noticed

that accused Jaswant Singh was giving blows on the head of Kavita with an iron

rod and blood was oozing out of injuries. This testimony proves that accused was

infuriated because his wife asked him to sit at one place and the accused at the

dead of night gave her fatal blows by means of an iron Rod (Ex. P7) which

resulted into her death. Simply because the accused was under the influence of

liquor does not mean that he was suffering from any kind of insanity as has been

urged by learned counsel for appellant. 

10ii) Accused is charged with the commission of offence of murder of his

wife. Section 300 IPC defines murder as under:6 

“Section  300:  Murder- Except  in  the  cases 

hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if 

the act by which the death is caused is done with the 

intention of causing death, or- 

Secondly.—If it is done with the intention of causing such 

bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the 

death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or— 

Thirdly.—If it is  done  with the intention of causing  bodily 

injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be in-

flicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause 

death, or— 

Fourthly.—If the person committing the act knows that it is so 

imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause 

death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and 

commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of 

causing death or such injury as aforesaid.”  

CRA-D-339-DB-2015 (O&M)           -12- 

10(iii) If the death is caused while in a state of intoxicantion, Section 86 IPC

comes into picture, which reads as under:6

“86.  Offence  requiring  a  particular  intent  or  knowledge 

committed by one who is intoxicated.—In cases where an act 

done  is  not  an  offence  unless  done  with  a  particular 

knowledge or intent, a person who does the act in a state of 

intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the 

same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been 

intoxicated,  unless  the  thing  which  intoxicated  him  was 

administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.” 

10(iv) In Nanhe Versus State of U.P., Crl. Appeal No. 2791 of 2023, 

decided on 21.11.2023,    Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in applying the above

provision, the following twin conditions have to be satisfied. The first that the

accused was administered a thing which intoxicated him without his knowledge

or against his will. Secondly, the intoxication has to be of the level which

incapacitated him of knowing the nature of the act committed or likely to be

committed by him. It is further held in Nanhe’s case (supra) as under:6 

“20. The above provision of Section 86 IPC had come up for 

consideration before this Court in the case of Basdev vs. State 

of Pepsu AIR 1956 SC  and it was held that where no evidence 

was led to show that the accused was incapacitated to form 

requisite intention due to the influence of the drink, the killing 

of a person would be an offence of murder. In short, the ratio 

is that not only the accused be intoxicated but also the level of 

his intoxication be such as to render him incapable of knowing 

and understanding what he is doing or likely to do. Therefore, 

evidence to prove his incapacity to understand the nature of his 

action is mandatory to reduce the criminality of the accused. 

21. In a celebrated case The King vs. Meade (1909) 1.K.B. it 

was opined that a person charged with a crime of violence may 

CRA-D-339-DB-2015 (O&M)           -13- 

show or rebut the presumption that he intended the natural 

consequences of his acts, that he was drunk and that he was 

incapable of knowing what he was doing was dangerous. The 

law was thus summed up as under: 

(i) The insanity, whether due to drunkenness or otherwise is a 

defence in a crime; 

(ii) The evidence of drunkenness which renders the accused 

incapable  of  forming  any  opinion  or  intention  ought  to  be 

considered with the surrounding facts and circumstances so as 

to come to the conclusion whether or not he had intention to 

do the said act; and 

(iii) The drunkenness of the accused must be sufficient to 

render him incapacitated to form any intention to commit the 

crime.” 

In para No.25 in Nanhe’s case (supra) it is further observed that, 

“25.  It may be true that the deceased may have been killed 

accidentally by the appellant in the state of intoxication but 

there  is  no  iota  of  evidence  to  establish  that  due to 

intoxication he was incapable of knowing the nature of his 

act or that the act which he was doing or likely to do was so 

dangerous so as to cause death of any person. Thus, in the 

absence of such evidence, coupled with the fact that it is not 

the  case  of  the  appellant  that  he  was  administered 

intoxication without his knowledge or against his will, the 

provision of Section 86 IPC would not be applicable and he 

would  not  be  entitled  to  reduction  of  sentence  from  302 

IPC to one falling under Part-II of Section 304 IPC.” 

10(v) Coming back to the facts of this case, during post mortem

examination PW5 Dr. Bharat Bhushan found following four injuries on the body

of deceased Kavita, which is also stated by him in his affidavit Ex.P67 and post6

mortem report, Ex.PK:6 

CRA-D-339-DB-2015 (O&M)           -14- 

“(i) 14.3x3.5 cm lacerated wound obliquely place over 

right side forehead and front parital region of skull. 

Underlying  bone  of  skull  is  fractured.  Underlying 

brain  tissue  grossly  lacerated  and  congested  and 

brain cavity is full of blood. 

(ii) 4.0x0.5 cm lacerated wound present over lateral 

side of right eyebrow. Underlying bone is fractured. 

Underlying  brain  tissue  grossly  lacerated  and 

congested. 

(iii) 3.5x0.5 cm lacerated wound 4 cm below the inj. 

no. 02 present over right side of face. Underlying bone 

is  fractured.  Brian  tissue  is  exposed. 

(iv) 6.0x0.5 cm lacerated wound place just in front of 

upper  of  right  pinna.  Underlying  bone  of  skull  is 

fractured.  Underlying  tissue  is  massively  lacerated 

and exposed.” 

11. The weapon of offence i.e. iron road Ex.P67 was also found lying

near the dead body and along with other case property were taken into police

possession vide memo Ex.PB. There were hair of deceased stuck to the iron rod

which were separated and parcelled in Ex.P12. This proved that accused hit his

wife mercilessly on the vital part of the body, i.e. right side of forehead and frontal

parietal region of the skull; lateral side of right eyebrow wherein under lying bone

was found fractured; right side of face and just in front of upper of right Pinna.

Thus, all the injuries are inflicted on face and head. This clearly proves that

intention of accused was to murder his wife leaving no chance of survival. Nature

of injuries/blows prove that his endeavour was to kill his wife and he inflicted

injuries in a cruel and brutal manner taking advantage of darkness of the night.

There is nothing on record to show that accused was administered

intoxicant/liquor without his knowledge and against his will and there is further

no evidence on record from which it can be concluded that his intoxication was

of a level which incapacitated him of knowing the nature of act committed by him.

CRA-D-339-DB-2015 (O&M)           -15- 

Rather inflicting injuries with iron rod Ex.P7 on the forehead and head of his wife

proved that he had knowledge that if injuries are inflicted on vital part of body, it

is likely to cause death. Intention of appellant is writ large and appellant has been

rightly convicted by learned trial Court under Section 302 IPC. Provision of

Section 86 IPC is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.

Accused is thus not entitled for conversion of conviction from one under Section

302 IPC to part II of Section 304 IPC as is argued by learned counsel for appellant.

Prosecution has proved commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC

beyond reasonable doubt.

12. Learned counsel for appellant is unable to point out any infirmity,

irregularity or illegality in impugned judgment of conviction dated 30.08.2014

passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa.

13. No other issue or contention is raised. 

CONCLUSION 

14. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, this appeal

being devoid of any merit is dismissed.

(LISA GILL)              (RAMESH KUMARI)  

JUDGE             JUDGE  

23.09.2025 

pooja Saini/‘om’ 

Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No

Whether reportable √Yes/No