S U P R E M E C O U R T O F we N D we A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)… 2010
CRLMP.NO(s). 23051 (From a settlement and sequence antiquated 21/01/2010 in CRLA No. 505/2001 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)
RAJBIR @ RAJU & ANR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP)
Date: 22/11/2010 This Petition was called on for conference today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. A.P. Mohanty,Adv.
UPON conference warn a Court done a following
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Issue notice to postulant No.1 because his judgment be not extended to life judgment as awarded by a hearing Court.
Issue notice to a respondent-State per postulant No.2.
In a meantime, postulant No.2 usually is systematic to be expelled on bail to a compensation of a hearing Court in tie with box outset from FIR No. 279 of 1998 antiquated 4.9.1998, P.S. Sadar Rohtak.
We serve approach all hearing Courts in India to usually supplement Section 302 to a assign of territory 304B, so that genocide sentences can be imposed in such iniquitous and barbarous crimes opposite women.
Copy of this sequence be sent to Registrar Generals/Registrars of all High Courts, that will disseminate it to all hearing Courts.
(Parveen Kr. Chawla) ( Indu Satija )
Court Master Court Master
[Reportable Signed Order is placed on a file]
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL CRL NO……../2010 (Crl.MP No. 23051/2010)
Rajbir @ Raju & Another ..Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana ..Respondent
O R D E R
Delay of 158 days in filing a special leave petition is condoned.
The postulant No.1 Rajbir(husband) was found guilty of murdering his profound mom Sunita for perfectionist money volume hardly 6 months after their marriage. He was awarded life judgment underneath Section 304 B, IPC, detached from sentences underneath other sections. The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reduced a judgment to 10 years severe imprisonment. Petitioner No.2(mother of Rajbir) was awarded dual years severe imprisonment.
We destroy to see because a High Court has reduced a judgment of postulant No.1 Rajbir. It appears to be a box of barbarous and heartless murder. This is borne out by a injuries that are in a justification of Doctor, PW 2, that are as follows:
“1. A diffused contusion radish in colour on right side of face fluctuating between left half of both lips and upto right pinna. And from a zygomatic area to right angle mandible. On dis-section underline hankie was found Ecchymosed.
2. On right side of neck, a diffused contusion 3.5 cm x 2.5 cm situated 2.5 cm posterior defective to right angle of mandible. On dis-section underlying area was Ecchmosed.
3. A contusion distance of 7.5 cm x 5 cm over left side of neck usually next angle of mandible. Underlying area on ratiocination was Ecchymesed.
4. Multiple reddish contusion of several sizes from 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm to 1 cm x 0.5 cm on both lips including an area of 6 x 4 cms. On dissection, underlying area was Ecchymesed.
5. A break of distance of 1.5 cm x 1 cm benefaction inside a reduce mouth analogous to reduce tooth tooth and all of a neck on both sides next thyroid bone was found Echhymesed on dis-section.
Scalp and skull were healthy. Uterus contained a masculine foetus of 4 months.
Cause of genocide in a opinion was due to smothering and throttling that was ante-mortem in inlet and was sufficient to means genocide in typical march of nature.”
The above injuries, prima facie, prove that a defunct Sunita’s conduct was regularly struck and she was also throttled.
We have recently hold in a box of Satya Narayan Tiwari @ Jolly & Another vs. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No.1168 of 2005 motionless on 28th October, 2010 that this Court is going to take a critical perspective in a matters of crimes opposite women and give oppressive punishment.
This perspective was reiterated by us in another special leave petition in a box of Sukhdev Singh & Another vs. State of Punjab and we expelled notice to a postulant as to because his life judgment be not extended to genocide sentence.
Issue notice to postulant No.1 because his judgment be not extended to life judgment as awarded by a hearing Court.
As regards postulant No.2 (Mother of postulant No.1), it is purported that she is about 80 years of age.
Issue notice to a respondent-State per postulant No.2.
In a meantime, postulant No.2 usually is systematic to be expelled on bail to a compensation of a hearing Court in tie with box outset from FIR No. 279 of 1998 antiquated 4.9.1998, P.S. Sadar Rohtak.
We serve approach all hearing Courts in India to usually supplement Section 302 to a assign of territory 304B, so that genocide sentences can be imposed in such iniquitous and barbarous crimes opposite women.
Copy of this sequence be sent to Registrar Generals/Registrars of all High Courts, that will disseminate it to all hearing Courts.
[MARKANDEY KATJU]
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 22, 2010 [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]
