ITEM NO.26               COURT NO.6             SECTION IIA             S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS                      Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)... 2010                                    CRLMP.NO(s). 23051 (From the judgement and order dated 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 hearing today.

CORAM :         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU         HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. A.P. Mohanty,Adv.

          UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following                                O R D E R  

Delay condoned.

Issue notice to petitioner No.1 why his sentence be  not enhanced to life sentence as awarded by the trial Court.

Issue  notice  to  the  respondent-State  regarding  petitioner No.2.

In the meantime, petitioner No.2 only is ordered to  be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court  in connection with case arising from FIR No. 279 of 1998  dated 4.9.1998, P.S. Sadar Rohtak.

We  further  direct  all  trial  Courts  in  India  to  ordinarily add Section 302 to the charge of section 304B, so  that death sentences can be imposed in such heinous and  barbaric crimes against women.

Copy  of  this  order  be  sent  to  Registrar  Generals/Registrars of all High Courts, which will circulate  it to all trial Courts.

(Parveen Kr. Chawla) Court Master

( Indu Satija ) Court Master

[Reportable Signed Order is placed on the 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  the  special  leave  

petition is condoned.

The petitioner No.1 Rajbir(husband) was found guilty  

of murdering his pregnant wife Sunita for demanding cash  

amount   barely  6  months  after  their  marriage.   He  was  

awarded life sentence under Section 304 B, IPC, apart from  

sentences under other sections.  The Punjab & Haryana High  

Court  has  reduced  the  sentence  to  10  years  rigorous  

imprisonment.   Petitioner  No.2(mother  of  Rajbir)  was  

awarded two years rigorous imprisonment.

We fail to see why the High Court has reduced the  

sentence of petitioner No.1 Rajbir.  It appears to be a  

case of barbaric and brutal murder.  This is borne out by  

the injuries which are in the evidence of Doctor, PW 2,  

which are as follows:

“1. A diffused contusion radish in colour on  

right side of face extending between left half of  

both lips and upto right pinna.

And  from  the  zygomatic  area  to  right  angle  

mandible.  On  dis-section  underline  tissue  was  

found Ecchymosed.

2. On  right  side  of  neck,  a  diffused  

contusion 3.5 cm x 2.5 cm situated 2.5 cm  

-2-

posterior  inferior  to  right  angle  of  mandible.  

On dis-section underlying area was Ecchmosed.

3. A contusion size of 7.5 cm x 5 cm over  

left side of neck just below angle of mandible.  

Underlying area on dissection was Ecchymesed.

4. Multiple  reddish  contusion  of  various  

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  laceration  of  size  of  1.5  cm  x  1  cm  

present  inside  the  lower  lip  corresponding  to  

lower incisor tooth and all of the neck on both  

sides below thyroid bone was found Echhymesed on  

dis-section.

Scalp  and  skull  were  healthy.   Uterus  

contained a male foetus of four months.

Cause of death in our opinion was due to  

smothering and throttling which was ante-mortem  

in nature and was sufficient to cause death in  

ordinary course of nature.”

The above injuries, prima facie, indicate that the  

deceased Sunita's head was repeatedly struck and she was  

also throttled.

We have recently held in the case of Satya Narayan  

Tiwari @ Jolly & Another vs. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal  

No.1168  of  2005  decided  on  28th October,  2010  that  this  

Court is going to take a serious view in the matters of  

crimes against women and give harsh punishment.

This view was reiterated by us in another special  

leave petition in the case of Sukhdev Singh & Another vs.  

State of Punjab and we issued notice to the petitioner as

to why his life sentence be not enhanced to death sentence.

Issue notice to petitioner No.1 why his sentence be  

not  enhanced  to  life  sentence  as  awarded  by  the  trial  

Court.

As regards petitioner No.2 (Mother of petitioner  

-3-

No.1), it is alleged that she is about 80 years of age.

Issue  notice  to  the  respondent-State  regarding  

petitioner No.2.   

In the meantime, petitioner No.2 only is ordered to  

be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court  

in connection with case arising from FIR No. 279 of 1998  

dated 4.9.1998, P.S. Sadar Rohtak.

We  further  direct  all  trial  Courts  in  India  to  

ordinarily add Section 302 to the charge of section 304B,  

so that death sentences can be imposed in such heinous and  

barbaric crimes against women.

Copy  of  this  order  be  sent  to  Registrar  

Generals/Registrars  of  all  High  Courts,  which  will  

circulate it to all trial Courts.

.........................J. [MARKANDEY KATJU]

NEW DELHI; .........................J. NOVEMBER 22, 2010 [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]