A.No.674/2007 Page 1 of 10The reason why learned counsel for the appellant has made restricted submissions is the fact that the dead body of Smt. Sudershan Pahuja was recovered from the house of the appellant.The body had been concealed in a trunk which was placed in the kitchen of the house.Indeed, the photographs taken by PW-7 being Ex.PW-7/A to Ex.PW-7/K negatives whereof are PW-7/1 to Ex.PW-7/10 are indisputably the kitchen of the house of the appellant.That the deceased had gone to the house of the appellant stands proved by the testimony of her son Harish Pahuja PW-1, his wife Rubi Pahuja PW-5 as also Parminder Singh PW-3 who have deposed that the deceased Smt. Sudershan Pal had gone to the house of the appellant to collect Rs.20,000/- Crl.A.No.674/2007 Page 2 of 10 which she had loaned to the mother of the appellant.A.No.674/2007 Page 2 of 10Case of the prosecution is that the deceased had loaned Rs.20,000/- to Sumitra, the mother of the appellant, and on 17.2.2001 had gone to the house of the appellant to receive back the said money.Needless to state, the mother of the appellant was residing with him.Since the deceased did not return home till late afternoon, hence her son and her daughter- in-law were naturally alarmed.Harish Pahuja the son of the deceased and his friend Parminder Singh went to the house of the appellant but found the same locked.Since the deceased did not return home and could not be located even by late evening, the son i.e. Harish Pahuja lodged a missing person's complaint, Ex.PW-10/A, informing that his mother had gone to the house of the appellant.This led the police to track down the appellant and his mother.Since their house was locked, from the neighbours they learnt that a daughter of the appellant was married and was residing some where at Tughlak Road, New Delhi.The police located the house of the daughter of the appellant, where they met Deepa, the youngest daughter of the appellant, then aged about 8-9 years, who informed the police Crl.A.No.674/2007 Page 3 of 10 that the deceased had come to their house at 5628/78, Regar Pura, Karol Bagh and had demanded Rs.20,000/- from her grandmother.Her grandmother did not pay the money.The deceased bit her grand-mother and on seeing this her father got enraged and picked up an iron rod and repeatedly hit the deceased on the face and the skull.That the deceased died.That her father and her grand-mother cleaned the blood stains from the floor and put the body inside a trunk and put the trunk in the kitchen.She was sent to the house of her sister.Her father and her grandmother went away.A.No.674/2007 Page 3 of 10On the basis of the said statement, Ex.PW-2/A, made by Deepa, the police went to the house of the appellant.Indeed, from the kitchen, a trunk was found and on it being opened, the dead body of the deceased was recovered.After the appellant was apprehended he made a disclosure statement and got recovered the weapon of offence which he had used to inflict injuries on the deceased.We note that Deepa who was examined as PW-2 turned hostile and refused having made any statement to the police.A.No.674/2007 Page 4 of 10A.No.674/2007 Page 4 of 10Indeed, learned counsel for the appellant has, after making very feverish submissions on merits, restricted Crl.The deposition of young Deepa in Court is belied from the fact that when her grand-mother, who was also apprehended, was sent for medical examination, as per MLC Ex.PW-20/A the doctor noted that she had a bite mark on the under-side of the left arm and bruises on the arm.Sumitra, the grand-mother of Deepa has not explained the said bite mark injury on her fore-arm and this gives credence to the statement made by Deepa which ultimately led the police to recover the dead body of the deceased from the house of the appellant.Indeed, in view of the afore-noted over whelming evidence, coupled with the fact that the injuries on the body of the deceased being 12 in number, as per the MLC Ex.PW-8/A; injuries being fatal and by no stretch of imagination can any one argue that he who inflicts said injury does not intend to cause the death of the victim, learned counsel did not venture much into the evidence.The 12 injuries on the deceased are as under:-"1. CLW 11 x 2 x bone deep cms over left side forehead starting from the outer end of the left eyebrow going upwards, outwards and backwards upto a point 4 cms above the top of left ear pinna.A.No.674/2007 Page 5 of 10CLW stellate shape shaped 3 x 1.5 x bone deep cm over middle of forehead, 0.5 cm above the root of the nose.CLW 5.1.8 x bone deep cm obliquely placed over right side forehead 1.2 cm above the right eyebrow.CLW 2.5 x 0.7 x bone deep cm over right side face 2 cm left in front of right ear.CLW 1 x 0.3 x bone deep cm over left side chin 1 cm left to mid line.Flapping of the skin margin present.Flapping of the skin margin present.CLW 6.8 x 1.9 x bone deep cm over right temporal region 4 cm behind the lower end of injury no.9."A.No.674/2007 Page 6 of 10Indeed, the weapon of offence has been recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement of the appellant and on his pointing out.Learned counsel for the appellant urges that the evidence establishes that the deceased bit the mother of the appellant who was aged 85 years.At that, the appellant attacked the victim.A.No.674/2007 Page 7 of 10

Relevant sections: Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code