SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(SC) 1142

2003(8) Supreme 624
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Delhi High Court)
N. Santosh Hegde & B.P. Singh, JJ.
Kuldip Singh -Appellant
versus
State of Delhi -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 481 of 2003
With
Criminal Appeal No. 814 of 2003
Decided on 11-12-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Rajendra Kumar, Anil Kumar, M.A. Chinnasamy, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Advocates.
For the Respondent : P.P. Malhotra, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Anjani Aiyangari and Ms. Anil Katiyar, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
In a murder case based on circumstantial evidence, evidence of fingerprints in the house of deceased would be a natural circumstance if accused was in the employ of the deceased as a domestic help as presence of some fingerprints on household articles would only be common and natural.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, Sections 302, 460 and 460 - Criminal Procedure Code 1973, Section 428- Appellant convicted under Sections 302 and 380 IPC- Appeal dismissed by the High Court- The circumstance as to re-employment relied on by the prosecution was not put to the appellant under SectioS 313 Cr.P C-Recovery of stolen articles at instance of accused who was once domestic servant of deceased ,held not safe circumstance to convict the assused - Order of the High Court set aside and appeal accepted.[Paras 9 to 13]

JUDGMENT

Santosh Hegde, J.-The appellants in these appeals were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, for offences punishable under section 302 read with 34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500. They were further convicted for offence punishable under section 460 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500 and also convicted for an offence under section 380 read with 34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years; in default of payment of fine awarded hereinabove, they were directed to further undergo RI for 3 months on each count. The above substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. However, they were given benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appeals filed by the appellants came to be dismissed by the High Court, hence the appellants are before us in these appeals.

2. The prosecution case stated briefly is that one Smt. Sushma Gulati (the deceased) was a resident of B-69, Paschim Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. She was having export business under the name and style of Maharaja Exports. She had a factory at Naraina. She was also constructing another factory in Noida which work was being supervised by one Ramesh Kumar, PW-6 as a Manager. On 24.12.1997 in the evening said Sushma Gulati had left her place of work to her residence at Vasant Vihar where she was staying alone, being a divorcee. On 26.12.1997 at about 8.30 a.m., PW-6 tried to contact said Sushma Gulati over phone but could not get any response, therefore, he visited her house at Vasant Vihar at about 9.45 a.m. when he found the house door open. On entering the house, he found said Sushma Gulati lying dead in the bed-room on the first floor of her house. He also noticed that the said room had been ransacked. He immediately rang up the deceased s lawyer by name Mr. Baldev Krishan. He also telephonically informed the brother of the deceased by name Brig. S.K. Ravikant. On the advice received by them PW-6 contacted the Police Control Room telephonically. Said lawyer Mr. Baldev Krishan and the brother Brig. Ravikant immediately reached the place of incident. The Police also appeared there soon thereafter. On a preliminary examination by the investigator it appeared that the deceased had died due to strangulation. They also found some blood stains on the pillow, shirt and mattress. They found one tin box of toffees, a pair of spectacles and some left-over tea in a glass tumbler. Said articles were seized, On an examination of the deceased s car they found certain papers including 2 complaints addressed to the Police, Noida. These complaints were made by the deceased in regard to an incident which took place on 23.12.1997 with one Gaurav Tyagi with whom she had an altercation. In the complaint she had stated that said Gaurav Tyagi had assaulted her causing a fracture of her finger. She also stated in the said complaint that said Gaurav Tyagi had threatened to kill her. On post mortem examination of the body which was done on 28.12.1997 the doctor opined that the death had occurred about 3 ½ days prior to the autopsy due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation.

3. During the course of investigation the investigating agency came to know that the first appellant herein Kuldip Singh was working with the deceased during November, 1997 but his services were terminated because the deceased had suspected him of having stolen certain articles in the house. The investigating agency also came to know that Kuldip was re-employed by the deceased on 20.12.1997 hence the investigators procured the said appellant for interrogation. On such interrogation having come to know the involvement of other 2 appellants, namely, Ram Singh and Om Prakash they were also apprehended. The prosecution avers that during the course of investigation they came to know that these 3 persons had gone to the house of the deceased on 24.12.1997 with a view to commit theft of th















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top