Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
Pradeep Nandrajog & Mukta Gupta, JJ.
Jitender @ Bunty —Appellant
versus
State (Govt. of N.C.T) —Respondent
Crl. A. 812 of 2011
Decided on 3.12.2014
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Ms. Biswajit Kumar Patra, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Varun Goswami, APP with SI Md. Horoon, P.S. Tilak Nagar
IMPORTANT POINT
Husband cannot be always held guilty for homicidal death of his wife inside her matrimonial home.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302—Murder of wife—Appeal against conviction—Suspicion on character of wife—No recovery was made pursuant to disclosure statement—Contemporaneous conduct of appellant is not that of a guilty person-His conduct is in conformity with his explanation as to what happened—It is possible that somebody entered house and strangulated deceased—Appellant would be entitled to benefit of doubt—Impugned decision convicting appellant for offence of having murdered his wife set aside and appellant acquitted. (Paras 11, 14, 18, 19 and 26)
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.—Process of criminal law was set into motion when DD No.54A, Ex.PW-5/A, was recorded at 3:30 hours (middle of the night) on February 18, 2008 by the duty officer of PS Tilak Nagar to the effect that Jitender @ Bunty had reached the police station and informed that suspecting the character of his wife Jyoti he had killed her and the dead body had been kept by him in house No.WZ-32/8A, Gali No.4, Sant Garh. That he was willing to face the consequence of his action.
2. Insp.Surender Dev PW-13, who was present at PS Tilak Nagar, when DD No.54A was recorded, proceeded to Chaukhandi Village, Tilak Nagar. He first went to House No.WZ-36B and therefrom to WZ-32/8A, Gali No.4, Sant Garh where dead body of Jyoti was found. Crime team was summoned. Photographer was called. Photographs were taken. Site plan was prepared. The dead body was sent to the mortuary of DDU Hospital where Dr.Komal PW-11 conducted the post-mortem and opined that Jyoti had died due to asphyxia subsequent to throttling. Multiple nail marks on both sides of the neck were noted. Contusion on the neck was noted. Statements of Sushil Kumar PW-1 and Raj Kumari PW-2, the parents of Jyoti were recorded on the day when Jyoti’s dead body was found i.e. February 18, 2008 itself. FIR Ex.PW-4/A was got registered for offences punishable under Section 498A/304B/34/302 IPC.
3. During further investigation statements of Pushpa PW-3, the parental aunt of Jyoti, Sheesh Pal PW-6, the brother-in-law of Jyoti’s father Sushil Kumar, Savitri Devi PW-8, the landlady of House No.WZ-36B, Chaukhandi Village, Tilak Nagar were recorded.
4. At the trial Sushil Kumar PW-1, Raj Kumar PW-2, Pushpa PW-3 and Sheesh Pal PW-6 deposed that Jyoti had married appellant of her own will without knowledge of her parents. After the marriage Jyoti used to complain that appellant used to quarrel with her and used to demand dowry. That appellant and her mother used to criticise Jyoti for bringing less dowry. They used to demand television and fridge.
5. Sheesh Pal deposed that around midnight on February 18, 2008 the appellant had contacted him over the telephone and informed him that Jyoti was unwell with a request that he should immediately come to his house. Sushil Kumar PW-1 and Raj Kumari PW-2 stated that Sheesh Pal gave information to them that their daughter was unwell.
6. Their testimony on account of dowry harassment has rightly been disbelieved by the learned Trial Judge and succinctly stated the reason would obviously be that Jyoti and the appellant had a love marriage. Jyoti’s parents did not participate in the marriage. Where was then the question of there being any complaint from appellant’s family that Jyoti’s parents had given inadequate dowry at the marriage?
7. That takes us straight to the issue : whether the learned Trial Judge has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
8. The reasoning of the learned Trial Judge to convict the appellant for the offence of murder is that Jyoti concededly died in her matrimonial house and though the prosecution has not led evidence to prove that the appellant was present in the house, but from the fact that Jyoti died in her house in the middle of the night, the presumption would be that the appellant was in the house, and he having not rendered a satisfactory explanation as to how his wife suffered a homicidal death, the inference would be that the appellant killed his wife.
9. In taking the view, the learned Trial Judge has been influenced by a decision of this Court reported as Mukesh Vs. State, 2012 (2) JCC 1563. in which decision, after surveying various decisions of the Courts concerning homicidal death of a wife, in paragraph 52, it was observed as under:-
“52. Having examined the decisions of the Supreme Court on the point of death of a wife in her matrimonial house, we deem it appropriate to classify the said judicial decisions into undernoted 4 broad categories for the
