IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vikramajit Sen and V.K. Shali, JJ.
Gurbachan Singh - Appellants
Vs.
State - Respondent
Crl. Appeal 724/2000
Decided On: 19.08.2008
Circumstantial Evidence - Murder - IPC Section 302 - [FACT OF THE CASE] The appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of his wife, based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution's case relied on the strained relations between the appellant and his wife due to his alcoholism, the recovery of the deceased's body from their residence, and the appellant's false alibi. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The court found that the chain of circumstances established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the murder, upholding his conviction and sentence. [ISSUES] The issues included the appellant's motive, his conduct before and after the incident, and the recovery of incriminating evidence. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The court applied the principles of circumstantial evidence and emphasized the appellant's knowledge of critical details and his unnatural conduct as key factors in establishing guilt. [FINAL DECISION] The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction and sentence were upheld.
V.K. Shali, J.
.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 29th September, 2000 and the order of sentence dated 9th October, 2000 passed by Sh. H.S. Sharma, Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi convicting and sentencing the appellant to life imprisonment for an offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The appellant was also sentenced to fine of Rs. 10/- in default and he was directed to further undergo sentence of 5 days of Rigorous Imprisonment in default.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the appellant was married to one Smt. Jitender Kaur nearly 10-11 years back from the date of the alleged offence. Smt. Jitender Kaur was alleged to have been strangulated by the appellant on the night of 8th and 9th October, 1997 between 11.30 p.m. and 12.00 mid-night at the first floor of House No. E-1/220, First Floor, Madangir where the couple was residing. It was the case of the prosecution that the appellant from the wedlock had two sons aged six years and three and a half years or so. The elder son was being brought up by the father of the appellant at their residence at Palam. The younger one was staying with the appellant himself. The ostensible reason for strangulating the wife was that the appellant was alleged to be an alcoholic because of which there used to be frequent quarrels between the appellant and the deceased. The latter used to object to this habit of the appellant which he had picked up after 4-5 years of the marriage. It was also alleged by the prosecution that on 9th October, 1997 at about 8 or 9 a.m. the appellant dropped his younger son at the house of one Sh. Harbans Singh PW 6 whose son was a class fellow of the appellant’s son. It was said by the appellant to Harbans Singh PW-6 that he was taking his wife to the hospital and would come back in the evening and pick up his son. On the next date i.e. 10th October, 1997, the neighbours of the appellant found that bad odour emanating from the flat, whereupon one of the relations of the deceased PW-1 Tara Chand relation of the deceased was also informed who lodged a report vide DD No. 11A at police station Ambedkar Nagar and the investigation revealed that Smt. Jitender Kaur was lying strangulated in the room. The room was locked from outside. The lock had to be broken with the help of locksmith PW-10 Sher Mohd. The body of the deceased had started decomposing. While the process of investigation was on, the appellant came to the place of occurrence himself at about 4.00-4.30 p.m. on 10th October, 1997. He was arrested and his search yielded one key of the lock which was found on the door of the room. The accused is also purported to have made the disclosure statement on account of which the piece of cloth with which the deceased was allegedly strangulated was also recovered from the room itself. The police after investigation filed a charge sheet under Section 302 IPC against the appellant whereupon on trial, he was found guilty, convicted and sentenced.
3. The prosecution in support of its case has examined 19 witnesses, namely, PW1 Sh. Tara Chand, PW-2 Sh. Saroop Singh, father, PW-3 Sh.Jasbir Singh (brother of the deceased), PW-4 Sh. Naresh Kumar, PW-5 Sh.Manjit Singh, PW-6 Sh. Harbans Singh, PW-7 Constable Naresh Kumar, PW-8 Sh. Ashok Kumar, PW-9 Constable Sanjay Malik, PW-10 Sher Mohd., PW-11 Constable Prakash Chand, PW12 Sh. Sonu Kaushik, PW-13 Constable Afijullah Malik, PW-14 Head Constable Karan Singh, PW-15 SI Bir Singh, PW-16 SI Dhan Singh, PW-17 Dr. S.K. Gupta, (Department of Forensic Medicines and Toxicology), PW-18 SI Asha, PW-19 Inspector Ombir Singh.
4. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The accused denied his involvement in the commission of the offence although the factum of death of the deceased Smt. Jitender Kaur is not in dispute. The appellant took the plea that on 9th October, 1997 in the morning he had gone to PW-6 Sh. Harbans Singh’s house and dropped his son t
State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh and Anr. 2003 (8) Scale 221
Narendra Singh and Anr. v. State of M.P. 2004(4) Scale 543
Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh and Anr. AIR 2002 SC 3582
Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 79
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.