Back
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
GITA MITTAL & J.R. MIDHA, JJ
Raj Kumar @ Guddu
Versus
State of Delhi
CRL.A. No. 1472 of 2010 & Crl. M. (Bail) No. 697 of 2012
Decided On: 21-12-2012
CRIMINAL - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Child Testimony - Reliability - Challenge to Arrest - Disclosure & Recovery of Knives - Recovery of Clothes of Accused - Weapon of Offence - Forensic Examination - Conduct of Husband of Deceased - Failure to Examine a Witness - Analysis & Conclusion - Sentence - Guidelines for Recording Evidence of Child Witnesses.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for killing his relative, Sunita Yadav, in her home on September 22, 2003. The prosecution's case rested solely on circumstantial evidence, as there were no eyewitnesses to the murder. The appellant's two minor sons, Prashant and Sushant, testified that they had returned home from school to find their mother lying in a pool of blood and that the appellant was present in the room with her. They also testified that the appellant had prevented them from calling for help and had tried to strangle Prashant. The appellant was arrested the following day and made a statement to the police in which he admitted that he had been present in the house at the time of the murder but claimed that an intruder had attacked Sunita. The police recovered two knives and the appellant's bloodstained clothes from the house.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the circumstantial evidence against the appellant was overwhelming and that his explanation for the events was not credible. The court also found that the testimony of the appellant's sons was reliable and that there was no reason to doubt their evidence. The court rejected the appellant's challenge to his arrest and found that the knives and clothes had been properly recovered. The court also found that the forensic evidence supported the prosecution's case. The court concluded that the appellant was guilty of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Issues: 1. Whether the circumstantial evidence against the appellant was sufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the testimony of the appellant's sons was reliable. 3. Whether the appellant's challenge to his arrest was valid. 4. Whether the knives and clothes were properly recovered. 5. Whether the forensic evidence supported the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the circumstantial evidence against the appellant was overwhelming and that his explanation for the events was not credible. The court found that the appellant had been present in the house at the time of the murder, that he had prevented the appellant's sons from calling for help, and that he had tried to strangle Prashant. The court also found that the appellant had made a false statement to the police and that he had attempted to conceal the evidence of the crime. 2. The court found that the testimony of the appellant's sons was reliable. The court noted that the boys had been consistent in their statements and that there was no reason to doubt their credibility. 3. The court rejected the appellant's challenge to his arrest, finding that the police had probable cause to arrest him and that the arrest was carried out in a lawful manner. 4. The court found that the knives and clothes had been properly recovered. The court noted that the knives had been found in the house where the murder had taken place and that the clothes had been found in the appellant's possession. The court also found that the police had followed proper procedures in recovering the evidence. 5. The court found that the forensic evidence supported the prosecution's case. The court noted that the knives had been found to be the murder weapons and that the appellant's blood had been found on the clothes.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appellant's appeal and upheld his conviction for murder.
GITA MITTAL, J
1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant assails the judgment dated 2nd June, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, finding him guilty of commission of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the order of the same date whereby he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000/-in default whereof, simple imprisonment for three months for the commission of the said offence.
2. As per the prosecution, Gajraj Singh Yadav-PW 5, an employee of the MTNL posted at Gulabi Bagh, Delhi, was residing at House No.173, Libaspur, Delhi with his family comprising of his deceased wife Smt. Sunita Yadav and two sons namely Sushant Yadav and Prashant Yadav. In the year 2003, Sushant and Prashant, were studying at the Panasia National Public School. Sunita Yadav was a housewife and remained at home. The children used to return from school at about 2.00 p.m. On the fateful day of 22nd of September, 2003, Prashant Yadav (PW 3), the younger child was suffering from pain in his foot and returned home at about 1.40 p.m. with his friend Sunil on his cycle. There was no response from inside when Prashant Yadav rang the bell of his house. The child saw blood near the door of the room; jumped into the house over the gate; opened the gate from inside and took his bag into the house. His friend had left by that time.
3. Inside the house, Prashant saw his mother-Sunita Yadav lying on the cot with blood spilt all around at which he started weeping. Raj Kumar @ Guddu-the appellant, was present in the room and he asked Prashant not to cry and to lock the gate. The appellant disclosed to the child that he had seen someone who had attacked Sunita Yadav with a knife and escaped. Raj Kumar asked him to bring a cloth to clean the floor so that the blood does not flow outside the gate. The child cleaned the floor as directed by the appellant. His efforts to telephonically contact his father were obstructed by the appellant who told him not to do so.
4. In the meantime, his brother Sushant Yadav also reached the house. According to Prashant, Raj Kumar dissuaded him from opening the gate for his brother Sushant but he still proceeded to do so. Sushant testifying as PW 4, stated that Prashant was weeping when he reached the house. Their mother was lying in an injured condition. Raj Kumar repeated the story to Sushant Yadav to the effect that someone had attacked his mother Sunita with a knife and thereafter escaped. Prashant Yadav has testified that the appellant did not let both the brothers make the telephone call to their father to inform him about the incident.
Both children have deposed that their mother Sunita Yadav was breathing at the time when they reached their house.
5. So far as the plight of the injured Sunita is concerned, Prashant has stated that Raj Kumar held up his mother from the neck and told him (PW 3) to bring water. The appellant thereafter proceeded to press the throat of his mother and poured water into her mouth, as a result of which there was bubbling therefrom. Sunita was breathing even when Raj Kumar was pouring water into his mother’s mouth. As Raj Kumar was pressing their mother’s throat when pouring water into her mouth Prashant told Sushant to hit Raj Kumar.
6. The child also stated that when he was able to connect with his father’s telephone, Raj Kumar snatched the phone from him and the phone line snapped. Prashant was able to reconnect the phone line and managed to contact his father’s office but while he was talking to the person who had answered the phone, the accused pulled out the telephone wire. In these circumstances, Prashant states that he could only convey the message that his mother has been attacked (“mere Mammy ko mar diya”) before the phone line was pulled out.
7. It is further in the testimony of PW 4 Sushant Yadav @ Sunny, the elder of the two children, that Prashant was also extremely frightened when Raj Kumar enquired from him as to
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
