PRATIBHA RANI

1. To comply with the mandate of Section 366, CrPC requiring confirmation of death sentence by High Court, the impugned judgment dated 22.09.2010 and the order on sentence dated 06.10.2010 awarding death penalty to the appellant for committing triple murder, was sent to this Court for confirmation. The Trial Court also convicted the Appellant/accused for committing the offences under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, and imposed a sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment, each in respect of those offences, and directed them to operate concurrently. Feeling aggrieved from the impugned judgment, the convict/appellant also preferred appeal No.1435/2010 challenging his conviction and order on sentence awarding him extreme penalty.

2. While dealing with the death reference and the connected appeal, a duty is cast upon this Court to reappraise the evidence and judgment of the Court of Sessions to satisfy itself about the guilt or innocence of the accused person. In a case reported as Juman & Ors. v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 469, while considering the scope of Sections 366 to 368 CrPC, in para 12 of the judgment, it was observed as under :-

“12. In fact the proceedings before the High Court are a reappraisal and the reassessment of the entire facts and law in order that the High Court should be satisfied on the materials about the guilt or innocence of the accused persons. Such being the case, it is the duty of the High Court to consider the proceedings in all their aspects and come to an independent conclusion on the materials apart from the view expressed by the Sessions Judge, but under the provisions of the law above-mentioned it is for the High Court to come to an independent conclusion of its own.”

3. Sh. S.P. Mehta, Advocate for the appellant and Sh. Rajesh Mahajan, Addl. Standing Counsel for the State have taken us through the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and also referred to the documents prepared and exhibits recovered during the course of investigation and proved during trial. Since the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence which unfolded only on the basis of information given by the appellant to PS Dwarka, first of all, it is necessary to mention in nutshell the case of the prosecution as made out from the chargesheet.

Facts

4. The criminal law was set into motion by the appellant himself on 18.07.2005. DD no.10A (Ex.PW5/A) recorded at about 6.00 AM, at PS Dwarka was to the effect that the appellant, a resident of flat No.B-702, Jagran Apartment, Sector-22, Dwarka had confessed to his committing the murder of his wife and two children. The copy of the said DD entry was handed over to SI Rajnish who alongwith Ct. Mahavir left for the spot.

5. While SI Rajnish confirmed the incident, the PCR was informed as the place of incident was within the jurisdiction of PS Kapashera.

6. DD No.7A (Ex.PW6/A) was recorded at 6.15 AM on 18.07.2005 on the basis of information received through G-62 Wireless Operator, QST was produced before the Duty Officer, P.S. Kapashera containing the information given by the appellant to PS Dwarka. After receiving DD No.7A at 6.15 AM, SI Mohinder Singh along with Ct. Tajender Prakash and Ct. Prem Prakash left for the spot. SHO Inspector Ramesh Chander was apprised of the incident/crime and he also left in his official vehicle with Driver Raghubir Singh.

7. By endorsement Ex.PW21/D on DD Ex.PW6/A, Inspector Ramesh Chander sent the rukka for registration of the case mentioning therein that after reaching the spot, he found the dead body of the female child Manavi Ahuja lying on the eastern side and that of the male child Manav Ahuja on the western side on ground floor, Jagran Apartment. When he visited flat No.B-702, on the seventh floor, blood was found in a room, on the corner of the bedsheet. He also came to know that Meenu Ahuja, wife of the appellant had been taken by the PCR to DDU Hospital.

8. The crime team was informed and the spot