Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 1467
High Court of Delhi
KAILASH GAMBHIR & INDERMEET KAUR, JJ.
Radhey Shyam
Versus
State
Crl.A. No. 1375 of 2010
Decided On : 06-11-2013
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:R.N. Dubey, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Sunil Sharma, APP.
The voluntary nature of an extra-judicial confession and the importance of corroborating evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence were central legal principles established in the judgment.
Headnote:
Circumstantial Evidence - Murder - IPC Section 302 - Evidence Act Section 25, 26, 24 - Extra-judicial confession, circumstantial evidence, motive, and conduct of the accused were crucial in establishing the guilt of the appellant. The court relied on the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to a stranger, the unexplained conduct of the accused, and the absence of forced entry to establish the guilt. The motive for the crime was established through witness testimony. The court emphasized the importance of corroborating evidence and the voluntary nature of the confession in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was accused of murdering his wife, and the case was based on circumstantial evidence. The appellant was found in a TSR with a stranger who informed the police about the murder. The dead body was found in the appellant's house, and the appellant's conduct was deemed suspicious.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty based on the extra-judicial confession made to a stranger, the unexplained conduct of the accused, and the absence of forced entry. The motive for the crime was established through witness testimony.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the reliability of the extra-judicial confession, the unexplained conduct of the accused, the absence of forced entry, and the establishment of motive.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of corroborating evidence and the voluntary nature of the confession in reaching its decision. The unexplained conduct of the accused and the absence of forced entry were crucial in establishing guilt.
Final Decision: The appellant was found guilty of murder under IPC Section 302 and the appeal was dismissed.
Indermeet Kaur, J.
1. On the intervening night of 18-19.01.2006 at about 3.45 a.m. DD No.27-A was received in police station Tilak Nagar giving information through an unknown person that one lady was lying murdered in House No.WZ-12, Chaukhandi Village. This DD was entrusted to SI Jaipal Singh (PW-8) who along with constable Vinod (PW-16) reached the spot.
2. On the way on reaching the primary school Chaukhandi, a TSR was noted coming from the opposite side; on the signal given by the TSR driver PW-8 stopped his vehicle, Joginder (PW-1) was driving the said TSR. The appellant Radhey Shaym was sitting in this TSR. PW-1 informed the police officials that Radhey Shyam who was sitting in the TSR had committed the murder of his wife; he had hired his TSR to throw her dead body in the nala.
3. Armed with this information PW-8 and PW-16 accompanied by PW-1 and the appellant Radhey Shyam reached the spot i.e. house No.WZ-12, Village Chaukhandi. On entering the house, the dead body of a female was found lying on the floor on the dari. Radhey Shyam identified the dead body as that of his wife Pooja. A ligature mark was noticed on the neck of the dead body; the mouth of the victim was foaming.
4. Statement of Joginder (ExPW-1/A) was recorded. His statement was to the effect that on the fateful night i.e. the intervening night of 18-19.01.2006 at about 2.30-3.00 a.m. when he was standing at the bus stand of Village Khayala with his TSR and waiting for passengers one person i.e. Radhey Shyam came to hire his scooter; he told him that he had committed the murder of his wife and wished to take her dead body in order that he could dispose it off in the ganda nala. Further version of PW-1 being that on the way at the turn of the primary school he saw two police officials coming on their vehicle; he signaled them to stop; he told them what had been informed to him by Radhey Shyam. PW-1 accompanied by Rahdey Shyam thereupon reached the spot where the dead body was found lying. It was on this statement of PW-1 (Ex.PW-1/A) that the rukka was sent at 5.30 a.m. in the morning of 19.01.2006 and the present FIR No.34/2006 was registered against Radhey Shyam.
5. Satpal Singh (PW-2) wasthe owner of the factory where Radhey Shaym and his wife Pooja were working. His version is to the effect that on 18.01.2006 Pooja had left the factory at 7.30 p.m. The appellant Radhey Shyam left the factory at 8.40 p.m.; 15-20 minutes later Radhey Shyam came back to the factory; he was looking perplexed; he informed PW-2 that his wife had committed suicide by hanging herself with a rope. PW2 advised Radhey Shyam to inform the police; further version of PW-2 being that Radhey Shaym was under the influence of liquor at that time. This statement of PW-2 was not strictly in conformity with his statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. In his statement before the police he had stated that Radhey Shyam had informed him that he had killed his wife; this witness was however hostile in Court on this aspect and before the Court he stated that Radhey Shyam had informed him that his wife had committed suicide. PW-2 had been declared hostile and was cross-examined on this aspect; he however denied having made such a statement before the police. In a further part of his testimony he deposed that he had reached the spot i.e. the place of occurrence at about 2.30 a.m. in the morning.
6. The landlord of the house where Radhey Shyam and Pooja were residing is Deep Chand; he was examined as PW-3. He deposed that he was the owner of WZ-12, Chaukhandi Village where he was living with his family members. Radhey Shyam was a tenant in one room; he was paying a monthly rent of Rs.600/-. Radhey Shyam and his wife were working in a private factory; they were not on talking terms with the neighbours. This witness was not cross-examined.
7. A perusal of the scaled site plan (Ex.PW-5/A) shows that house No.WZ-12, Chaukhandi Village, Tilak Nagar had three rooms; one was in the occupation of t
