Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 268
High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL
Ashok Kumar
Versus
State
Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 1998
Decided On : 24-01-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:Anil Soni, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Rajat Katyal, APP.
The burden of proof in cases of circumstantial evidence, the significance of the appellant's conduct, and the absence of a conclusive motive were central to the judgment.
Headnote:
Conviction - Murder - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 302
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his wife Anita Jain, who was found dead in their matrimonial house. The appellant's alibi, the nature of the death, and the absence of a third party involvement were key points of contention.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the death was homicidal and not accidental/natural, rejecting the appellant's claims of an alibi and his wife suffering from epilepsy. The court also affirmed the absence of a third party involvement and the implicating conduct of the appellant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of the death, the appellant's presence at the time of the occurrence, the absence of a third party involvement, and the appellant's alleged motive.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the burden of proof on the prosecution in cases of circumstantial evidence, the significance of the appellant's conduct, and the absence of a conclusive motive. The court also highlighted the relevance of the appellant's presence and the nature of the death in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld, with the appellant ordered to surrender to undergo the sentence.
Sanjiv Khanna, J.
1. Appellant-Ashok Kumar by the impugned Judgment dated 31st July, 1998 stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for the murder of his wife Anita Jain.
2. The undisputed and accepted position is that the appellant got married to Anita Jain on 27th April, 1990 and within 26 days of marriage i.e., on the morning of 23rd May, 1990, she was found dead in the bedroom of her matrimonial house.
3. The aforesaid facts have been established from the testimonies of Kaushalya (PW-1), Mahinder Prasad (PW-8) and Sunil Kumar (PW-13), mother, father and brother of the deceased, respectively. We shall be referring to their statements in detail subsequently. At this stage it is sufficient to reproduce question number 11 and the answer given thereof by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1971:-
“Q.11 It is further in evidence that on 23.5.90 at about 9.30 a.m. some relatives of yours went to the house of Mahinder Prasad and told him that Anita had died while sleeping. What do you say?
Ans. It is correct.”
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment deserves reversal for three reasons. Firstly, the appellant was not present in the house at the time of the occurrence i.e. intervening night between 22nd and 23rd May, 1990. He was present at the shop during the fateful night and had returned to his residence at about 5.00 or 6.00 a.m. and by that time Anita had died. Our attention is drawn to the answer given by the appellant in response to question number 13 in his Section 313 statement. Secondly, it is submitted that this is not a case of homicidal death, but a natural death as the deceased was suffering from Epilepsy. This fact was reluctantly accepted by Mahinder Prasad (PW-8), father of the deceased in his cross-examination. Reliance is placed upon ‘Neurology in Clinical Practice’, Volume II, Fourth Edition and Adams and Victor’s ‘Principles of Neurology’ Ninth Edition. Lastly, it is submitted that there is complete absence ofmotive which combined with ample evidence that the appellant was in love with the deceased contradicts implication of the appellant for the offence. It is stated that the appellant and the deceased got married one year after engagement, and during this time they had interacted and had come to know and love each other.
5. The first and second contentions for the sake of convenience are being dealt with simultaneously as facts are interconnected.
6. In the present case, Rukka (Ex.PW-8/A) was recorded on the statement of Mahinder Prasad (PW-8). PW-8 in his Court deposition has stated that on 23rd May, 1990 at about 9.30 a.m., some relatives of the appellant came to their house and informed him that Anita had expired. He reached matrimonial house of Anita and saw her lying dead. Blood had oozed from her mouth and he observed injury marks on her nose. She had injuries on both sides of her nose and the nose pin was lying on the bed.
7. It was recorded that PW-8 had made inquiries from the deceased’s husband as to what had happened, but the appellant showed ignorance and stated that they had slept in the usual manner and in the morning when he got up he noticed that Anita had died. PW-8 mentioned that he suspected that the appellant had killed his daughter by giving poison as he did not like her. Rukka further records that on physical examination of the dead body, marks of violence/injury were visible on the nose etc. and some poisonous material might have been thrust into the mouth of the deceased. It also records that there were some signs of strangulation as well. The Rukka affirms the injury marks on both sides of the nose and that the nose pin was lying on the bed.
8. Sub Divisional Magistrate, H.C. Gaur, who had appeared as PW-9, was called to the spot. PW-9 deposed that he had reached the spot at 1.10 p.m. and recorded statements of Mahinder Prasad (PW-8), Kaushalya (PW-1) and others. On physi
