The reliability of witness testimonies, forensic evidence, and contemporaneous records in establishing the guilt of the accused.

Sanjiv Khanna J.(Oral)

1. The appellant Om Parkash, by the impugned judgment dated 27.07.1998, has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(for short ‘IPC’) for murder of Vandana stated to be his second wife. Simultaneously, he has also been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. By order on sentence dated 28.07.1998, the appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment of life and fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 27 of the Arms Act. In default of payment of fine, he is to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for each of the above mentioned offences. The sentences run concurrently and benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Code’ for short) has been given.

2. The aforesaid conviction arises out of FIR No.904/1995 P.S. Patel Nagar which was registered under Section 302/498/304-B IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

3. Homicidal death of Vandana by gunshot wound has been proved beyond doubt and is not challenged by the appellant. Vandana was taken to DDU Hospital at about 10:15 am on 13.12.1995 and was declared brought dead as per MLC Ex.PW12/L. The MLC records that the deceased had an alleged history of gunshot and gunshot wound was found on the left side of the chest and back side of the thoracic lower lumber region. Entry and exit wounds were present. The aforesaid MLC was proved by SI Mahinder Singh (PW12) whose testimony, we will refer to subsequently. Post mortem was conducted by Dr. L.T. Ramani (PW29). As per the post mortem report Ex.PW29/A, the deceased aged 25 years had one oval punctured wound on the left front side of the chest, but there was no blackening or tattooing around the wound. There were three punctured laceration on the lower part, back of the chest and upper back of abdomen. There were two round vulgining with pellets like feel beneath on the right side back of the chest. On internal examination, PW29 has opined that the injuries were ante mortem and caused by firearm (gunshot) and was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Injury No.1 was a wound of entry and injury No.2 and 3 were the exits. Death was due to shock, haemorrhage and consequent to the injuries. Time since death was about 30 hours. The post mortem was conducted between 2:30 pm on 14.12.1995.

4. The main ground raised pertains to involvement of the appellant or whether the appellant is the perpetrator who had committed the said offence i.e. had fired the gunshot resulting in the death of Vandana.

5. At the outset, we observe that Hem Lata, Poonam, both daughters of appellant, Vidhya Devi wife and Sandeep son of appellant had appeared as PWs 1 to 4 but have not supported the prosecution case on involvement of the appellant. They have, however, accepted in their statements, though with reluctance, that Vandana was staying with them in House No. B-76, Pandav Nagar, Delhi. They have not accepted that Vandana was the second wife of the appellant. It has come on record that the appellant has six children from Vidhya Devi(PW3) including Hem Lata, Poonam and Sandeep who had appeared as PWs 1, 2 and 4 respectively.

6. Dr. Vinod Kumar Goyal (PW10) is affirmative and has given personal details with regard to Vandana. PW10 was working as Sr. Scientist at IV.R.I. Branch Bareli till 1989 and one Shankar Lal was his peon, who had expired in the year 1986. He had four-five children and Vandana was his second child from his first wife who had died. Vandana was ill-treated by the second wife of Shankar Lal and consequently Vandana started living with PW10 in 1986, when she was about 12 years of age. In the year 1987, the family of PW10 had shifted to Ghaziabad and Vandana continued to reside with them. In October or November, 1991, Vandana was admitted to Anatha Ashram and remained there for some time. In July 1993, she had expressed her desire to live of her own as she was a ma