Back
High Court of Delhi
SANJIV KHANNA & G.P. MITTAL
Gianshree
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
CRL. A. No. 807 of 2010
Decided On : 03-04-2014
Indian Penal Code - Conviction under Section 302/201/34 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 302/201/34
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for the murder of her husband. The deceased was found with serious injuries and the appellant and her co-convict were apprehended at the instance of a witness. The appellant denied the charges and declined to produce any evidence in defense.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty based on the testimonies of eye witnesses, the post mortem report, and the recovery of bloodstained knife and axe. The court also considered the motive, the presence of blood on the appellant's clothes, and her conduct as incriminating evidence. The court held that the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the witnesses, the sufficiency of evidence to prove the appellant's guilt, and the application of legal provisions such as Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the testimonies of the eye witnesses, the presence of motive, and the recoveries of bloodstained weapons and blood on the appellant's clothes to establish the appellant's guilt. The court also applied Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 to draw adverse inferences from the appellant's silence.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.
G.P. Mittal, J.
1. Appellant Gianshree impugns the judgment dated 12.10.2009 and the order on sentence dated 23.10.2009 whereby she along with one Dharambir @ Dharmender @ Kala (subsequently held to be a juvenile and released after his conviction was upheld) was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). For the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1500/-or in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months. For the offence punishable under Section 201/34 IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- or in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months. Both sentences were to run concurrently.
2. DD No.14-B, dated 31.08.2004 was recorded in Police Station (PS) Sultan Puri at about 6:35 a.m. to the effect that a dead body was lying in a well near Block No.32, MCD Flats, Sector 20, Rohini, Delhi. SI Devi Singh who was assigned the said DD entry for the purpose of enquiry preceded to the spot along with other police officials. In the meanwhile, PW-23 Inspector Sukhvinder Singh, SHO PS Sultan Puri also followed SI Devi Singh. On reaching the spot, dead body of one Chela Ram was found lying in a well. Crime team and dog squad were requisitioned. The dead body was taken out from the well. On inspection of the dead body, serious injuries were noticed on its neck, chest and chin. The clothes worn on the dead body were stained with blood. Sudha (PW-20), the elder daughter of deceased Chela Ram met PW-23 and gave her statement Ex. PW-20/A. The statement is translated in English in the opening paragraph of the impugned judgment which is extracted hereunder:-
“That she was residing at the said address alongwith her mother, father, brothers and sisters and her father was cultivating the land adjoining their house and in the absence of her father one boy Dharmender often used to come to their house and used to talk to her mother and her father used to object to the said talks and due to this there used to be constant quarrels between her father and mother, despite that her mother used to meet Dharmender and she was having two brothers and three sisters and her youngest brother Mahesh was only 6 months old and her father used to say to her mother that said Mahesh was not his child and Dharmender was his father and her father often used to beat up her mother and used to have suspicion on her character and due to this her mother was very perturbed.
Around 4/5 days ago Dharmender and her mother had said that they would kill their father and also counselled them that they should not worry as Dharmender and her mother will look after them and on 31.8.04 (on the day of Raksha Bandhan) at around 11 p.m. in the night when all of them along with Dharmender and their mother were present inside the house, at that time their father came and on seeing Dharmender with her mother got angry and started abusing her. At this Dharmender exhorted her mother “Bhabhi Isko Pakar Le Aaz Iska Kaam Kar Dena Hai” and thereafter, her mother caught hold of her father and Dharmender attacked her father with knives and when her father fell down, her mother attacked her father with Kulhari (axe) and thereafter her father got unconscious and her mother and Dharmender removed the body of their father in a plastic sheet and threw the same into a nearby well and thereafter her mother and Dharmender counselled them that they should not disclose about this incident to anyone and they also took knife and kulhari with them.”
3. PW-23 made an endorsement Ex. PW-23/A on the statement and transmitted it to the PS for registration of the FIR. During the course of investigation, it transpired that the appellant and the co-convict might proceed to their village on the same day and they might be present at Anand Vihar, Bus Terminus. Consequently, PW-
AI
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
