Back
High Court of Delhi
SANJIV KHANNA & G.P. MITTAL, JJ.
Parminder Kaur & Another
Versus
State
CRL. A. Nos. 544 of 2011 & 209 of 2012
Decided on: 01-08-2014
CRIMINAL - MURDER - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - MATCHING OF CHANCE PRINT ON VODKA BOTTLE WITH THE ADMITTED FINGERPRINTS OF THE APPELLANTS - RECOVERIES - MOTIVE - LAST SEEN - SECTION 302/201 IPC - HELD, THE PROSECUTION CASE AGAINST THE APPELLANTS WAS FULLY AND FIRMLY ESTABLISHED AND THUS, CONVICTED AND SENTENCED THE APPELLANTS.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 34 IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each. The appellants were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offence punishable under Section 201/34 IPC. The sentences were to run concurrently.
Finding of the Court:
The prosecution case against the appellants was fully and firmly established and thus, convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated earlier.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution has proved the matching of chance print on vodka bottle with the admitted fingerprints of the appellants? 2. Whether the prosecution has proved the recoveries of certain articles i.e.:- a) Recovery of the dead body in a bedding from the gallery near the stairs of the ground floor of House No.C-30, Sawal Nagar; b) Presence of blood on the walls of the room; c) Presence of blood (‘B’ group) on the wooden ply of folding bed; d) Recovery of knife containing blood of ‘B’ group from the almirah of the room in occupation of the deceased and appellant Parminder Kaur; e) Presence of blood of ‘B’ group on the nails of appellant Parminder Kaur; f) Presence of blood on the socks seized from appellant Mandeep Singh at the time of his arrest and on the shirt got recovered by him in pursuance of his disclosure statement from Jhalkari Devi Park; g) Certain messages and photographs of the two appellants on the mobile phone of the two appellants to show that they had an intimate relationship; 3. Whether the prosecution has proved the motive; 4. Whether the prosecution has proved the last seen.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The report dated 15.02.2008 was never tendered in evidence by the prosecution. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution made any mention of the report in question. The appellants did not question the I.O. or any other witness with respect to the report in question. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellants were not prejudiced by not putting the report dated 15.02.2008 to them in their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In fact, because of non-tendering of the report in evidence, prejudice is writ large and in our opinion, the report dated 15.02.2008 cannot be used against the appellants. 2. The FSL report was prepared by V. Sankaranarayanan, Senior Scientific Assistant (Biology), FSL Delhi. The same was not per se admissible under Section 293 Cr.P.C. as the same was not given by any officer mentioned in Section 293(4) Cr.P.C. The same could have been proved only by examining the expert. For the reasons as stated in para 17 earlier, the FSL report cannot be taken into consideration and hence, the presence of blood of ‘B’ group on the wall in the room on the first floor, on the ply of the folding bed, on the recovered knife and on nails of appellant Parminder Kaur is not established. 3. The two appellants had illicit relationship and therefore, had a strong motive to do away with the deceased. 4. The two appellants and the deceased were together on the first floor of house no. C-30, Sawal Nagar, Defence Colony, Delhi on the night of 27.10.2007. The appellant Parminder Kaur and deceased used to reside on the first floor in the said house. It is established that the two appellants and the deceased were consuming liquor at night when Kumari Manpreet Kaur (PW-2) and her younger brother Kulvinder Singh had been sent to another room by appellant Parminder Kaur. Dead body of Harbhajan Singh was discovered by PW-1 and PW-7 on 28.10.2007 at about 05:45 a.m. Autopsy on the dead body of Harbhajan Singh was conducted by Dr. Adarsh Kumar (PW-12) who prepared the post-mortem report Ex. PW-12/A. As per the post mortem report, the post mortem was started on 29.10.2007 at about 03:30 p.m. and the time since death was given as 1½ days. Thus, the approximate time of death was about 3:30 a.m. on 28.10.2007. Admittedly, appellant Parminder Kaur is the wife of the deceased. She was residing with the deceased in house no. C-30, Sawal Nagar and as stated earlier, she was very much present with her husband on the night of 27.10.2007 and the time of death is in close proximity to the time when the deceased was seen alive along with two appellants. Thus, the contention raised on behalf of the appellants that the time of death had not been established is fallacious. The time of death as per oral evidence could be after 11:00 p.m. on 27.10.2007 (when Harbhajan Singh was alive) and before 05:45 a.m. on 28.10.2007 when the dead body was discovered and the time of death as per the post-mortem report Ex. PW-12/A is about 03:30 a.m. on 28.10.2007. Thus, there is close proximity of time when the deceased was seen alive in the company of the two appellants and the time when the deceased was found dead.
Final Decision: The appeals are bound to fail. We accordingly affirm the judgment and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court and dismiss the appeals.
G.P. Mittal, J.
1. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 23.03.2011 and order on sentence dated 31.03.2011 arising out of FIR No. 594/ 2007, P.S. Defence Colony (Sessions Case No. 03/2010/2008) whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) read with Section 34 IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each. The appellants were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offence punishable under Section 201/34 IPC. The sentences were to run concurrently.
2. Inspector Meera Sharma (PW-21) is the Investigating Officer of the case. She deposed that on 28.10.2007, she was posted as Inspector, Law and Order at Police Station Defence Colony. On the said day, on receipt of a call from District Control Room, she reached C-30, Sawal Nagar, Defence Colony as a murder had taken place there. On reaching the spot, she found that S.I. Rohtash Kumar along with some staff was already present there. Dead body of a Sikh gentleman was lying in the gallery near the stairs on the ground floor. The Investigating Officer also met Laxmi Narayan (PW-1) and Constable Vikram Singh (PW-7), who were the landlord and a tenant respectively on the second floor of premises bearing no. C-30, Sawal Nagar. On inspection of the dead body serious injuries on the right side of the head, right cheek, lips and both the eyes were noticed. There were injuries on the chest of the dead body which appeared to be caused by a sharp edged weapon. The Investigating Officer recorded statement Ex. PW-7/A of Constable Vikram Singh to the effect that the dead body belonged to one Harbhajan Singh, who was a tenant on the first floor in the said building. He also informed the Investigating Officer that he had heard noise of a quarrel from the house of the deceased till quite late in the night. He, however, slept after closing the door. The Investigating Officer made endorsement Ex. PW-21/A on the said statement of Constable Vikram Singh and transmitted it to the Police Station for registration of a case under Section 302 IPC.
3. The Investigating Officer summoned the crime team which inspected the spot. The photographer of the crime team took photographs of the dead body from different angles. On inspection of the kitchen on the first floor, one empty liquor bottle (which had a label of ‘blue moon vodka’) and one empty beer can were seized from the dustbin of the kitchen. Inspector Meera Sharma (PW-21) deposed about seizure of the earth control and blood from near the dead-body. A tawa and one broken tooth was found near the dead body. Inspector Meera Sharma found bloodstains on the wooden ply attached to the folding bed lying on the first floor. She also noticed blood spots on the side wall, where the folding bed was lying. She deposed that she had cut the bloodstained wooden ply with the help of a chheni and hammer and bloodstained surface from the wall and kept the same in a plastic jar and sealed the same with the seal of MS.
4. Inspector Meera Sharma further deposed that when she opened the wooden almirah fixed in the room, she found one bloodstained knife. She prepared a sketch of the knife and seized the same. Inspector Meera Sharma interrogated deceased’s wife i.e. the appellant Parminder Kaur and their maidservant Chanda separately. On sustained interrogation, appellant Parminder Kaur made a confessional statement about commission of deceased Harbhajan Singh’s murder in connivance with one Mandeep Singh (her co-convict). (The confessional statement is not admissible in evidence as there was no discovery of fact in pursuance thereof). Inspector Meera Sharma testified that Parminder Kaur’s nails were having blood stains.
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
