Back
High Court of Delhi
G.S. SISTANI & SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, JJ.
Vicky – Appellant
Versus
State of Delhi – Respondent
CRL.A. No. 611 of 2014
Decided On : 06-05-2015
CRIMINAL - SECTION 302, 498A IPC - CONVICTION - EVIDENCE ACT, SECTION 106 - BURDEN OF PROOF - INFERENCE - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - EXPLANATION BY ACCUSED - DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - DEMAND OF DOWRY - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - POST MORTEM REPORT - INJURIES - STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. - FALSE EXPLANATION - INCRIMINATING FACTOR - PRESENCE OF ACCUSED - WITNESSES - NEIGHBOURS - FAMILY MEMBERS - INTERESTED WITNESSES - RELIABILITY - TESTIMONY - CORROBORATION - SECTION 106 EVIDENCE ACT - APPLICABILITY - INITIAL BURDEN OF PROSECUTION - DISCHARGE - INFERENCE OF GUILT - CONVICTION UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his wife and for subjecting her to cruelty. The prosecution's case was that the appellant had beaten his wife to death under the influence of alcohol. The appellant denied the charges and claimed that his wife had committed suicide by hanging herself. The trial court convicted the appellant based on circumstantial evidence, including the testimony of neighbors who had heard the appellant beating his wife, the medical evidence which showed that the deceased had died from head injuries, and the appellant's own statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he had given a false explanation for his wife's death.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court upheld the trial court's conviction. The court held that the prosecution had discharged its initial burden of proving that the appellant was present at the scene of the crime and that he had the opportunity to commit the murder. The court also held that the appellant's explanation for his wife's death was false and that this was an incriminating factor against him. The court further held that the testimony of the neighbors and the medical evidence corroborated each other and that this was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had discharged its initial burden of proving that the appellant was present at the scene of the crime and that he had the opportunity to commit the murder. 2. Whether the appellant's explanation for his wife's death was false and whether this was an incriminating factor against him. 3. Whether the testimony of the neighbors and the medical evidence corroborated each other and whether this was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had discharged its initial burden of proving that the appellant was present at the scene of the crime and that he had the opportunity to commit the murder by relying on the testimony of neighbors who had heard the appellant beating his wife, the medical evidence which showed that the deceased had died from head injuries, and the appellant's own statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he had given a false explanation for his wife's death. 2. The court held that the appellant's explanation for his wife's death was false and that this was an incriminating factor against him because it was contradicted by the medical evidence and the testimony of the neighbors. 3. The court held that the testimony of the neighbors and the medical evidence corroborated each other and that this was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The High Court upheld the trial court's conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
G.S. Sistani, J.
1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 13.1.2014 and order on sentence dated 24.1.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi, whereby the appellant (husband of the deceased, Janki), for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year. For the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant has been directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. It was also directed that both the sentences would run concurrently.
2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned trial Court, are as under:
“(2) The case of the prosecution is that on 17.06.2011 at about 9:05 PM information was received at Police Station Jahangirpuri which was lodged vide DD No. 20A regarding the giving of beating to a lady by her husband and subsequent hanging at 900 wali gali, pursuant to which SI Anil Kumar along with Ct. Shri Bhagwan reached the jhuggie cluster where they came to know that the incident had taken place at jhuggie No. 164, Lakhi Park, K Block, Jahangirpuri. The PCR staff had already reached there and large number of public persons were present and a lady was found dead on a bed whose name they came to know later on as Janki @ Lali. In the meanwhile the Ambulance from CATS had also reached the spot and the Incharge after checking the lady confirmed that she was dead. The spot was got inspected and photographed through Crime Team after which the dead body was sent to BJRM mortuary through Ct. Shri Bhagwan with a request to CMO Mortuary to preserve the same for 24 hours. On local inquiries the police came to know that the death of Janki had occurred within seven years of marriage on which information was sent to the SDM and family members of the deceased whereas the husband and parents in laws had been absconding.
(3) At about 1:30 AM (intervening night of 17-18.6.2011) the Executive Magistrate Sh. M.P. Kushwaha reached the Police Station Model Town where he recorded the statement of Sharda Devi the mother of the deceased, brother Jitu Singh and father Jagat Singh wherein they made allegations on the husband of the deceased Janki namely Vicky, her mother in law Guddi and her father in law Brij Pal Singh of having harassed and tortured Janki on account of demand of dowry. On the statement of Smt. Sharda, the Executive Magistrate made his endorsement pursuant to which the present case registered.
(4) On the same intervening night the accused Vicky was apprehended from jhuggie Lakhi Park, K block side pursuant to a secret information after which he has been arrested and during interrogation the accused Vicky disclosed having committed the murder of his wife Janki. Pursuant to his disclosure the accused Vicky got recovered a PVC Pipe from his Jhuggi as the weapon of offence, which was then taken into possession. On 18.6.2011 the postmortem examination on the dead body of Janki was conducted by Dr. Bhim Singh who opined the cause of death as Head Injury which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. On 05.08.2011 accused Brij Pal and Guddi surrendered in the court of Ld. Illaka Magistrate after which they were arrested in the present case. After completion of investigations charge sheet was filed against the accused persons in the Court.”
3. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined 19 witnesses. The appellant has examined only one witness in his defence.
4. Mr. Madhukar, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant. It is further submitted that the judgment passed by learned trial Court i
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
