Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 706
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG AND MUKTA GUPTA, JJ.
SAVITA JAIN - Appellant
versus
STATE OF N.C.T. - Respondent
CRL. A. 375, 380/2000
Decided On : 10-02-2016
Mr. Mohd.Shamikh, Advocate
Mr. Varun Goswami, APP
The judgment establishes the principle that circumstantial evidence, including witness testimonies and recovery of stolen property, can be sufficient to establish guilt in a criminal case.
Headnote:
MURDER - Criminal Law - IPC 302, IPC 392, IPC 34 - The judgment discusses the circumstances leading to the murder of Ms. Madhu Jain and the subsequent conviction of the accused under Sections 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the murder of Ms. Madhu Jain at her residence. The accused, who were tenants in the same building, were found to have misled the deceased's daughters, attempted to hide their identity, and were in possession of stolen property. The court found them guilty of forming a common intention to rob and murder the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty based on the testimonies of witnesses, recovery of stolen property from the accused, and circumstantial evidence pointing to their guilt. The court dismissed the appeals and maintained the conviction and sentence imposed.
Issues: The primary issues revolved around the presence and actions of the accused at the time of the murder, their attempts to mislead the deceased's daughters, and the recovery of stolen property from the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the testimonies of witnesses, including a child witness, and the recovery of stolen property to establish the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence, including the attempts to mislead the children and hide identity, further supported the court's decision.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused were maintained. The accused were ordered to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. Process of criminal law was set into motion when at around 01.00 P.M. on August 27, 1990, L/HC Sushma PW-11, recorded DD No.7A, Ex.PW-11/A, noting therein that a PCR van has informed over the telephone that a lady has been murdered at House bearing Municipal No.C-277, Behind Ram Lila Ground, New Usman Pur, Delhi.
2. Being handed over a copy of DD No.7A, accompanied by HC Bhagwan Sahai PW-16, SI Dhoop Singh PW-17, reached the aforesaid house where he saw the dead body of Ms. Madhu Jain (herein after referred to as the ‘Deceased’) lying in a room in the ground floor of said house.
3. In the meantime, Inspector Surjeet Singh PW-24, reached the aforesaid house and took over investigation of the case.
4. While inspecting the house, Inspector Surjeet Singh, met Babu Lal Gupta PW-2, a neighbour of the deceased. He recorded his statement Ex.PW-2/A wherein he stated that his house is situated right in front of house of Prabha Chand Jain. On August 27, 1990 at about 12 – 12.15 P.M. he was sitting in his house when he heard cry of a child which led him to go outside his house and he saw the three daughters of Prabha Chand Jain, aged 6 years, 5 years and 2 years respectively were crying. He asked them why they were crying. The eldest daughter replied that her mother was sleeping and not waking up and they were hungry. He immediately went inside the house and he saw Madhu Jain wife of Prabha Chand Jain lying dead on the floor with wounds on her neck and stomach. He immediately came out of the house and informed Subhash Chand Jain the elder brother of Prabha Chand Jain. In the meantime, a crowd had gathered at the house of Prabha Chand Jain and somebody from the house informed police.
5. Inspector Surjeet Singh made an endorsement Ex.PW-15/A under the statement Ex.PW-2/A of Babu Lal Gupta and handed it over to HC Bhagwan Sahai who took the same to PS Seelampur where the duty officer, HC Ramesh Chand PW-15, registered an FIR No.425/1990, Ex.PW-15/B.
6. At the spot, photographer HC Surinder Kumar PW-14, was summoned, who took ten photographs Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10 of the spot; negatives whereof are Ex.P-11/1 to Ex.P-11/10. Inspector Surjeet Singh prepared the rough site plan Ex.PW-24/A of the spot. He seized two scissors; one of which was blood stained, two kitchen knives and a blood stained wooden comb from the room where the deceased was lying dead, vide memo Ex.PW-2/B. After filling in the requisite inquest papers, Inspector Surjeet Singh sent the body of the deceased to the mortuary of Civil Hospital.
7. At around 01.00 P.M. on August 28, 1990, Dr. L.K. Barua PW-10, conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased and prepared the post-mortem report Ex.PW-10/A, recording following external injuries:-
“1. Multiple linear crescentric scratch abrasions resembling nail marks were seen, scattered over right cheek and chin area.
2. Multiple (about 20 in number) incised wound sizes varying from 0.5 to 1 cm scattered in different directions all over (illegible) of neck and more towards base.
3. Two incised wounds with tag of skin of 2 mm wide between them over left upper part of the neck, placed vertically. Depth be ascertained. The size of the wound is 1 cm and 1.5 cm individually.
4. Numerous punctured incised looking wounds were found to be scattered in the lower part of sternum and epigastric region of the abdomen also involving left epigastric region and also left hypochondrium involving an area 6” X 6”. Most of these injuries were part skin thickness deep and were of 0.5 cm in length. There were 4 bigger wounds of size 1.5 cm to 2.5 cm and were of abdominal cavity deep where from cementum was coming out of abdominal cavity.
5. Similar punctured wounds para embolical areas which defused bruisings were seen involving an area of 4” X 3”.
6. 13 incised stab wounds most of them placed horizontally over the left illic and hypogastric area with sizes varying from 1.5 cm to 3 cm in length and were 7. Depth to
