Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 768
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.S. SISTANI, VINOD GOEL, JJ.
TULSI RAM - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Crl. A. No.1146 of 2016
Decided on : 06-03-2017
Act Referred
EVIDENCE ACT : S.106, S.114
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.302
Headnote
CRIMINAL - MURDER - SECTION 302 IPC - CONVICTION - APPEAL - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - SECTION 106 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - BURDEN OF PROOF - EXPLANATION BY THE ACCUSED - LAST SEEN EVIDENCE - MOTIVE - INJURY MARKS - SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT - HELD, CONVICTION SUSTAINED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his wife. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the testimony of the deceased's mother and sister, who stated that the appellant had a history of beating the deceased and that he was the last person seen with her before her death. The appellant denied the charges and claimed that he was not present at the scene of the crime. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the circumstantial evidence and the appellant appealed.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant. The court held that the prosecution had discharged the initial burden of proof by establishing that the appellant was the last person seen with the deceased and that he had a history of beating her. The court also held that the appellant had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the deceased's death or for the injuries found on her body. The court further held that the appellant's subsequent conduct, including his absence from the scene of the crime and his state of intoxication when he was arrested, was admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act and pointed towards his guilt.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had discharged the initial burden of proof in a circumstantial evidence case. 2. Whether the appellant had provided a satisfactory explanation for the deceased's death or for the injuries found on her body. 3. Whether the appellant's subsequent conduct was admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act and pointed towards his guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. In a circumstantial evidence case, the prosecution must establish facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the accused is guilty of the crime. 2. The accused has the burden of explaining any incriminating circumstances that are put to him or her. 3. The accused's subsequent conduct, including his or her absence from the scene of the crime and his or her state of intoxication when arrested, is admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act and can be considered by the court in determining guilt.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed and the conviction of the appellant was upheld.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. O.P.Saxena, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr.Varun Goswami, Insp. Kuldeep Singh and SI Sushil Malik, P.S. Moti Nagar.
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 12.05.2016 by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC). By virtue of the order on sentence dated 16.05.2016, the appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution as set out by the trial Court in the impugned judgment is as under:
“1. On receipt of DD no. 57A dt. 13.08.2013, SI Ram Raj alongwith Ct. Ishwar No. 611/W went to Bikshu Govt. hospital, Moti Nagar and collected the MLC no. 2174 of Smt.Shabana @ Sheela W/o Tulsi Ram R/o WZ-46C, Basai Dara Pur, New Delhi aged about 25 years, on which doctor has declared her “brought dead”. In the hospital, statement of mother of the deceased namely Naseema Khatoon was recorded to the effect that she is residing at WZ-46C, Basai Dara Pur, New Delhi in room no. 54 alongwith her daughters Shabana Khatoon and Nazrana Khatoon on rent. She used to work as maid. She has further stated that prior to that, she was residing in the jhuggis in Furniture Market at Kirti Nagar alongwith her daughters. About 11 years ago, Tulsi Ram had married her daughter Shabana Khatoon deceivingly while claiming himself as Abdul Rehman. After marriage, she and her daughter Shabana Khatoon came to know that Abdul Rehman is Hindu and his name is Tulsi Ram. After the marriage, two children were born i.e.one boy and one girl to Shabana Khatoon. She has further stated that after the marriage, there used to be quarrel between accused Tulsi Ram and her daughter Shabana Khatoon and accused Tulsi Ram used to beat her daughter and used to ask her to accompany her. Neither she nor her daughter were in this favour as accused Tulsi Ram after consuming liquor use to be out of control. For the last many days, Tulsi Ram used to threaten her daughter to leave her mother otherwise, he will threw acid on her and kill her. Accused Tulsi Ram to fulfill his demand (Zid), took both the children from the school and left them at the house of his relative at Motia Khan. She has further stated that for the last 4/5 days, he used to come to the house daily and quarrel with her daughter. He also used to ask the deceased to leave her mother otherwise, he will not bring the children at the house.
She has further stated in her statement to SI Ram Raj that on 12.08.2013, Tulsi Ram came during night in the house and gave beatings to her daughter and threatened to kill her. Thereafter, the matter was pacified by her and he went to sleep. At about 09:00 AM, she went for her work and her daughter Nazrana Khatoon has already gone to school. Accused Tulsi Ram did not permit her daughter Shabana to go for work and both were present at the house. At about 04:00 PM, when she reached home alongwith her daughter Nazrana, she found the room locked. On her asking, her daughter Nazrana made a telephonic call from the STD booth to accused Tulsi Ram but he did not pick the phone. They got suspicious and she with the help of stone, broke the lock of the door and after entering in the room, she saw that her daughter Shabana was lying on the floor and she was covered with bed sheet and her mouth was opened. There was a purple colour chunni around her neck and her tongue was out from her mouth. Blood was scattered on the floor. In the meanwhile, her sister in law Munni Khatoon came there. Thereafter, she took her daughter Shabana to the hospital. Munni Khatoon and her daughter Nazrana started cleaning the room. In the hospital, doctor had declared Shabana dead and she has strong belief that her daughter had been murdered by accused Tulsi Ram.
2. On the statement of the complainant Smt. Naseema Khatoon, the present FIR bearing no.289/13 U/s 302 IPC of PS Moti Nagar was
