Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 4327
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, NAJMI WAZIRI, JJ.
Ravinder Kumar Chauhan – Petitioner
Versus
State – Respondent
CRL.A. No. 303 of 2012
Decided On : 26-09-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ajay Verma and Mr. Narsingh Narain, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Ravi Naik, APP
Headnote:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced for the murder of his wife. The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, including an extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to a witness, the recovery of the murder weapon from the crime scene, and the appellant's motive for the crime. The appellant appealed, arguing that the extra-judicial confession was inadmissible, that the murder weapon was not properly recovered, and that there was no evidence of his motive for the crime.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced for the murder of his wife. The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, including an extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to a witness, the recovery of the murder weapon from the crime scene, and the appellant's motive for the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the extra-judicial confession was admissible, that the murder weapon was properly recovered, and that there was sufficient evidence of the appellant's motive for the crime. The court upheld the conviction and sentence.
Issues: 1. Whether the extra-judicial confession was admissible. 2. Whether the murder weapon was properly recovered. 3. Whether there was sufficient evidence of the appellant's motive for the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court found that the extra-judicial confession was admissible because it was made voluntarily and was corroborated by other evidence. 2. The court found that the murder weapon was properly recovered because it was found at the crime scene and was identified by the appellant. 3. The court found that there was sufficient evidence of the appellant's motive for the crime because he had suspected his wife of infidelity.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction and sentence.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.
1. The present appeal instituted under the provisions of section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’), assails the judgment and order on sentence dated 09.08.2011, rendered by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case no.137/09.
2. By way of the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 09.08.2011, Ravinder Kumar Chauhan (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant') was convicted and sentenced under the provision of section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 3 months. However, the benefit of the provision under section 428 CrPC has been granted to the appellant.
3. The fulcrum of the case of the prosecution is that the appellant suspected the character of his wife, Ms. Madhu (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), and in view thereof committed the murder of the latter on 11.08.2009 by strangulating her with an angocha (cloth) [Ex.P1]. The murder was committed on the second floor of House bearing No.K-115 Vijay Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘tenanted premises/crime spot’) where the appellant used to reside with the deceased and their children as tenants.
4. The appellant after committing the murder of the deceased made an extra-judicial confession to Amarjeet Singh (PW-8), the owner of House no.K-115 Vijay Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘House no.K-115’). The appellant was perturbed when he confessed to PW-8, that he had murdered the deceased and was going to the Police Station to report the same. Thereafter, the appellant confessed to the Duty Officer at the Police Station, Head Constable Kailash Chand (PW-7), that he had murdered the deceased as she was characterless. DD entry no.42A [Ex.PW-7/A] was recorded on the basis of the confession made by the appellant, which was assigned to Sub-Inspector Madan Lal (PW-15).
Pursuant to the recording of the diary entry, PW-15 along with Constable Satbir went to the tenanted premises, where PW-8 was also present. Inspector Sunil Kumar Sharma (PW-11) and Constable Ravinder (PW-13) also reached there. The appellant led the police officials as well as PW-8 to the second floor of the tenanted premises and pointed towards the dead body of the deceased lying in a room [vide pointing out memo Ex.PW-28/F]. Thereafter, PW-11 prepared the rukka [Ex.PW-11/A] and PW-13 was sent to the Police Station for registration of a case. An F.I.R. bearing no.259/09 dated 11.08.2009, for the offence punishable under the provision of section 302 IPC, was registered.
The site plan was prepared [Ex.PW-11/B] and the crime team was called. The exhibits including the angocha [Ex.P1] stated to be ligature material was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-8/B; one vegetable cutting knife vide seizure memo Ex.PW-8/C; and broken bangles vide seizure memo Ex.PW-8/A, were seized by PW-11. The appellant was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW-8/D and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW-11/C. PW-11 recorded the disclosure statement of the appellant [Ex.PW-8/E]. After the inquest proceedings, post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted. The post-mortem report is Ex.PW-10/A. The medical examination of the appellant was also conducted.
5. At the trial, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses in support of its case. The appellant in his defence has not led any evidence. However, the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, whilst retracting from the alleged confession made by him to PW-8 and PW-7, has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police, and PW-8 has falsely deposed against him as he wanted to save the real culprit, one Manoj Kumar. It has been further stated by the appellant that he was not present with the deceased at
