Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 4331
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, MUKTA GUPTA, JJ.
Pramod Kumar Jaiswal – Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
CRL.A. 740 of 2014
Decided On : 01-09-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP, with Inspector Kusum Lata, P.S. Dwarka, South.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles related to proving a prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence, the last seen theory, and the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under section 302 IPC - [CrPC 374(2), IPC 302] - The court discussed the legal position with regard to proving a prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence, the last seen theory, and the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court upheld the conviction of the appellant based on circumstantial evidence, medical and scientific evidence, and the application of the last seen theory.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife by stabbing her with a knife in their rented room. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, medical and scientific evidence, and the last seen theory. The appellant raised defenses including lack of evidence of his residency with the deceased victim, inadmissible recovery of evidence, false implication, and absence of motive.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant rented a room to live with the deceased victim, and his explanations were found to be untrue. The court rejected the defenses raised by the appellant and upheld the prosecution's case based on circumstantial evidence, medical and scientific evidence, and the last seen theory.
Issues: The issues included the establishment of the appellant's residency with the deceased victim, admissibility of evidence recovery, false implication, and absence of motive.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principles related to proving a prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence, the last seen theory, and the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court found that the prosecution had fulfilled all essential requirements of a criminal case based on circumstantial evidence.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of the appellant and dismissed the appeal.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.
1. The present appeal instituted under the provisions of section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CrPC’) assails the judgment dated 19.04.2014 and the order on sentence dated 22.04.2014, rendered by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, Delhi. By way of the impugned judgment dated 19.04.2014 and the order on sentence dated 22.04.2014, the appellant has been convicted for the commission of offences punishable under the provision of section 302, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’); and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, alongwith the payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of the payment of fine, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
2. The fulcrum of the instant case is that, on 10.05.2011, the appellant caused the death of his wife Geeta alias Anita alias Guddi alias Sunita (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased victim’), by stabbing her with a knife, in their rented room situated at the House No.66, Harijan Basti, Krishna Kunj, Near Primary School, Village Bagdola, Sector-8, Dwarka (hereinafter referred to alternatively as the ‘rented room/crime spot/House No.66’); and thereafter, fled from the crime spot after locking the deceased victim inside their rented room.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 13.05.2011, pursuant to DD No. 13A, the police officials (PW-3 and PW-4) reached the crime spot to find the decomposed dead body of the deceased victim lying in their rented room. PW-1, the care-taker and a tenant of the said House No.66, informed the police that the deceased victim and her husband/ appellant, were residing in the rented room, where the decomposed dead body of the deceased victim was found. PW-1 further informed the police that on 10.05.2011, at around 10 P.M., when he met the appellant, to collect the rent for the room; the latter told him that he would pay the rent on 15.05.2011 and would also vacate the rented room on the same day. PW-1 further told the police that the rented room was found locked on 11.05.2011 and 12.05.2011. On 13.05.2011, PW-1 and other tenants found a foul smell emanating from the rented room and consequently, the lock of the rented room was broken open by PW-1 and other tenants, and the decomposed dead body of the deceased victim was found lying therein.
4. The crime team was called to the spot and investigation was conducted. Upon the statement of PW-1, FIR No.119/2014 dated 13.05.2011 was got registered. Articles were lifted from the crime spot and seized by PW-21 [Ex.PW-1/B, Ex.PW-1/C, Ex.PW-1/D, Ex.PW-1/E, Ex.PW-1/F, Ex.PW-1/G, Ex.PW-1/H] and were sent for scientific examination. Chance prints were lifted by the crime team from the crime spot and were also sent for scientific examination.
5. The dead body of the deceased victim was sent for post-mortem on 19.05.2011, and thereafter, the dead body of the deceased victim was handed over to PW-15 (appellant’s cousin) and other relatives of the deceased victim.
6. During the investigation of the case, PW-21 met PW-5, at whose instance the appellant was apprehended [arrest memo exhibited as Ex.PW-8/C] at Bihar. The personal search of the appellant was conducted vide personal search memo [Ex.PW-21/C] and the police recovered a key from the possession of the appellant [seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-12/B].
7. The disclosure statement of the appellant was recorded [Ex.PW-21/E] and the appellant was brought to Delhi on 18.05.2011. On the same day, at the instance of the appellant, one broken knife [Ex.PW-12/A] was recovered from the DDA park behind DTC bus depot, Sec-8, Bagdola, Delhi. The said knife was also sent for scientific examination. Further, on the pointing of the appellant, the scene of crime was got verified vide memo Ex.PW-12/C.
8. The finger prints of the appellant were taken and sent to the Finger Prints Bureau, Kamla Market, Del
