Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 1645
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S.MURALIDHAR, VINOD GOEL, JJ.
ALI IMAM - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CRL.A. 565 of 2016
Decided on : 03-07-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Hirein Sharma, Adv.
The burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and the requirement to disprove one's presence at the crime scene played a crucial role in establishing the appellant's guilt.
Headnote:
Murder - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, Section 302 - Evidence Act, Section 106 -
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of murdering his wife by strangulation with an electric wire at their residence. The prosecution presented evidence including witness testimonies, post-mortem reports, and the appellant's own admission to the police.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented, including the medical opinion that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. The court also noted the absence of any alternative theory or evidence to support the appellant's alibi.
Issues: The key issues included the appellant's presence at the crime scene, the possibility of an alternative perpetrator, and the motive for the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, placing the burden on the appellant to prove his absence at the time of the crime. The court also considered the lack of evidence supporting an alternative theory and the motive presented by the prosecution.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's judgment and sentence for the appellant's conviction of murder.
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:
1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 30th January, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, South-East District, Delhi in Sessions Case No.24/2014 arising out of FIR No.75/2014 registered at Police Station (‘PS’) Jamia Nagar, Delhi convicting the Appellant of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and the order on sentence of the same date whereby he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (‘RI’) for life with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months.
2. The charge against the Appellant was that on the intervening night of 26th/27th January, 2014, at his residence in Jamia Nagar, the Appellant murdered his wife by strangulating her with an electric wire.
3. DD No.12A was recorded at PS Jamia Nagar at 9.35 am noting that there was a PCR call about a lady having been murdered at M-59 Abul Fazal Enclave by her husband. The PCR Form (Ex.PW-9/A) reveals that a call was made to the police at around 9.30 am by one Md. Tahir which reads “M-59 Abul Fazal Part-I, 6 No. pulia mera kirayedar apni wife ko jaan se maar kar chala gaya”. A further noting in the same PCR form at around 10:12 AM is inter alia to the effect that the accused i.e. the Appellant had already been apprehended at the spot by that time.
4. Sub-Inspector Rishi Sharma (PW-17) posted at PS Jamia Nagar on receipt of DD-12A reached the spot along with Const. Md. Hasan (PW-11). There he met Md. Shahid (PW-1) who handed over the Appellant to PW-17 informing him that the Appellant resided with his wife in a room on the first floor of the house at M-59, Abul Fazal Part-I, New Delhi. PW-1 disclosed to PW-17 that the Appellant had informed him that his wife had died and had then tried to run away. He was chased by PW-1 and PW-1’s relative and apprehended near Char Minar Masjid and brought back to the spot. Thereafter, the police was called.
5. When PW-17 inspected the spot he noticed the dead body of the deceased namely Razia Tabbasum lying on the floor on a mat. He noticed that there were some marks on her neck. A wire and a pair of scissors were lying there. Inside the room there was a television. Its wire was also cut and was hanging on a hook. PW-17 then called the crime team to the spot.
6. The Court has perused the report of the crime team (Ex.PW-10/A). The time of examination is shown as 10.30 am to 11 am on 27th January, 2014 the time of occurrence is shown as ‘not known’, even though the Appellant had already been apprehended by then. By this time, the Appellant is stated to have made a disclosure to PW-1 about having murdered his wife at around midnight on the intervening night of 26th/27th January, 2014. However, as will be noticed later, nothing much turns on this omission.
7. The seizure memo (Ex.PW-1/E) shows that among the articles seized was a 38 cm black wire apart from an 85 cm wire which appears to have been affixed with the wall. The post-mortem report of the deceased was performed by Dr. Kartik Krishna (PW-12) on 28th January, 2014. The post-mortem report (PW-5/B) gave the opinion that the cause of death was “asphyxia due to combined effect of manual as well as ligature strangulation”. A subsequent opinion (Ex.PW-12/A) was given by PW-12 after seeing the seized wires which held both wires i.e. of 38 cm length and 85 cm length would individually be sufficient for strangulation; when sufficient force had been used to exert pressure on the neck. The cross-examination of PW-12 by the learned counsel for the defence did not yield much.
8. After the charge-sheet was filed, charge was framed against the Appellant by an order dated 10th July 2014 of the Trial Court. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses at the trial. The principal witness of the prosecution was Md. Shahid (PW-1), the landlord of the premises where the dead body of the deceased was found. According to him, on the morning of 27th January 2014, the Appellant came to him and told him about
