Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 3275
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
S.P. GARG, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
RANJIT — Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF THE NCT OF DELHI — Respondent
Criminal Appeal 1501 of 2011, Criminal M. (Bail) 2135 of 2011
Decided on : 23-03-2012
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sumeet Verma, Adv.
For the Respondent: Richa Kapoor, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the 'last seen' theory, the onus of proof on the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, and the interpretation of key legal provisions under Sections 498A and 302 IPC.
Headnote:
498A and 302 IPC - Sections 498A, 302, and 304B IPC - The judgment discusses the application of Sections 498A, 302, and 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The court analyzed the evidence and circumstances to establish the guilt of the accused under these sections. The key legal provisions of Sections 498A and 302 IPC were interpreted to determine the culpability of the accused in the case.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 IPC for the death of his wife. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and ultimately smothered to death by the appellant. The appellant challenged the conviction on the grounds of erroneous appreciation of evidence and failure to consider the presence of other individuals at the time of the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was responsible for the death of his wife based on the testimonies of witnesses, post-mortem report, and the 'last seen' theory. The court also noted the fresh injuries on the deceased's body and the absence of a convincing explanation from the appellant. The court directed the police to investigate the role of the appellant's mother in the case.
Issues: The issues revolved around the conviction of the appellant under Sections 498A and 302 IPC, the presence of other individuals at the time of the incident, and the sufficiency of evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the 'last seen' theory, analyzed the post-mortem report, and considered the testimonies of witnesses to establish the guilt of the appellant. The court also emphasized the onus of proof on the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of the appellant under Sections 498A and 302 IPC was upheld. The court directed the police to investigate the role of the appellant's mother in the case.
Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
1. The appellant impugns a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, dated 14.05.2011 in SC No. 319/2009, by which he was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 IPC. By an order dated 07.07.2011, he was directed to undergo imprisonment for life, in respect of the offence under Sections 302/498A IPC; he was also directed to pay fine. All sentences were to operate concurrently. The prosecution had alleged that the deceased, Biva was married to Ranjit; her niece Sundri had married his brother, the co-accused Randip. It was alleged that PCR information was received on 08.08.2007 at around noon time, about the dead body of a woman, with blood oozing from the neck. The police reached the spot and confirmed the information; the body was in a room at Chungi No. 2, Ram Pyari camp, Lal Kuan. The deceased Biva had married Ranjit on 15.11.2006. The police conducted investigations, recorded statements of witnesses, collected samples of incriminating materials, and after the post mortem of the body was conducted, collected the report. Ranjit was arrested on 08.08.2007, and Randip was arrested on 09.08.2007.
2. According to the statement of Pintoo, PW-15 (the deceased's brother) at the time of their marriage, Ranjit did not demand any dowry; three months after the event, Randip got married to Sundri, the deceased's niece. Later, the accused had demanded Rs.50,000/-and threatened to beat up Biva in case the amount was not paid. He also revealed that the deceased used to be beaten up regularly, and was sent back to her parental house. On 06.08.2007, PW-15 sent back Biva to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, her mother-in-law and father-in-law visited him and requested him to send her back. The police recorded the statement of one Dr. Sunita Gupta (PW-11) who said she was present with the deceased on 08.08.2007, at night when she had to deliver a child; she witnessed the accused Ranjit beating her, before the delivery of the child. She also stated that Ranjit used to beat up Biva, even in her clinic whenever she was taken there, for check up. She had witnessed her being beaten up after the child's delivery; he stopped only when she threatened to call the police.
3. On the basis of the statements of witnesses, and other materials, the prosecution filed a charge sheet. The accused were charged with committing offences punishable u/s 304B/498A IPC. Ranjit was additionally charged for committing the offence punishable u/s 302, IPC. Both denied guilt, and claimed trial. The prosecution relied on testimonies of 23 witnesses, besides other materials. After considering these, as well as the parties' submissions, the Trial Court held Ranjit guilty in the manner described earlier, and sentenced him to undergo various prison terms. The co-accused Randip was acquitted.
4. It was argued on behalf of the appellant, by Mr. Sumeet Verma, learned counsel that the conviction recorded by the Trial Court is based on an erroneous appreciation of evidence and consequently is untenable. It was submitted that the Court overlooked a very material and crucial circumstance, which was that according to both eyewitnesses (who saw the deceased in the premises before her death) there were other persons, viz. the appellant's mother, and the deceased's niece. Neither was examined, nor was even their role investigated. When all evidence pointed to the presence of three persons with the deceased, around the probable time of her death, the Court was not justified in singling out the appellant as the one who committed the crime.
5. Learned counsel next submitted that the Trial Court fell into error in ignoring two important circumstances. The first was that the Appellant had called the doctor to examine the deceased, soon after her delivery. If in fact the prosecution was right in contending that he was the perpetrator of the crime, there would have been no occasion for him to have called the doctor. The second circumstanc
