Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. MURALIDHAR, VINOD GOEL, JJ.
Suhaib Ilyasi - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl. A. 314 of 2018 & Crl. M.B. 439 of 2018
Decided On : 05-10-2018
Key Points: - The appeal concerns whether the death of Anju Ilyasi was homicidal or suicidal and the admissibility/weight of medical and forensic evidence in a dowry-death context. (!) (!) (!) - Central issues include the validity of framing an additional charge under Section 302 IPC, the appropriateness of Section 216/217 CrPC procedures, and the reliance on medical boards’ opinions to determine the nature of death. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The trial court’s acquittal on 498A/304B IPC and the subsequent framing of 302 IPC charge, along with the five-member medical board’s final opinion, are scrutinized. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The court ultimately held that the prosecution failed to prove homicidal death beyond reasonable doubt and allowed the appeal, acquitting the Appellant under 302 IPC. (!) (!) - Inquest statements and forensic reports from the SDM, CFSL, and CFSL prints are discussed for their evidentiary value and admissibility. (!) (!) (!) - The judgment emphasizes the standard of proof in circumstantial cases and the necessity of completing the chain of evidence beyond reasonable doubt. (!) (!) (!) - The outcome directs release of the Appellant and return of the trial records. (!)
S. Muralidhar, J.
Did the Appellant murder his wife (hereafter 'the deceased') or was it a case of suicide? The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereafter ‘trial Court’) in a judgment dated 16th December 2017, which is under appeal here, held that the Appellant had indeed murdered the deceased. We, however, think not. Our reasons follow.
Charge
2. The first charge against the Appellant in terms of an order dated 29th March 2003 of the trial Court was that soon after his marriage to the deceased Anju alias Bullu on 12th November 1993, subjected her to harassment, mental and physical cruelty on account of demand for dowry and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC). The second charge was that on the intervening night of 10th/11th January 2000, the deceased died at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (‘AIIMS’) otherwise than under normal circumstances with stab injuries and within seven years of her marriage to the Appellant and that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by him and thereby, he had committed an offence punishable under Section 304B IPC.
Additional charge
3. An application was filed before the trial Court by Mrs. Rukma Singh (PW-6), the mother of the deceased, seeking the framing of an additional charge under Sections 302/468/471/201 IPC. This application was dismissed by the trial Court by its order dated 19th February 2011.
4. PW-6 then filed Crl.Rev.P.208/2011 before this Court. By a judgment dated 12th August 2014, after making reference to the decisions in Jasvinder Saini v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2013) 7 SCC 256 and Rajbir @ Raju v. State of Haryana (2010) 15 SCC 116, this Court allowed Crl.Rev.P.208/2011 and held that the prima facie material collected by the prosecution justified the framing of an additional charge against the Appellant under Section 302 IPC. A direction was issued to the trial Court to frame an additional charge under Section 302 IPC by following the procedure under Section 217 CrPC.
5. Pursuant to the above order of this Court, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court by the dismissal of SLP (Crl.) 6502-6503/2014 on 22nd August 2014, the trial Court by its order dated 6th September 2014, framed an additional charge against the Appellant to the effect that on the intervening night of 10th/11th January 2000, at B-13, IFS Apartments, Mayur Vihar Phase-I (hereafter the flat concerned), he murdered the deceased and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
Background facts
6. There are both admitted and contested facts. The admitted facts are that when they first met, the Appellant and the deceased were studying at Jamia Millia Islamia in 1993. The deceased has two sisters. Ms. Rashmi Singh (PW-20) staying in Canada was the eldest and Mrs. Reeta Van Eck (PW-18), staying in the U.S.A, the next. Mr. K.P. Singh (PW-5) is the father of the deceased. He and PW-6 stayed in Delhi in an apartment complex not far from where the deceased lived with the Appellant and their daughter. Mr. Prashant Singh (PW-2) is the brother of the deceased.
7. PW-20 states that in January 1993, when she came to India from Canada for the wedding of PW-18, the deceased told her that she was in love with the Appellant and wanted to marry him. On 18th November 1993, the Appellant and the deceased got married in London in a civil marriage which was attended by PW-6, the mother of the deceased. Till 1994, the Appellant and the deceased lived in London. Thereafter, they shifted to Delhi. Initially, both the Appellant and the deceased lived with the parents of the Appellant at a house known as ‘Big City’ on Kasturba Gandhi Marg.
8. It must be recalled at this stage that until the framing of the additional charge, the case of the prosecution against the Appellant was with regard to his conduct in light of the charges framed against him for the offences under Sections
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
