S. Muralidhar, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31st January, 2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.200/14 (renumbered as 1204/16) arising out of FIR No.214/14 registered at Police Station (‘PS’) CR Park, New Delhi convicting the Appellant for the offences under Sections 302, 376 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’). The appeal is also directed against the order on sentence dated 21st February, 2017, whereby for the offence under Section 302 IPC, the Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (‘RI’) for life along with fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment (‘SI’) for one year; for the offence under Section 376 IPC, to undergo RI for ten years along with fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for six months; and for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC, to undergo RI for three years along with fine of Rs.3,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for three months.

Background facts

2. The background facts of the case are that the Appellant was employed as a domestic help of the deceased, who lived alone in the ground floor of her house at Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi. The Appellant was employed with the deceased by the daughter of the deceased, who lived abroad, and who owned the ground floor. The Appellant lived in a separate servant quarter, which was situated in the parking area of the building.

3. The first floor was owned by another daughter of the deceased, who herself lived with her husband (PW-2) and family at Press Enclave, Saket, New Delhi. The front portion of the third floor, owned by the deceased, had been given on rent to a company which employed a security guard at the gate of the building. The duty hours of the security guard were from 8 pm to 8 am. The second floor of the building was given to the builder. It must be mentioned here that the deceased was the owner of the entire property which was demolished and reconstructed by a builder on collaboration.

4. PW-2, the son-in-law of the deceased, deposed that on 6th July, 2014, he had employed a carpenter to polish the furniture in the flat at first floor. That work continued up to 7th July, 2014 as well. At around 10 am on 7th July, 2014, PW-2 went to the house to supervise the work of the carpenter. According to PW-2, the carpenter finished his job at 4 pm, after which PW-2 paid him and left the premises at 4.15 pm for his official duties. He returned to his residence at Press Enclave at around 7.30 pm.

5. The deceased used to go for a daily walk at around 5.30/6 pm and would return around 7/7.30 pm. The deceased was 82 years old at the time of her death.

Events on the fateful day

6. At around 9.15 pm on 7th July, 2014, the Appellant went to the neighbour (PW-3) of the deceased, informing her that the deceased had not returned from her evening walk. PW-3 apparently scolded the Appellant for informing her so late and asked her own daughter to accompany the Appellant to the nearby park in search of the deceased. One other common friend informed PW-3 that she had met the deceased at around 7 pm and the deceased had informed her that she was returning home.

7. PW-3 telephoned the daughter of the deceased (not examined), i.e. the wife of PW-2, and informed her of her mother having gone missing. PW-3 also called the police from her mobile number, which fact is confirmed by the Police Control Room (‘PCR’) report (Ex.PW12/A). The call was made at 9.21 pm and the precise message was “Ek lady park mein ghoomne gai thi jo abhi tak nahi ayi”. The further message recorded on the PCR past midnight on 8th July, 2014 at 0033 hours notes that the dead body of the deceased was found on the second floor in a burnt condition. It notes “jo AC mein short-circuit se aag lagi lagta hai, aag bujhi hui hai body par chot ka koi nisan nahi hai – inki ladi doctor bhi moka par hai