Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 4611
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.
Pawan Singh - Appellant
Versus
State and Others - Respondent
Criminal Appeal 929 of 2011
Decided On : 04-02-2015
For the Appellants : Ranbir Singh Kundu and Rajeev Sirohi.
For the Respondents:Aasha Tiwari, APP., Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the evidence and medical reports must establish the cause of death, and the police must conduct a thorough and effective investigation.
Headnote:
MURDER - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - Section 106, Section 302 - The court upheld the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his wife. The court found that the evidence and medical reports established that the death was homicidal and not accidental or suicidal. The court also criticized the police for their lapses in the investigation.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife. The appellant challenged his conviction on various grounds including the invocation of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, lack of motive, and failure to establish the cause of death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the appellant's challenge and upheld his conviction. The court criticized the police for their serious lapses in the investigation.
Issues: The issues included the invocation of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the establishment of motive, and the cause of death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the evidence and medical reports established the death as homicidal and not accidental or suicidal. The court also criticized the police for their serious lapses in the investigation.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his wife.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
1. Pawan stands convicted for murder of his wife Dimple, in the intervening night between 17th and 18th September, 2009 at her matrimonial home at A-478/11, Gali No. 11, Mandoli Extn., Delhi. The impugned judgment dated 28th May, 2011, arises out of FIR No. 66/2010, P.S. Harsh Vihar registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC, for short). By the order on sentence dated 6th June, 2011, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 7,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
2. The appellant challenges his conviction, inter alia, on the ground that he was not at home at the time of occurrence; Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 has been wrongly invoked; prosecution has not been able to show and establish motive as the illicit relationship or marriage with Simple has not been proved; and cause of death of Dimple has not been established.
3. We have considered the said contentions but do not find any merit in the same for the reasons recorded below and accordingly sustain and uphold the conviction of the appellant.
4. At the outset, we notice and record our annoyance and anguish in grave and serious lapses on the part of the police in not immediately registering the First Information Report (FIR) inspite of a written complaint (Ex. PW-2/A) by Dharampal Singh (PW2) father of the deceased Dimple. FIR was registered only after Dharampal Singh (PW2) had filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr. P.C." for short) and the Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 1st April, 2010 (Ex. PW-12/C), had issued the following directions:-
Material perused. Arguments on applications U/s. 156(3) Cr. P.C. heard. It is requested that matter be referred to the concerned SHO for registration of FIR. I have perused the present complaint. After perusal of the complaint and material on record, I am satisfied that the cognizable offence is made out. Accordingly, SHO PS. Harsh Vihar is directed to register an FIR within the meaning of the provision of section 156(3) Cr. P.C. It is however, made clear that this order is no direction to the SHO to immediately arrest the accused. The SHO/Investigating Officer should first investigate the matter and find out whether actually any offence have been committed or not. The investigating Officer may arrest the accused only if the circumstances so warrants. It is now the settled law that power to arrest is different from justification to do so. Reference may be made to Court on its Motion Vs. CBI Volume 109, DLT 2004, page 494. After completion of investigation, the SHO to file final report or charge-sheet U/s. 173(2) of Cr. PC as per result of investigation.
5. Undisputedly, the deceased was taken to the GTB Hospital, Shahdara by the appellant at about 2.10 AM on 18th September, 2009. The MLC (Ex. PW-11/A) records that the patient was brought by her husband having mobile number, 9999916439 and that the patient was brought to the casualty in an unconscious state. Blood pressure, pulse, cardiac and respiratory activities were absent and not palpable. The Electrocardiogram (ECG) was a straight line and pupils were dilated and fixed. She was declared "brought dead". The MLC was proved by Dr. Satish Chandra (PW11) who also proved the diagnostic slip marked as Ex. PW-11/B. The application for post mortem of the said dead body was made vide inquest report (Ex. PW-10/A) by ASI Rakesh Tyagi (PW10) on 18th September, 2009 along with the death report of unnatural death by violence (Ex. PW-10/B). Age of the deceased Dimple as mentioned in the inquest report (Ex. PW-10/A), unnatural death report by violence (Ex. PW-10/B) and in the MLC/Medical record (Ex. PW-11/A) was 30 years.
6. The Post mortem was conducted by Dr. Meghali (PW6) at about 12 PM on 18th September, 2009. PW6 in the report (Ex. PW-6/A) mentions that the deceased was wearing 6 yellow glass bangles on right w
