J U D G M E N T

J. B. PARDIWALA, J.:

For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided in the following parts: -

INDEX A. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION ............................................................... 3 B. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ......................... 15 C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE .................................... 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CHETAN KUMAR Date: 2024.05.03 D. ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 19 Reason:

i. Principles of law governing the applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act ............................................................................................. 19 ii. What is “prima facie case” (foundational facts) in the context of Section

106 of the Evidence Act? ......................................................................... 30 iii. Discovery of weapon under Section 27 of the Evidence Act ................ 35 iv. Cross-examination by the public prosecutor of a hostile witness ....... 38 v. Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to Section

300 of the IPC? ......................................................................................... 47 a

1. This appeal is at the instance of a convict accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the IPC”) and is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.05.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein by which the High Court dismissed the appeal and thereby affirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Court, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 176 of 1996 holding the appellant guilty of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In the event of default in the payment of the fine, the appellant was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

A. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION

2. The deceased, namely, Saira was married to the appellant. The marriage of the deceased with the appellant was solemnised in 1982 in accordance with the Muslim rites and customs. In the wedlock, a daughter named Shaheena was born, who, at the time of the incident in 1995, was five years of age.

3. On 29.12.1995, at about 4:00 am, a wireless operator of the Delhi Police informed one lady constable who was on duty in a PCR that a woman had been stabbed in House No. 220, Gali No. 3, Mustafabad and that a responsible police officer may be asked to reach at the spot of occurrence. The said information was conveyed by the lady constable to the duty officer at P.S. Gokulpuri, who, in turn, reduced the same in writing and forwarded a copy thereof to S.I. Mohkam Singh for inquiry.

4. When S.I. Mohkam Singh, along with the SHO of the concerned Police Station, reached the place of occurrence, he found the deceased lying in a pool of blood, having suffered multiple deep stabbed wounds in the abdomen and other parts of the body. The appellant herein was also present at the place of occurrence. It was noticed that the appellant had also suffered a few superficial injuries. Both, the deceased and the appellant, were sent to the hospital where the deceased was declared as brought dead and the appellant was declared fit for the purpose of interrogation and was discharged after some preliminary treatment.

5. The investigation revealed that the marital relationship of the appellant with the deceased was strained on account of the deceased leaving the house all of a sudden without the permission of the appellant and thereafter returning late in the night hours. This was not liked by the appellant. On several occasions, altercations used to take place between the appellant and the deceased on such issues. It is the case of the prosecution that on the fateful night of th