CRL.A. 447/2016

Page 1 of 6

$~R-8.

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

Date of Decision: 27.08.2018

%

CRL.A. 447/2016

MOHD SALEEM

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. Dhan Mohan with Ms. Tanu

B.Mishra, Ms. Harkamal Jeet Kaur,

Mr. Ravi Mishra, Ms. Roshini and

Mr. Jitendra, Advocates

Versus

THE STATE

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I. S. MEHTA

VIPIN SANGHI, J. (ORAL)

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant convict to

assail his conviction by the learned ASJ-3, South District, Saket Courts,

New Delhi in Sessions Case No.87/2014, arising out of FIR No. 157/2011,

registered at PS Safdarjung Enclave, under Sections 302/309IPC. By the

impugned judgement dated 26.02.2016, the appellant stands convicted of the

offence under Section 302IPC while he has been acquitted under Section

309IPC. Vide order dated 04.03.2016, he has been sentenced to life

imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he

shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

2.

The background facts of the case taken note of in the impugned

CRL.A. 447/2016

Page 2 of 6

judgment read as follows:

CRL.A. 447/2016

Page 3 of 6

recovered from Rose Garden. ”

3.

The Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 302IPC on

the basis of his extra judicial confession made by him before PW21 and

thereafter before PW22, who are both doctors at AIIMS, New Delhi. PW22

was working as Sr. Resident Psychiatry at AIIMS. At the instance of the

appellant the dead body of the deceased was recovered. The weapon of

offence, namely, the razor was also recovered at his instance.

4.

Learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, submits that the

appellant limits the challenge to the impugned judgment with the plea that

the offence under Section 302IPC was not made out, since the case is

covered by Exception (4) to Section 300IPC, even if the extra judicial

confession and the post morten report of the deceased were to be accepted.

5.

The extra judicial confession made by the appellant, as per the

deposition of PW21 is to the effect that the deceased was the girlfriend of

the accused for the last 10-12 months. On the evening previous to the date

of the incident, the two had an argument in a park following her demand for

Rs. 2 lakhs from him for buying a room. The appellant stated that he had

previously given her Rs. 2-2.5 lakhs for supporting her children, as she was

separated from her husband. The appellant claims that the deceased was

involved with other men and he did not like this, and the quarrel between the

two had started soon after they met some men known to her. The appellant

stated that the deceased asked him to kill her, or she would get him killed.

She also abused the appellant’s mother, as the mother of the appellant was

CRL.A. 447/2016

Page 4 of 6

not agreeable to their relationship. The appellant stated that he strangled her

with her duppatta and also slit her throat with a blade. Thereafter, he stated

that he consumed insecticide and then surrendered before the police. In the

statement made before PW22, the appellant alleged that the deceased was a

call girl by profession and had illicit relationship with many persons but he

still loved her and wanted to marry her, although the deceased was yet to

take divorce from her husband. The appellant disclosed that on the previous

afternoon, the two had gone to a cinema from where they went for a drive

towards Maneswar where they were followed by a few people.

Subsequently, there was an altercation between the two on the issue of

money that was demanded by the deceased and during the said altercation,

the deceased asked the accused to kill her if he could not arrange the money.

He states that the incident took place during the altercation which took

place.

6.

The post-mortem report Ex.PW2/A records the