Back
2011 (1) Supreme 582
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.Sudershan Reddy and Surinder Singh Nijjar, JJ.
State through C.B.I — Appellant
versus
Mahender Singh Dahiya — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1360 of 2003
Decided on : 28-1-2011
1952 SCR 1091; (1974) 3 SCC 668 – Relied upon
(b) Criminal Trial – Conviction – Motive – Motive becomes insignificant if prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt by evidence and materials on record – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, however, motive assumes great importance and its absence may be fatal. (Para 23)
1993 Supp (3) SCC 681; 1994 Supp (3) SCC 367; 1989 Supp (1) SCC 91; 1995 Supp (1) SCC 80 – Relied upon
(c) Criminal Trial – Last seen theory – Last seen evidence does not necessarily establish that the accused had murdered the victim. (Para 27)
(d) Criminal Trial – Absconding – An accused resorting to absconding may not always be due to guilty conscious – It may be due to fear as also to avoid arrest by the police. (Para 53)
(1971) 2 SCC 75 – Relied upon
Facts of he case:
1. The respondent is an Orthopedic surgeon. He was married to Namita who was born in India in May, 1956 and had acquired British citizenship on 26th May 1979.
2. In the morning of 27th May, 1979, Mahender and Namita left for the honeymoon trip. They reached Brussels at about 6.30 p.m. the same evening and checked into room no. 415.
3. The prosecution version is that the respondent had strangled his wife Namita to death in their hotel room. He had then proceeded to dismember and mutilate parts of her body which were subsequently disposed of in the rubbish container and the lake. The respondent entered UK on 29th May, 1979 and went to the house of his in-laws.
4. He, however, could not give any satisfactory explanation to his in-laws about the whereabouts of his wife Namita. Thereafter, Namita’s father took the respondent to Acton police station to lodge a missing person’s report about the disappearance of Namita. On the way the respondent escaped by jumping onto a running bus. Thereafter, he stayed in the YMCA, London without disclosing his identity/particulars. He left for India via Frankfurt, West Germany and reached Delhi on 6 th June, 1979. He afterwards, remained underground and absconding and could not be traced in spite of various efforts until 9th May, 1983. He was hiding in a village in District Lalitpur, U.P., where he had taken up the practice of general medicine under the fake name of Dr. M. Singh.
5. The trial court convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC and also imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence under Section 201 IPC.
6. The High Court reversed the of the Trial court judgment, set aside the conviction and acquitted the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
Prosecution had miserably failed to connect the respondent with the alleged murder of his wife.
JUDGMENT
Surinder Singh Nijjar, J. —
1. This appeal is directed against the final order of the High Court of Delhi dated 19th December, 2002 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 169 of 1999, whereby the accused Dr. Mahender Singh Dahiya has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) by setting aside the judgment of the trial court whereby he had been convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC and also imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence under Section 201 IPC.
2. Before the trial court, the prosecution had succeeded in proving that Dr. Mahender Singh Dahiya (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent’) had committed the murder of his wife Namita, a British national of Indian origin, on the intervening night of 27th/28th May, 1979. The murder was allegedly committed on the very first night of the honeymoon in room No. 415, Hotel Arenberg, Brussels, Belgium. It is further the case of the prosecution that after committing the murder, the respondent had dismembered and extensively mutilated the body of the victim. He subsequently disposed of the body parts at different places in the city of Brussels. This was done with the intention of destroying the evidence of the murder.
3. The aforesaid conviction and sentence were challenged before the Delhi High Court by way of an appeal. The High Court upon re-appraisal of the entire evidence accepted the appeal and acquitted the respondent of both the charges. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the High Court, the State through CBI, New Delhi is in appeal before this Court.
4. The High Court notices at the very outset of the impugned judgment that this is an unusual case and perhaps the first of its kind. We are of the opinion that the High Court had good reasons for making such a statement. The peculiarity which makes this murder case rather rare is not only the ghastly and the brutal manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed but also the complexities created by a number of unique factors. The accused respondent herein is an Indian. He is an Orthopedic Surgeon. The alleged victim of the crime Namita, though of Indian origin was a British citizen. She had grown up in England since she was 5 or 6 years old. The offence was allegedly committed in a third country, i.e., Belgium. Consequently, the investigation of the case was conducted in three different countries. Initially, the Belgium authorities investigated the crime. Thereafter, the Scotland Yard in London also participated in the investigation. It was concluded in India. The investigation in Belgium and U.K. had been conducted according to the law and procedure of those countries. This led to its own difficulties. Initially, the Belgium authorities had requested for extradition of the respondent for his trial in Belgium. Later, the request was abandoned by the Belgium authorities. The case was ultimately investigated by the CBI and the charge sheet was presented on 30th July, 1985. At the trial, a large number of witnesses being foreign nationals were examined on commission either in Belgium or in England. This further complicated the issues. Ultimately, the trial court convicted the respondent on 1st March, 1999, i.e., twenty years after the alleged commission of the crime.
5. We may now notice some of the undisputed facts, which are necessary for appreciation of a peculiar situation in which the alleged offence is said to have been committed. The respondent belongs to a village called Turkpur, District Sonepat, Haryana. He obtained his MBBS degree from Punjab University, Rohtak in 1973 and M.S. Degree in (Orthopedic) from A.I.I.M.S., New Delhi in December, 1978. He got himself registered with the Punjab Medical Council.
6. Jagdish Singh Lochab (PW-48) a native of Punjab had migrated to England in 1962. He was settled there with his family viz.
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
