Delhi District Court
State vs Vikas Gupta @ Bobby on 20 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI P.S. TEJI : DISTRICT JUDGE &
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, I/C (EAST) : KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI.
SC No.04/2010
Unique Case ID No.02402R0368432009
FIR No.462/2009
Police Station Mandawali
Under Section 302 IPC
State Versus Vikas Gupta @ Bobby
S/o Raghubar Dayal Gupta
R/o B52, Flat No. 16, Gali No.5,
Mandawali, Fazal Pur, Delhi.
Date of Institution : 11.01.2010
Date of judgment reserved : 07.07.2012
Date of judgment : 17.07.2012
JUDGMENT
Accused Vikas Gupta @ Bobby has been sent to face trial by the police of Police Station Mandawali in FIR No.462/2009 under Section 302 IPC.
2 Briefly stating the facts of the present case are that on 21.09.2009 an information was received in PS vide DD No. 39B SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 1 of 47 Ex.PW18/A to the effect that one Bharti Gupta was admitted in LBS Hospital in dead condition. Said DD was assigned to ASI Yad Ram (PW18) who went to the hospital and collected MLC Ex.PW13/A of deceased Bharti Gupta. On the MLC, Doctor mentioned that the deceased was brought with the alleged history of ingestion of unknown substance. MLC Ex.PW13/A of the deceased was prepared by Dr.Kumar Gaurav Gupta. After MLC, Dr. Anil Kumar (PW14) prepared continuation sheet Ex.PW14/A and death certificate Ex.PW14/B. The dead body was got preserved in mortuary. Thereafter, ASI Yad Ram (PW18) reached at the spot and called crime team at the spot. Crime Team report is Ex.PW18/D. The spot was got photographed vide photographs Ex.PW16/B1 to B4 and their negatives are Ex.PW16/A1 to A4. One plastic dibbi Ex.P1 on which words "Fumigan Dichlor Vos 76% EC DDVP" were written was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A. On 21.09.2009 itself, IO recorded statements of son Himanshu @ Honey (PW2) Ex.PW2/B, daughter Kajal (PW4) Ex.PW18/B, daughter Samistha (PW3) Ex.PW18/C and father Ram Kishore Gupta (PW6) Ex.PW6/A of deceased. IO prepared inquest papers Ex.PW18/E. 3 On 22.09.2009, postmortem on the dead body of SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 2 of 47 deceased was conducted by Dr. Vaibhav Aggarwal vide report Ex.PW15/A. Dead body was identified by father Ram Kishore Gupta (PW6) and uncle Gopal(PW1) of the deceased vide their statements E.PW6/B and Ex.PW1/A respectively. After postmortem dead body was received by PW6 Ram Kishore Gupta vide statement Ex.PW7/A which was signed by attesting witness PW7 Tej Pal Singh. After postmortem, Doctor handed over viscera box of deceased to the IO which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/B. 4 On 22.09.2009, an information was received in PS vide DD No.18A Ex.PW5/D to the effect that a boy had administered poison at D68, Mandawali. On receipt of said information, Insp. Satish Bharwaj(PW19) along with staff, ACP Madhu Vihar and ASI Yad Ram(PW18) reached at the spot. Father of deceased Bharti Gupta, namely, Ram Kishore Gupta(PW6) informed that Himanshu @ Honey, son and two daughters of deceased informed him in the night that deceased Bharti Gupta was administered poison by her husband accused Vikas Gupta and that Himanshu @ Honey wanted to give his statement again.
5 ASI Yad Ram(PW18) recorded statement Ex.PW2/A of Himanshu Gupta @ Honey in which he stated that he was residing SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 3 of 47 at B52, Flat No. 16, Gali No.5, Mandawali, Delhi along with his parents and was studying in class VIII. His father Vikas Gupta used to beat and abuse his mother Bharti Gupta almost every day after consuming liquor. When he and his sister Samistha(PW3) used to intervene, they were also given beatings by their father. On 20.09.2009, his mother went to market and became late in reaching home. After return of his mother, accused abused his mother and also gave beatings to her during whole night. On 21.09.2009 also, his father had beaten his mother. His mother asked the accused that it would be better to die instead of facing of beatings and abuses by the accused every day. On 21.09.2009 at about 2.15 p.m., his father gave insecticide for cockroach killing to his mother in a glass and asked her to drink the same by saying that it was water. Accused made his mother drink the insecticide by deceitfully saying that it was water. When Himanshu asked to call the neighbours, he was given beatings and door was locked and he was not even allowed to make a call to his maternal grand mother. He also stated that at that time froth was coming out from the mouth of his mother and she was vomiting but his father kept on watching. When he snatched phone from his father and made a call to his maternal grand mother, his father ran away. He SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 4 of 47 further stated that due to fear of his father, he did not give said statement. He also stated that his mother was murdered by his father by giving poison.
6 On this statement Ex.PW2/A of Himanshu Gupta(PW2), SI Yad Ram(PW18) made endorsement Ex.PW18/F. Duty officer SI Nand Kumar(PW5) recorded FIR Ex.PW5/A. A DD No.19 Ex.PW5/B was lodged with regard to receipt of rukka from ASI Yad Ram. After registration of FIR, entry was made in register vide DD No. 20 Ex.PW5/C. DD No. 51A Ex.PW5/E was also recorded. 7 After registration of FIR, investigation of the case was assigned to Ins. Satish Bhardwaj(PW19) who prepared site plan Ex.PW19/A. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW12/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW12/D. Exhibits of the case were deposited in the malkhana with MHC(M) HC Kiran Pal Singh(PW17) vide entries Ex.PW17/A. Exhibits were deposited in the FSL, Rohini by Ct. Ajay Kumar(PW10) vide RC No. 61/21 Ex.PW17/B. On 29.09.2009, at the instance of PW2, draftsman HC Sonu Kaushik(PW11) took notes from the spot and prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW11/A. 8 In FSL, Rohini exhibits were examined by Sh. Amit SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 5 of 47 Rawat, Sr. Scientific Officer(PW20) vide report Ex.PW15/B. On the basis of FSL report Ex.PW15/B, Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh(PW15) gave his opinion regarding cause of death to the effect that death of deceased was due to shock as a result of organophosphorous pesticide( dichlonovos) poisoning vide his report dated 8.5.2010 Ex.PW15/C. The MLCs of accused are Ex.PW13/B and Ex.PW19/B. PW21 Insp. Dharam Pal Singh submitted FSL report and subsequent opinion of doctor in the Court.
9 After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed against accused in the Court of Ld. M.M. who after complying with provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of Sessions which in turn assigned the case to this Court for trial in accordance with law.
10 After hearing Ld. Counsel for the accused and Ld. Addl. PP for the State, charge under section 302 IPC was framed against accused on 20.07.2010 which reads as under : "That on 21.09.2009 at 2.15 p.m., in House No.B52, Flat No. 16, Gali No.5, Mandawali, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Mandawali, you committed the murder of your wife, namely, Bharti Gupta by administering organophosphorous pesticide (Dichlorovos) poison to her and thereby committed an SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 6 of 47 offence punishable under section 302 IPC."
11 Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed a trial.
12 Prosecution has examined as many as 21 witnesses. PW2 Himanshu Gupta is the son, PW3 Samistha and PW4 Kajal @ Karishma are the daughters and PW6 Ram Kishore Gupta is the father, PW9 Smt. Madhu Gupta is the mother, PW8 Smt. Poonam Gupta is the Bhabhi (sisterinlaw), PW7 Sh. Tej Pal Singh and PW1 Sh. Gopal are the uncles of deceased. PW5 SI Nand Kumar was the duty officer, whereas PW17 HC Kiran Pal Singh was the malkhana Incharge in the PS at the relevant time. PW10 Ct. Ajay Kumar deposited the exhibits in the FSL. PW11 HC Sonu Kaushik prepared scaled site plan. PW16 HC Brij Vir Singh proved the photographs of the spot. PW13 Dr. Rakesh Singh proved the MLCs of deceased as well as of accused. PW 14 Dr. Anil Kumar proved the death certificate of deceased as well as other papers prepared by him. PW15 Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh proved the postmortem report prepared by Dr. Vaibhav Aggarwal as well as opinion as to cause of death. PW 20 Sh. Amit Rawat examined the exhibits in FSL. PW 12 Ct. Ravinder Malik remained associated with the investigation whereas PW18 SI Yad Ram, PW19 Insp. Satish SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 7 of 47 Bhardwaj and PW21 Insp. Dharam Pal Singh are the Investigating Officers.
13 Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He has denied the case of the prosecution in toto. He has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He never gave any insecticide to Bharti, rather she herself consumed the same when he was not present at home. When he came at the spot, he found Bharti in intoxicated condition and rushed her to hospital. Bharti used to remain tense as their daughter Kajal was not being given by his inlaws as Kajal was very lucky to them. His wife made various requests them to return Kajal but they remained adamant not to return her. On 20.09.2009, his wife went to her parental house to take Kajal back but his inlaws refused and scolded her not to come again. He also stated that his relation with his wife was very cordial. The demonstration with dead body was held on 22.09.2009 by his inlaws and other people including political parties leader in the mohalla and also at PS. Thereafter, police came in action, DD No. 18A was registered and the present false FIR was registered. He opted to lead evidence in his defence. In his defence, accused examined his brother in law (husband of his sister) Vaibhav as DW1.
SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 8 of 47 14 It has been argued by Ld. Addl PP for the State that the present case is a case of direct evidence. The children as well as inlaws of the accused have deposed against him and have fully supported the case of prosecution. It is further argued that testimony of child witnesses cannot be doubted as their testimony is natural and inspires confidence. The ocular testimony of witnesses has duly been supported by medical evidence as well as by FSL report. He has further argued that there is sufficient evidence on record against the accused to record his conviction.
15 Ld. Defence counsel has argued that testimony of child witnesses can not be relied upon as they deposed under the influence of their maternal grand parents. Testimony of other public witnesses is also of no help to the prosecution as they are interested and related witnesses to the deceased. He has further argued that PW2 and PW3 in their statements made to police on 21.09.2009 had stated that deceased consumed poison of her own but under the influence of maternal grand parents, PW2 made statement Ex.PW2/A levelling allegations against the accused, which is of no consequence. He has further argued that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case under the pressure of his inlaws and political party leaders as SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 9 of 47 they held a demonstration with the dead body of deceased. Ld. Defence counsel has also argued that accused was not present at the spot at the time of incident, rather he was out of his house and when he returned back, he found his wife under intoxication and then admitted her in hospital. This fact has been demonstrated from the MLC of deceased. He has also argued that there is delay of one day in lodging the FIR which creates doubt on the case of prosecution. He has further argued that the evidence and material brought on record by the prosecution is full of flaws and does not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Murder 16 To prove its case, prosecution has examined the eye witnesses of incident, namely, Himanshu Gupta(PW2) and Miss Samistha(PW3). These two witnesses are the minor son and daughter of the deceased and accused.
17 PW2 Himanshu Gupta has testified that accused is his father whereas deceased Bharti Gupta was his mother. Relations between his deceased mother and father were not cordial and his father used to quarrel with his mother. He deposed that on 20.09.2009, his mother had gone to market to purchase vegetables, his father SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 10 of 47 telephoned her and asked as to where she was, his mother replied that she would be coming after sometimes. When his mother returned home, his father under influence of liquor started abusing his mother in filthy language and also beat her. This witness stated that he was present in the house at that time. He further stated that his father continuously beat his mother till next day i.e. 21.09.2009. At around 2.15 p.m., his father again quarreled with his mother. He also stated that his father served insecticide (used for killing cockroaches) in water to his mother. Since said insecticide after mixing with water was transparent, his mother consumed the same. Thereafter, froth started coming out of her mouth and she started vomiting. When this witness wanted to inform his Nani( maternal grand mother), accused gave him a fist blow. He stated that he snatched mobile phone from accused and telephoned to his Nani. On receipt of said call, his younger sister Kajal and Mami Poonam Gupta reached his house. They called the neighours and his Nani also reached there. On seeing his Mami, his father i.e. accused left the house. After sometimes, his father i.e. accused telephoned him and asked about the condition of his mother and he told that she had expired. Then his father i.e. accused reached home and thereafter his mother was taken to LBS Hospital by SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 11 of 47 him, his father i.e. accused and his Nana ( maternal grand father) where his mother was declared brought dead. Police reached in the hospital and recorded his statement on 21.09.2009. This witness further stated that in the said statement, he told the police that his mother consumed insecticide due to anger, under the pressure of his father. On 22.09.2009 again he gave statement to police as earlier statement was not true. He categorically stated that he gave true facts to the police on 22.09.2009 which he proved as Ex.PW2/A. He proved his statement dated 21.09.2009 as Ex.PW2/B. 18 It is important to note that there are two statements of this witness(PW2) on record. First statement is dated 21.09.2009 which is Ex.PW2/B and second statement is dated 22.09.2009 which is Ex.PW2/A. It is the statement Ex.PW2/A which was made basis for registration of the FIR. It is worthwhile mentioning that in statement dated 21.09.2009 Ex.PW2/B, this witness had stated that his mother consumed poison in a fit of anger whereas in his statement Ex.PW2/A, he has clearly stated that it was the accused who gave pesticide to his mother on the pretext that it was water.
19 Witness(PW2) during cross examination has stated that on 20.09.2009, he had gone to school and at that time his parents SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 12 of 47 were present in the house. He stated that when he returned back from school, his father was not at home and his mother was present. His sister Samistha(PW3) had already returned from school before him. His father also came to house after about 15 minutes. He stated that insecticide was brought by his mother from Aligarh long time ago and his father was aware as to where it was kept. He categorically stated that his father had taken out said insecticide substance and gave the same to his mother in a glass. His maternal grand father reached his house after about half an hour. His father i.e. accused returned back after about half an hour of arrival of his maternal grand father. He stated that his mother was taken to hospital by his Nana and accused and he accompanied them. He has not told the doctors that his father gave insecticide to his mother as Doctor had not made any inquiry from him. He denied that his mother consumed insecticide of her own. He also denied that his father i.e. accused never gave beatings or abuses to his mother.
20 Another eye witness of the incident is Samistha(PW3) who was minor at the time of her deposition in the Court. On being satisfied that the witness was capable of understanding the questions put to her and giving rational reply thereto, the court proceeded to SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 13 of 47 record her statement.
21 In her deposition, she stated that accused is her father who was a habitual drunkard. Her father used to beat and abuse her mother Bharti Gupta and also used to beat them. On 20.09.2009, her mother went to market and returned back little bit late on which accused quarreled and gave beatings to her. Accused continuously beat her mother till late night and quarreled with her for whole night. On the next day i.e. 21.09.2009 also her father gave beatings to her mother. Her mother went to return sarees after sewing falls on them and when she returned in afternoon, she asked for water. Her father gave a glass of water mixed with cockroach killing pesticide and asked her mother to drink the same and accused got her mother drink the said water. Her mother started vomiting and froth also oozed out her mouth. Her brother Himanshu tried to make call but accused did not allow him to do so. After snatching phone from accused, his brother made a call to their maternal grand mother and in the meanwhile accused ran away. Her maternal aunt along with her sister Karishma @ Kajal reached there and after sometime her maternal grand mother also came there.
22 It is also important to note that statement Ex.PW18/C SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 14 of 47 dated 21.09.2009 of this witness was also recorded by the Investigating Officer. In the said statement, this witness stated that her mother had consumed pesticide in a fit of anger, whereas in her deposition in the court, she stated that her father gave a glass of water mixed with pesticide and asked her mother to drink the same and that accused got her mother drink the said water.
23 She was cross examined by ld. Defence counsel in which she stated that it was Monday when the incident took place. Her mother was taken to hospital by her Nana, brother Himanshu and her father/accused. She stated that when her mother gave beatings to her, her mother and her brother, they had not sustained any visible injuries. She also stated that her father used to abuse her mother and brother. Her brother firstly telephoned to her Nani informing about the incident. She voluntarily stated that her father ran away after the incident. She denied having stated to the police that her mother consumed poison in a fit of anger. She also denied that accused did not give beatings to her mother on 20.09.2009 or 21.09.2009. She clarified that she stated to police that when her mother returned back home after returning sarees, she asked for water and her father gave a glass of water mixed with cockroach killing pesticide. She denied that SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 15 of 47 her brother did not make call to maternal grand mother after snatching phone from accused. She denied that she deposed falsely at the instance of her grand parents.
24 It has been argued by ld. Defence counsel that there are material variances in the statements of above two witnesses as in their statements dated 21.09.2009, they stated before the police that their mother consumed pesticide in a fit of anger of her own whereas in their deposition in the court, they stated that it was accused who administered poison to their mother. He has further argued that subsequent statement of PW2 dated 22.09.2009 Ex.PW2/A as well as deposition of PWs 2 and 3 in the Court have been made under the influence of police as well as their maternal grand parents, therefore, their testimony can not be relied upon.
25 In support of his argument, he has relied upon judgment in case of Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta and others vs. State of Maharashtra 2010 XI AD (SC) 500 in which it was observed that trial Court which has the benefit of watching the demeanor of the witnesses is the best Judge of the credibility of the witnesses. Facts of the said case were that the complainant in the FIR or the witness in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. has not disclosed certain facts but SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 16 of 47 meets the prosecution case first time before the Court. The Apex Court while dealing with credibility of the witness in the face of such contradiction held that such version lacks credence and is liable to be discarded.
26 It is apparent that there is a contradiction only with regard to one point i.e. consumption of pesticide by the deceased. Witnesses PW2 & 3 in their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. have stated that their mother consumed poison in a fit of anger but during their deposition in the court, they deposed that it was their father i.e. accused who gave pesticide mixed with water to their mother and made to drink the same inducing the belief that it was water. Witness (PW2) has clarified in his statement dated 22.09.2009 Ex.PW2/A as well as in his deposition in the court that he could not narrate the true facts earlier (i.e. in his statement dated 21.09.2009 Ex.PW2/B) as he was under the pressure of his father at that time. While PW3 in her cross examination has denied having stated to the police that her mother consumed poison in a fit of anger. Both these witnesses have categorically stated in their deposition in the court that it was the accused who administered poison to their mother deceitfully. They have also stated that both of them were present in the house when this SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 17 of 47 incident of administering pesticide had taken place. 27 Both these witnesses have also stated that their father i.e. accused was a habitual drunkard and used to beat them as well as their mother frequently apart from abusing them. They have also stated that on 20.09.2009 as well as on the day of incident i.e. 21.09.2009, accused picked up quarrel with their deceased mother on the petty issue of coming late home, abused her and gave beatings to her which continued upto her death. It is worthwhile mentioning here that both these witnesses are minor and their testimony is so simple and natural that it inspires confidence of the Court. They were cross examined by ld. Defence counsel in which they stuck firmly to their stand that both of them were present in the house on 20.09.2009 and 21.09.2009 when accused abused and gave beating to their mother and that on 21.09.2009 accused gave pesticide to their mother after mixing it in a glass of water. There is no ground to disbelieve their testimony. Therefore, the authority relied upon by ld. Defence counsel in Sunil Kumar's case (supra) is of no help to the accused as the variances in the statements of PW2 & PW3 have duly been explained by them. 28 The accused has also failed to show that deceased herself consumed the pesticide. He has not placed any evidence or SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 18 of 47 material to prove this fact. This plea of accused is based upon the statements dated 21.09.2009 of PW2 and PW3 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which have been negatived by both these witnesses during their deposition in the court. So, there is no basis in the plea of accused that deceased consumed poison of her own, rather it has duly been established that accused gave pesticide to the deceased after mixing it in a glass of water.
29 The testimony of PW2 & 3 to the effect that accused used to beat the deceased every now and then has also been corroborated by the third child of deceased, namely, Baby Kajal (PW4). In her deposition, she deposed that in the year 2009, she was residing with her grand parents, whereas her sister Samistha and brother Himanshu were residing with her parents at B52, Flat No. 16, Mandawali, Delhi. She deposed that whenever her mother used to meet her, she told that accused used to quarrel with her, abuse her and gave beatings after consuming liquor and that too almost on every day. She further deposed that on 21.09.2009, her brother and sister informed that something had been given in water by accused to her mother and that she was vomiting. She along with her maternal aunt Pooam reached there and found her mother lying on the floor in SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 19 of 47 unconscious condition. Her brother told her that in the intervening night of 2021.09.2009, accused picked up quarrel with her mother for whole night, gave beatings and had given cockroach killing pesticide mixed in water to her mother and got her drink the same. 30 During cross examination on behalf of accused, this witness stated that distance between the house of her father and house of her maternal grand parents was of five minutes walking. She stated that she was residing with her maternal grand mother since childhood and they were maintaining her. Accused rarely visited them. Her mother used to visit her twice a week. Her father was having no source of income, whereas her mother used to stitch falls on sarees. Her mother visited her grand parents house a day before the day of incident. She has further stated that her father gave beatings to her mother in her presence also about one and half month prior to the incident. When she reached at the spot, her brother and sister were present, whereas her father reached there after about 510 minutes. She denied that accused never gave beatings to deceased in her presence.
31 Witness PW4 Baby Kajal is a minor girl who, as per prosecution case as well as as per her own testimony, is residing with SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 20 of 47 her grand parents since her childhood. She has categorically stated that her mother used to inform that accused usually gave beatings to her after consuming liquor. The fact of accused being drunkard and giving beatings to the deceased every now and then has also been established from the testimony of PW2 Himanshu and PW3 Samistha. 32 PW6 Ram Kishore Gupta and PW9 Smt. Madhu Gupta, father in law and mother in law of accused, have also stated that accused used to consume liquor, pick up quarrel and beat their deceased daughter. From their statements also, it has been established that accused was in a habit of drinking liquor and under its influence used to beat the deceased every now and then.
33 Thus, the conduct of accused being drunkard has been duly established. It has also been established that he usually abused and beat the deceased on petty issues.
34 The medical evidence also corroborates that the deceased died due to ingestion of intoxicant. MLC Ex. PW13/A of deceased has been proved by PW13 Dr. Rakesh Singh, MLC Ex.PW13/A shows that the deceased was admitted in LBS Hospital with the alleged history of ingestion of some unknown substance. Deceased was declared brought dead at 3.45 p.m. Dr. Anil SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 21 of 47 Kumar(PW14) prepared continuation sheet Ex.PW14/A of the deceased. He also prepared death certificate Ex.PW14/B of the deceased. Thereafter, postmortem on the dead body of deceased was conducted vide postmortem report Ex.PW15/A. Doctor found that there was whitish froth in the nostrils of deceased and there was bleeding in the mouth. On internal examination, stomach of the deceased was found to contain 500 ML fluid green in colour having pungent smell. At the time of preparation of postmortem report Ex.PW15/A, Doctor could not give the cause of death and opined that it would be given after the receipt of chemical analysis report of viscera. Viscera of deceased was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/B. 35 The viscera of the deceased was sent to FSL Rohini which was examined by PW20 Sh. Amit Rawat, Sr. Scientific Officer, Chemistry Division, FSL, Rohini. It has also come in evidence that the pesticide bottle Ex.P1 from which pesticide was administered to the deceased by accused, was also seized from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A which was also examined in laboratory by PW20. He proved his report as Ex.PW15/B. As per his opinion, exhibit1 i.e. Plastic dibbi containing green coloured viscous liquid as well as SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 22 of 47 viscera of deceased exhibit 2A to 2C were found to contain Organo phosphorous pesticide ( dichlorovos).
36 PW15 Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh has deposed that postmortem report along with CFSL report regarding viscera of deceased was put up before him for subsequent opinion. He examined the postmortem report Ex.PW15/A and FSL report Ex.PW15/B and then gave his opinion vide report Ex.PW15/C to the effect that the death of deceased was caused due to shock as a result of Organo phosphorous pesticide (dichlorovos) poisoning. During cross examination, he stated that as per postmortem report and FSL report, poison was found in the viscera of deceased. He further stated that poison found in the viscera of deceased was sufficient to cause death even if mouthful of same is taken is spitted out.
37 From a joint reading of postmortem report Ex.PW15/A and FSL report Ex.PW15/B and opinion Ex.PW15/C given thereon, it has been established that deceased died due to ingestion of poison. It has already been established that it was the accused who gave said poison to deceased after mixing it in water. 38 Thus, the prosecution has successfully established that on the day of incident i.e. on 21.09.2009, accused committed the SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 23 of 47 murder of his wife Bharti Gupta by administering poison i.e. Organo phosphorous pesticide (dichlorovos) by mixing it in water. Testimony of eye witnesses 39 Both the eye witnesses PW2 and PW3 have stated that their father i.e. accused gave beatings to their mother on 20.09.2009 and also on the day of incident i.e. 21.09.2009. They have also stated that in their presence, their father i.e. accused gave insecticide to their mother mixing it in a glass of water and made her to drink the same. It has been submitted by the Ld. Defence counsel that the alleged eye witnesses were not present at the spot at the time of incident, as they were in their school. But, the defence has failed to put any dent to the testimony of these eye witnesses. 40 Even PW4 Baby Kajal has proved the presence of PW2 & PW3 at the spot. She has stated that when she along with her maternal aunt Poonam reached at the spot, she found her brother and sister i.e. PW2 and PW3 at the spot who informed her that accused gave pesticide to her mother.
41 PW8 Smt. Poonam Gupta has also stated that on the asking of her mother in law Madhu Gupta, she went to the house of accused along with Kajal where Himanshu and Samistha were present SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 24 of 47 and deceased was lying in the room. PW9 Madhu Gupta, maternal grand mother of PW2 to PW4, has stated that on 21.09.2009 she received a call from PW2 Himanshu that Bharti was not in a condition of working anything. She sent her daughter in law Poonam and Kajal to the house of accused from where Poonam telephonically informed her that Bharti was unconscious. She also rushed to the house of deceased from where she made a call to her husband. She also stated that Himanshu and Samistha told her the fact of giving poison to her deceased daughter by accused.
42 From the statements of PW8 and PW9 also, it has been established that when they reached at the spot, they found the eye witnesses of the incident PW2 and PW3 present at the spot. Their presence at the spot has also been established from the statement of PW4 Kajal. Even otherwise accused has also not disputed the presence of PW2 and PW3 at the spot. His plea is that he was not present at the spot when poison was consumed by deceased herself. Plea of alibi is to be dealt with at the later stage. But the fact remains that accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. also has not disputed the presence of eye witnesses i.e. PW2 and PW3 at the spot. 43 Therefore, the testimony of eyewitnesses PW2 SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 25 of 47 Himanshu Gupta and PW3 Samistha is found to be reliable and trustworthy that they witnessed the incident of giving intoxicating substance by accused to their mother.
44 It has been argued by the ld. defence counsel that the testimony of public witnesses examined by the prosecution cannot be read against the accused as they are interested witnesses. He has further submitted that the public witnesses examined by the prosecution are related to the deceased, therefore, they are interested in the conviction of the accused.
45 It is apparent that witnesses PW2 to PW4 are the son and daughters of the deceased, whereas PW1, PW6 and PW7 to PW9 are the relatives of deceased as well as inlaws of accused. It is matter of record that PW2 to PW4 as well as PW6 and PW7 to PW9 have deposed against the accused to the effect that he was a habitual drunkard and used to beat the deceased every now and then. PW2 and PW3 who are eye witnesses of the incident have also deposed that accused administered pesticide to their mother in their presence which resulted into death of the deceased.
46 I have gone through the ratio of judgment in case of Ashok Kumar Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar, 2008 Cr. L.J. 2030, in SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 26 of 47 which it has been held that term "interested" postulates that the person concerned has some direct or indirect interest in seeing that the accused is somehow or the other convicted either because he had some animus with the accused or for some other oblique motive. The only rule of caution the Court may adopt with respect to such a witness is to scrutinize his evidence with care and caution but, if on such scrutiny his evidence is found to be reliable, probable and trustworthy, conviction can be based even on the sole testimony of a witness who is related to the victim of a crime.
47 In the present case, testimony of witnesses PW2 to PW4 cannot be discarded only on the ground that they are related to the deceased. It is an admitted fact that these witnesses are the son and daughters of deceased as well as of accused. No enmity of these witnesses with the accused has been shown or alleged on record by the accused. In the absence of any enmity of accused with these witnesses and the fact that these are the own children of accused, no explanation has come forward as to why they depose against the accused who happened to be their father. Even otherwise also, from no stretch of imagination, it could be believed that a son or daughter would deposed against their father without any rhyme or reason. Rather, they must SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 27 of 47 have witnessed the physical cruelty and mental pain caused by the accused to the deceased, which resulted into her death. This is why they have entered the witness box to depose the truth against the accused who happened to be none other than their own father. Testimony of these witnesses has duly been corroborated from other evidence on record.
48 Consequently, there is no force in the contention of accused that the testimony of above public witnesses is liable to be discarded as they are interested and related witnesses. 49 It has been argued by Ld. defence counsel that testimony of alleged eye witnesses cannot be made basis to convict the accused as they were minor at the time of incident and they have deposed under the influence of their maternal grand parents. 50 I do not find any force in the contention of the ld. defence counsel, as it has been established on record that they testimony of son and daughters of deceased produced in the court is reliable and trustworthy. In this regard, I have gone through the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Suryanarayana Vs. State of Karnataka 2001 AIR SC 482 in which the Court upheld the conviction of appellant on the basis of sole testimony of child witness. SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 28 of 47 Facts of the said case were that Bhavya (PW2), who at the time of occurrence was about four years of age, was the only solitary eye witness. It was observed that the time and place of occurrence and the attending circumstances of the case suggest no possibility of their being any other person as an eyewitness. It was also observed that the evidence of the child witness cannot be rejected per se, but the court, as a rule of prudence, is required to consider such evidence with close scrutiny and only on being convinced about the quality of the statements and its reliability, base conviction by accepting the statement of the child witness. It was further observed that if the witness is shown to have stood the test of crossexamination and there is no infirmity in the evidence of child witness, the prosecution can rightly claim a conviction based upon the testimony child witness alone. Corroboration of the testimony of a child witness is not a rule but a measure of caution and prudence. Some discrepancies in the statement of a child witness cannot be made the basis for discarding the testimony. Discrepancies in the deposition, if not in material particulars, would lend credence to the testimony of a child witness who, under the normal circumstance, would like to mix up what the witness saw with what he or she is likely to imagine to have seen. SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 29 of 47 51 Keeping in view of ratio of judgment in Suryanarayana's case (supra), the testimony of a child witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that there are some discrepancies in his testimony. What is required to be seen is that the Court must examine the testimony of such a child witness with caution. In the present case, there are two child witnesses PW2 and PW3 who specifically deposed against the accused that he gave pesticide to their mother by mixing it in water. There is no need of corroboration to their testimony, but in the present case, their testimony has been corroborated by other public witnesses who also deposed that accused used to pick up quarrel and beat the deceased every now and then. Their testimony also shows there was no possibility of any other person as an eye witness, as the incident had taken place behind closed doors of the house where only the children of deceased and accused were present. The time and place of occurrence and the circumstances narrated by these witnesses suggest no possibility of their being any other person as an eyewitness. Defence has failed to put any dent to their testimony in their cross examination. The testimony of PW2 and PW3 child eye witnesses is free from any dent during cross examination, lack of confidence and is sensible. SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 30 of 47 52 More the reason that the testimony of above two child eye witnesses who happened to be son and daughter of deceased and accused has been corroborated by other evidence such as having quarrel between accused and deceased and death of deceased due to poisoning. The totality of evidence shows that the testimony of PW2 and PW3 is trustworthy and reliable.
Defence 53 It has been argued by ld. Defence counsel that there is delay in lodging the FIR which creates doubt on the genuineness of the present case. He has further argued that death of deceased had taken place on 21.09.2009 but the FIR was registered on 22.09.2009. He has further argued that the prosecution has not explained such considerable delay in lodging the FIR. He has further argued that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of his inlaws as they had carried out a demonstration in the Police Station along with the political party leaders. To press his contention, he has relied upon judgment in case of Ramesh Baburao Devaskar and others vs. State of Maharashtra 2007(4) Crimes 140(SC) wherein it was observed that FIR provides for a valuable piece of evidence although it may not be a substantial evidence. The reason for insisting SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 31 of 47 of lodging of FIR without undue delay is to obtain the earlier information in regard to the circumstances in which the crime had been committed. It was further observed that where parties are at loggerheads and they had been instances which resulted in death of one or the other, lodging of FIR is always considered to be vital. 54 On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that on the day of death of deceased i.e. on 21.09.2009, eye witnesses PW2 and PW3 were under the influence of accused. He has submitted that under the pressure of accused, both these witnesses in their statements dated 21.09.2009 stated that deceased consumed poison in a fit of anger. He has further submitted that when they came out of the pressure of accused on next day i.e. on 22.09.2009, PW2 Himanshu stated to police that it was the accused who administered poison to deceased. He has further argued that both these witnesses have also deposed so in the court.
55 Apparently, there is force in the contention of Ld. Addl PP for the State. Perusal of testimony of PW2 Himanshu Gupta who is the informant in the present case on whose statement Ex.PW2/A, FIR of the present case was registered, shows that he was under pressure of his father on 21.09.2009. He deposed that under the SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 32 of 47 pressure of his father i.e. accused, in the statement dated 21.09.2009, he told the police that his mother consumed insecticide due to anger. He clarified that on 22.09.2009 he again gave statement to police as his earlier statement was not true. He gave true facts to the police on 22.09.2009 which was reduced into writing as a statement Ex.PW2/A. The other eye witness of the incident PW3 Samistha has denied having stated to police that her mother consumed poison in a fit of anger. 56 I have already observed in the former part of the judgment that the testimony of both these witnesses is natural, reliable and trustworthy and also inspires confidence of the Court. So, in my considered opinion, delay in lodging FIR has properly been explained by the prosecution and the same can not be said to be fatal to the case of prosecution. Therefore, the accused cannot get any help from the judgment of Ramesh Baburao's case (supra) as the delay in lodging FIR in the present case has duly been explained.
57 So far as holding of demonstration etc. by the inlaws of accused in the police station is concerned, accused has not placed any material on record to prove the same. He was having opportunity to lead evidence to prove the said fact but he has not produced any evidence or material to probabilise his defence that he has been falsely SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 33 of 47 implicated in the present case at the instance of his inlaws. 58 The accused has also taken the defence that his wife used to remain tense as their youngest daughter Kajal was kept by his inlaws and they were not returning Kajal despite repeated request of his deceased wife. It is also his defence that due to said reason his wife consumed poison and died.
59 It has come on record that the youngest daughter of accused, namely, Kajal (PW4) remained with her maternal grand parents since her childhood. The said fact has been admitted by PW4 Kajal herself as well as by the inlaws of accused, but accused has failed to bring any material on record to show that the deceased used to remain tense due to keeping of her daughter Kajal by her parents. So, there is no force in this contention of the accused. 60 Accused has taken the plea of alibi. Ld. defence counsel has argued that at the time of consuming poison by the deceased, accused was not present at the spot and he came to the spot later on and on finding that deceased consumed some intoxicant, she was rushed to hospital by the accused. He has vehemently argued that since accused was not present at the spot at that time, he can not be fastened with the liability of murdering his wife. SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 34 of 47 61 The plea of alibi flows from Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act and is demonstrated by illustration (a). The word 'alibi' is a latin word and means "elsewhere". It is a common term used by an accused that when the occurrence took place, he was so far away from the place of occurrence and it was highly improbable for him to participate in the crime. When the prosecution succeeds in proving the commission of offence by the accused, then it is incumbent on the accused taking the plea of alibi to prove it with certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place and time of occurrence.
62 In order to prove the plea of alibi, accused has to prove that he was elsewhere and not present at the scene of crime. Accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that he had not given any insecticide to Bharti. He further stated that at the time when she consumed insecticide, he was not present at home. He came at the spot later on and on finding Bharti in intoxicating condition, he rushed her to hospital for treatment. 63 Accused opted to lead his defence evidence and examined only one witness Vaibhav (DW1). He had stated that when he reached the house of accused on 21.09.2009, he found froth coming SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 35 of 47 out from the mouth of Bharti and some vomiting was lying there. He had stated that accused was not present there rather neighbours and in laws of accused apart from Himanshu were present at the spot. 64 Witness DW1 is not an eye witness to the incident. As per his testimony itself, he came to the spot after being informed about the incident by the daughter of deceased. Accused has not produced any evidence or material to prove the plea of alibi that he was not present at the spot and that he had not given pesticide to deceased with his own hands. Rather, it has been duly established from the testimony of eye witnesses PW2 Himanshu and PW3 Samistha that on the day of incident i.e. 21.09.2009, accused gave pesticide to their mother after mixing it in water. The accused has failed to show that at that time he was present elsewhere and was not at the spot. He has even not specified the place as to where he was present at the time of incident and for what purpose he was away from home.
65 A similar situation arose before Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Dudh Nath Pandey vs State of UP reported in 1981 AIR SC 911. Facts of the said case were that accused had taken alibi that he was not present at the place of occurrence where murder SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 36 of 47 had taken place rather he was on his duty at his usual place of work. In the said case, the Trial Court as well as Hon'ble High Court had not accepted the alibi set up by the accused. Hon'ble Supreme Court was also of the view that accused had failed to establish the plea of alibi. Relevant para No. 19 of the judgment is reproduced as under : "Counsel for the appellant pressed hard upon us that the defence evidence establishes the alibi of the appellant. We think not. The evidence led by the appellant to show that at the relevant time, he was on duty at his usual place of work at Naini has a certain amount of plausibility but that is about all. The High Court and the Sessions Court have pointed out many a reason why that evidence can not be accepted as true. The appellant's colleagues at the Indian Telephone Industries made a brave bid to save his life by giving suggestion that he was at his desk at or about the time when the murder took place and further, that he was arrested from within the factory. We do not want to attribute motives to them merely because they were examined by the defence. Defence witness are entitled to equal treatment with those of the prosecution. And Court ought to overcome their traditional instinctive disbelief in defence witnesses. Quite often they tell lies but so do the prosecution witnesses. Granting that DWs 1 to 5 are right, their evidence, particularly in the light of evidence of two court witnesses, is insufficient to prove that the appellant could not have been present near the Hathi SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 37 of 47 Park at about 9.00 A.M. when the murder of Pappoo was committed. The plea of alibi postulates the physical impossibility of presence of accused at the scene of offence by reason of his presence at another place. The plea can therefore succeed only if it is shown that the accused was so far away at the relevant time that he could not be present at the place where the crime was committed. The evidence of the defence witnesses, accepting it at its face value is consistent with appellant's presence at the Naini Factory at 8.30 A.M. and at the scene of offence at 9.00 A.M. So short is the distance between the two points. The workers punch their cards when they enter the factory but when they leave the factory they do not have to punch the time of their exit. The appellant, in all probability, went to the factory at the appointed hour, left it immediately and went in search of his prey. He knew when, precisely, Pappoo would return after dropping Ranjana at the school. The appellant appears to have attempted to go back to his work but that involved the risk of the time of his reentry being punched again. That is how he was arrested at about 2.30 p.m. while he was loitering near the Panshop in front of the factory. There is no truth in the claim that he was arrested from inside the factory."
66 I have also gone through the ratio of judgment of our own Hon'ble High Court in case of Jai Singh Rawat Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2012 III AD (Delhi) 685 in which it was held that the SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 38 of 47 accused did not adduce any evidence to prove his presence at Dehradun on 05.06.1991. The accused failed to explain how and under what circumstances, he went to Dehradun and from which particular place, he was arrested and by whom. He did not show that on the day of incident, he was not present in Delhi. It was held that in the absence of any reliable evidence, the plea of alibi by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be taken on its face value.
67 In the present case, accused was having opportunity during his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. as well as at the time of leading defence evidence to show that he was not present at the spot, rather he was at such a far place that he could not have administered poison to his wife. He has not explained the place as to where he was at the time of incident and for what purpose he was away from home. This was the best possible opportunity available with the accused to explain as to why and where he was present at the time of incident. He has also not led any evidence in support of his plea of alibi. In the absence of such explanation and in the absence of any evidence, it can not be said that accused was not present at the spot at the time of commission of offence in the present case. Thus, the accused has SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 39 of 47 failed to prove that he had not committed the crime charged against him or that he was not present at the place of occurrence. Therefore, plea of alibi taken by accused appears to be false. Conclusion 68 The prosecution has successfully established that accused committed the murder of his wife Bharti Gupta. The son Himanshu Gupta (PW2) and daughter Samistha (PW3) are the eye witnesses of the incident. They have fully supported the case of prosecution that they had seen the accused giving intoxicant to their mother. From the testimony of both these eye witnesses, it has been established that on the day of incident i.e. 21.09.2009, accused gave cockroach killing pesticide to the deceased by mixing it in water. It has also been established that quarrel between accused and deceased ensued from a day prior to day of incident. It has also been established that since 20.09.2009 till the death of deceased, accused picked up quarrel with her, abused her and gave beatings to her. From the testimony of other public witnesses including Baby Kajal (PW4), another daughter of accused and deceased, it has also been established that accused was in a habit of drinking alcohol and used to pick up quarrel and beat the deceased every now and then.
SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 40 of 47 69 It has also been established on record that both the eye witnesses (PW2 & PW3) were present at the spot at the time of incident. Testimony of these witnesses was found to be reliable and trustworthy. They were not swayed away by the questions put during their cross examination by the defence. The defence has failed to put any dent to their testimony during crossexamination. 70 The eye witnesses of the present case i.e. PW2 Himanshu Gupta and PW3 Samistha are minor, but their testimony is so natural and reliable that the same inspires confidence of the court. There are minor variation in their testimony but the defence has failed to put any dent to their testimony.
71 The medical evidence also proves the fact that the deceased died due to administering of poison. From a joint reading of postmortem report and FSL report, it has been established that the deceased was administered poison. Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh vide his opinion Ex.PW15/C also opined that the deceased died due to ingestion of poison. It has already been established that it was the accused who gave cockroach killing pesticide to the deceased after mixing it in water. So, the medical evidence as well as FSL report also establishes the case of prosecution that the accused committed the SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 41 of 47 murder of his own wife by administering poison to her. 72 The testimony of eye witnesses produced by the prosecution has duly been corroborated by other public witnesses. The defence has failed to make out any case from their testimony. The defence took the plea that the public witnesses produced are interested and related to the deceased, but the defence has failed to put any dent to their testimony.
73 The defence has also taken the plea of alibi that accused was not present at the spot at the time of incident, but the accused has failed to produce any material or evidence on record to show that he was not present at the spot at the time of incident or that he was at such a far place at the time of incident that it was not possible to commit the crime of the present case. The eye witnesses have categorically deposed against the accused that he administered intoxicant to the deceased after mixing it in water. So, the plea of alibi taken by the accused appears to be false.
74 The defence has also taken other pleas and examined one witness DW1 Vaibhav, but from his statement also, defence has failed to make out that deceased herself consumed the poison. This defence witness is of no help to the accused as he was not present at SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 42 of 47 the spot at the time of incident.
75 From the totality of circumstances and the evidence led by the prosecution, the prosecution has succeeded to establish the guilt of the accused within the four corners. Consequently, accused Vikas Gupta @ Bobby is hereby held guilty for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC and convicted thereunder.
Announced in the open Court ( P.S. TEJI )
Dated: 17.07.2012 District Judge and
Addl. Sessions Judge, I/C (East)
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 43 of 47
IN THE COURT OF SHRI P.S. TEJI : DISTRICT JUDGE &
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, I/C (EAST) : KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI.
SC No.04/2010
Unique Case ID No.02402R0368432009
FIR No.462/2009
Police Station Mandawali
Under Section 302 IPC
State Versus Vikas Gupta @ Bobby
S/o Raghubar Dayal Gupta
R/o B52, Flat No. 16, Gali No.5,
Mandawali, Fazal Pur, Delhi.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Vide my judgment dated 17.07.2012, I have
convicted Vikas Gupta @ Bobby for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
2 I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. counsel for the convict on the point of sentence. 3 The learned Addl. PP has argued that convict has SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 44 of 47 committed serious crime of murder of his own wife. It is further submitted that the convict was a habitual drunkard and he used pick up quarrel with his wife and children on petty matters. It is submitted that he also used to give beatings to his wife and prior to committing murder of his wife by administering poison to her, convict had continued beating his wife for whole night. It is further argued that since convict has committed murder of his own wife, he does not deserve any leniency, therefore, maximum punishment provided under the law may be awarded to the convict.
4 On the other hand, learned counsel for convict Vikas Gupta @ Bobby has submitted that convict is 38 years of age, having three children and old parents to support. It is further submitted that he is the sole bread earner in his family and entire family is dependent upon him. It is submitted that convict does not have any previous criminal record. It is prayed that keeping in view age and familial circumstances of the convict, a lenient view may be taken while awarding sentence to them.
5 In a case under section 302 IPC, Court has to SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 45 of 47 make a choice between capital punishment and imprisonment for life. In order to award capital punishment, crime must have been committed in extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse extreme indignation of the community and it must be rarest of rare case as held in Machhhi Singh vs. State of Punjab 1983(3) SCC 470. However, in the present case, convict has committed murder of his wife by administering poison to her and thereafter he himself had taken her to hospital along with his father in law and other family members. Convict has no previous criminal record; is sole bread earner of his family consisting of children and old aged parents. He is 38 years of age. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that this case does not qualify the notoriety of being rarest of rare cases.
6 Accordingly, convict, namely, Vikas Gupta @ Bobby is hereby awarded sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the convict shall further undergo SI for six months.
SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 46 of 47 7 The convict shall be entitled for the benefit as per the provisions of Section 428 Cr. PC. Copies of the judgment and order on sentence be given free of cost to the convict.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court ( P.S. TEJI )
Dated: 20.07.2012 District Judge and
Addl. Sessions Judge, I/C (East)
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
SC No.04/2010 State Vs. Vikas Gupta @ Bobby Page 47 of 47