Delhi District Court
State vs . Chander Singh on 11 September, 2017
SC/44333/15
State Vs. Chander Singh
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK JAGOTRA,
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
SC/44333/15
CNR No. DLNE010000402011
State Versus Chander Singh
S/o Late Shri Kishan Lal
R/o H.No.B6/2, Gali No.3,
Vijay Colony, 3rd Pusta,
New Usmanpur, Delhi
FIR No.112/11
PS New Usmanpur
under Section 302 IPC
Date of institution of case : 06072011
Date of reserving the case for Judgement : 29082017
Date of passing of Judgment : 06092017
JUDGMENT
1. This is a case filed on behalf of State whereby prosecution is seeking conviction of accused Chander Singh S/o Late Shri Kishan Lal, who had allegedly committed murder of his grand daughter in law Smt. Farah for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian FIR No.112/11 State Vs. Chander Singh Page No. 1 /25 PS New Usmanpur under Section 302 IPC SC/44333/15 State Vs. Chander Singh Penal Code.
2. I have heard both the sides and meticulously gone through the record of the case.
3. Learned Chief Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Chander Singh and further prays that accused may be convicted for the offence charged against him.
4. On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the accused Chander Singh that he has been falsely implicated in this case and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and further prays for the acquittal of the accused Chander Singh.
5. The facts of the case in concise format are that on 1103 2011 at about 11 pm at House No.D6/2, Gali No.3, Vijay Colony, 3 rd Pusta, Delhi, accused Chander Singh had allegedly committed murder of Smt. Farha, his grand daughter in law by intentionally killing her by pouring kerosene oil on her and set her on fire. FIR No.112/11 State Vs. Chander Singh Page No. 2 /25 PS New Usmanpur under Section 302 IPC SC/44333/15 State Vs. Chander Singh
6. The detailed facts of the case shall be appreciated at the relevant stages of the judgment.
7. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to recapitulate the sequence of events which are as under;
8. The present case has been committed for trial and the Challan was received by the Court on 06072011. Charge was framed in this case on 01082011. Thereafter, amended charge was framed on 14032017. The accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial for the offence charged against him.
9. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses.
10. Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused Chander Singh was recorded on 29102015.
11. In his defence, accused has examined three witnesses.
12. The case of the prosecution rests on the foundation of a Dying Declaration of the deceased Smt. Farah which was recorded by PW4 Shri Vipin Garg, SDM, Seemapuri. He has recorded the FIR No.112/11 State Vs. Chander Singh Page No. 3 /25 PS New Usmanpur under Section 302 IPC SC/44333/15 State Vs. Chander Singh statement of the deceased at 10.05 am on 12032011. He has recorded her statement in his own handwriting which is Ex.PW4/A.
13. The deceased in her statement made to the SDM has clearly stated that "she had married to one Bobby about six months back. She had further stated that after the marriage, she started residing with her husband at their house along with her Dever, Nanad and Dadiya Sasur. She has further stated that her Dadiya Sasur used to ask her to vacate his house. She has further stated that at about 11 am, he talked about vacating his house by her and some altercation had taken place between her and her grand father in law. She has further stated that pursuant to this in anger, he went inside the kitchen and brought one can full of kerosene oil and a match box and he poured kerosene oil upon her and burnt her. At the time of burning her, her younger brother in law Nitin and sister in law were present there and at that point in time, her husband was in the toilet. Immediately thereafter, she started raising her voice and her husband came to the spot. He also raised his voice and tried to extinguish the FIR No.112/11 State Vs. Chander Singh Page No. 4 /25 PS New Usmanpur under Section 302 IPC SC/44333/15 State Vs. Chander Singh fire by pouring water. Upon this, people in the neighbourhood also came there and they tried to douse the fire due to which my husband had also received burn injuries in his hands. Thereafter, she was removed to the hospital."
14. It is a settled law that if Dying Declaration is consistent, free from anomalies can solely form the basis for establishing the guilt of the accused person. However, in order to lend assurance to the Dying Declaration, it would be appropriate to look at the corroborating evidence in support of the Dying Declaration. ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE LED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
15. From the evidence, it is transpired that Dying Declaration was made when she was conscious and oriented as recorded in the MLC dt. 11032011 wherein it has been mentioned as "patient is fit for statement on 12032011 at 1.30 am". The Dying Declaration was duly recorded by SDM at 10.05 am on 12032011 at LNJP Hospital, Delhi which is mentioned in Ex.PW4/A. FIR No.112/11 State Vs. Chander Singh Page No. 5 /25 PS New Usmanpur under Section 302 IPC SC/44333/15 State Vs. Chander Singh
16. PW4 Shri Vipin Garg, Ex.SDM, Seemapuri in his statement before the Court has also stated that victim was in a fit state of mind till the time, he recorded her statement and concluded the proceedings.
17. In his cross examination, he has stated that while he recorded the statement of the victim, no police official was present by his side and she was in a stage of "conscious".
18. Nothing material has been elicited in the cross examination of PW4 Shri Vipin Garg by the defence.
19. It could be seen that the Dying Declaration was recorded on 12032011 whereas she had expired on 20032011 at 12.21 pm which is duly recorded in the Postmortem Report Ex.PW18/A which clearly shows that she survived for about nine days after she received burn injuries.
20. For sole Dying Declaration to withstand the test of reliability, the following factors should be taken into consideration;
(a) It should be truthful. FIR No.112/11 State Vs. Chander Singh Page No. 6 /25 PS New Usmanpur under Section 302 IPC SC/44333/15 State Vs. Chander Singh (b) It should be credible. (c) It should be free from tutoring, prompting or imagination. (d) There should be no infirmity. (e) It should be made in a fit state of mind.
21. In the present case, the Dying Declaration has been duly recorded by the SDM and the deceased has given a clear account of events as to how, she was burnt alive. She has made clear indictment towards her grand father in law with whom she had a tiff with regard to vacating his house. On the fateful day when some quarrel ensued between the deceased and her grand father in law on the aforesaid issue and in a fit of anger, he brought a can of kerosene oil from kitchen and poured the same on the body of the deceased and set her on fire. There is absolutely no prompting or tutoring from any corner and she had made a consistent statement to the SDM detailing the crisp and precise consequence of events that led her to die of burn injuries. The Dying Declaration can safely be relied upon. Having said that, it would also be proper to look for corroboration in order to FIR No.112/11 State Vs. Chander Singh Page No. 7 /25 PS New Usmanpur under Section 302 IPC SC/44333/15 State Vs. Chander Singh alleviate any anomaly.
22. The first corroboration is to the fact that she was capable to speak, conscious and oriented comes from PW4 Shri Vipin Garg, SDM, who has clearly stated that on 12032011, he had recorded her statement at about 10.05 am. He has clearly stated that victim in the case was Smt. Farah W/o Shri Bobby and she was found admitted in the hospital with burn injuries. He has clearly stated that she was in a fit state of mind to make statement and proceeded to record her statement to know the cause of burn. Her statement is Ex.PW4/A. He has also stated that as per that statement, the grand father in law of the victim used to force her to vacate the house and on the date of incident, he threw/ poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire.
23. In the cross examination, it has been elicited that Smt. Farah had stated the presence of other family members inside the house at the time of incident.
24. It may be noted that none of those family members have been examined as witnesses by the defence. FIR No.112/11 State Vs. Chander Singh Page No. 8 /25 PS New Usmanpur under Section 302 IPC SC/44333/15 State Vs. Chander Singh
25. In the cross examination of PW4 Shri Vipin Garg, none of the questions have been asked which could falsify his statement or make his statement doubtful in any manner whatsoever.
26. PW12 Dr. Pravesh, Junior Resident, SDN Hospital, Delhi has also stated that he had medically examined Smt. Farah vide MLC Ex.PW12/A. He observed that there were burns all over her body and there was no history of loss of consciousness/ seizure/ENT bleeding/ vomiting. He has clearly stated that patient was found conscious and oriented.
27. In the cross examination, he has reiterated that the victim was in a condition to speak and answer questions when he had prepared the MLC.
28. The defence has completely failed to discredit the witness in any manner.
29. PW6 Smt. Pappo, mother of deceased Farah has also stated that she had seen and found Farah with burn injuries on her body by then she was conscious. The accused being the great grand FIR No.112/11 State Vs. Chander Singh Page No. 9 /25 PS New Usmanpur under Section 302 IPC SC/44333/15 State Vs. Chander Singh father of the deceased Farah has been duly identified by PW6 Smt. Pappo in Court itself.
30. In her cross examination, it has been elicited by the witness first that she did not have any talk or conversation with Farah as she was unconscious, however, on further cross examination, she had stated that Farah got conscious the next morning by around 11 am. As Farah became conscious, she narrated to her about the incident. She has further stated in the cross examination that Farah was conscious when SDM reached GTB Hospital.
31. Furthermore, PW8 SI Satya Pal, who is the first IO of the case has also stated that Farah was seen by him with burn injuries but was in a condition capable to speak and her statement was recorded by SDM.
32. Nothing has been asked in the cross examination in order to discredit the witness on this aspect of the matter.
33. The second corroboration is that the prosecution had collected plastic can containing kerosene oil, burnt clothes of the FIR No.112/11 State Vs. Chander Singh Page No. 10 /25 PS New Usmanpur under Section 302 IPC SC/44333/15 State Vs. Chander Singh deceased, one match box along with 34 burnt match sticks and one towel from the house where deceased was residing along with her husband and grand father in law which are Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 respectively.
34. PW8 SI Satya Pal has further stated that he has noticed smell of kerosene oil in all seized articles.
35. In the cross examination, he has reiterated that Farah told him that kerosene oil Ex.P1 had been brought by her (Dadiya Sasur) from the kitchen to the scene of crime.
36. Nothing further has been elicited by the defence in order to render the witness unworthy of credence.
37. The third corroboration comes from PW12 Dr. Pravesh, Junior Resident, SDN Hospital, Delhi, who has stated that on 1103 2011, Farah was brought before him by her husband for her medical examination with the alleged history of burn at her house. The MLC prepared by PW12 Dr. Pravesh is Ex.PW12/A. As per MLC, there were burns all over the body of Farah.
FIR No.112/11 State Vs. Chander Singh Page No. 11 /25 PS New Usmanpur under Section 302 IPC SC/44333/15 State Vs. Chander Singh
38. PW16 Shri Danvir Singh, Record Clerk, LNJP Hospital, New Delhi has proved that Dr. Siddharth had made an endorsement on the MLC Ex.PW12/A that the patient was fit for statement at 1.30 am on 12032011. Endorsement of Dr. Siddharth is Ex.PW16/A.
39. PW18 Dr.Kulbushan Prasad, Assistant Professor, AIIMS, Delhi had conducted Postmortem of the deceased on 2103 2011 and had observed that total burn area was about 80% of the total body. Postmortem Report of the deceased is Ex.PW18/A.
40. Besides these witnesses, Prosecution has also examined other formal witnesses to prove as follows;
S.No. Name of witness To prove
1. PW1 HC Sattan Kumar 1. FIR Ex.PW1/A,
2. Endorsement on rukka Ex.PW1/B
2. PW2 Ct. Subodh Deposited the exhibits at FSL, Rohini
3. PW3 Ct. Manoj 1. Arrest Memo Ex.PW3/A
2. Personal Search Memo Ex.PW3/B
4. PW5 Mohd. Nazir Identified the body of deceased vide Identification
Statement Ex.PW5/A
5. PW7 Ct. Sanjay Kumar Proved negatives as Ex.PW7/1 to Ex.PW7/8 and
photographs as Ex.PW7/9 to Ex.PW7/16
6. PW9 SI U. Balashankaram Prepared report on the basis of articles and scene of FIR No.112/11 State Vs. Chander Singh Page No. 12 /25 PS New Usmanpur under Section 302 IPC SC/44333/15 State Vs. Chander Singh crime Ex.PW9/A
7. PW10 SI Mukesh Jain Prepared scaled site plan of the spot Ex.PW10/A
8. PW11 Ct. Ajay Kumar Seizure Memo of clothes seized from spot Ex.PW8/C
9. PW13 HC Satish, MHCM 1. Proved Entry No.1873 in Register No.19 as Ex.PW13/A
2. Proved Entry No.1891 in Register No.19 as Ex.PW13/B
3. Copy of RC No.40/21 and acknowledgement slip Ex.PW13/C
10. PW14 Inspector Ratan Pal Filed FSL Report Ex.PW14/A and Chargesheet
11. PW15 HC Nardev Singh Proved DD entry Ex.PW8/A
41. The FSL Report is proved by PW17 Shri S. Sudhakar, Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL, Kolkata and this Report shall be discussed in the later part of the judgment. ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE LED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED
42. Statement of accused Chander Singh under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and he wished to lead evidence on his behalf.
43. In his defence, accused has examined three witnesses namely Shri Mangat Ram as DW1, Smt. Kajal as DW2 and Shri Sonu Agnihotri, learned ADJ, Saket Courts, New Delhi as DW3.
44. DW1 Shri Mangat Ram had stated that on 11032011 at FIR No.112/11 State Vs. Chander Singh Page No. 13 /25 PS New Usmanpur under Section 302 IPC SC/44333/15 State Vs. Chander Singh about 1010.30 pm, accused and he, both were taking a walk and they returned after about 45 minutes when they found out that crowd had gathered there and people were throwing water as there was fire in the house of accused Chander Singh. He has further stated that accused became unconscious and fell down on the ground.
45. The statement made by DW1 Shri Mangat Ram has got no legs to stand for the simple reason that the statement is itself self contradictory when he says that they used to go for a walk in the evening whereas according to him they had gone for a walk at about 1010.30 pm when it is a dinner time or people have just finished their dinner. Reasonably speaking by evening it means around about 5 pm to 7 pm and it cannot be construed as 1010.30 pm. Moreover, he does not say as to how once accused fell down, was taken to the house and who had taken him. He has also not made any complaint to the police that he was not examined by the IO at the relevant point in time or he was declined by the IO. It appears that witness being friend of accused Chander Singh may be helping him out of the present case. FIR No.112/11 State Vs. Chander Singh Page No. 14 /25 PS New Usmanpur under Section 302 IPC SC/44333/15 State Vs. Chander Singh
46. DW2 Smt. Kajal W/o Shri Rajesh Gautam has been examined, who had stated that on 11032011 at about 11 pm, she along with her bhabhi Farah were present in the house and at that time, her elder brother Vipin @ Bobby was in the bathroom. She further stated that her grand father namely Chander Singh was not present in the house at that time. She further stated that her sister in law Farah had set herself on fire and at that time, she was present there. In the mean time, her brother came out of the bath room. She along with her brother had extinguished the fire. She further stated that the deceased was putting pressure upon her grand father to transfer his property in her name but her grand father refused to do the same and her bhabhi extended threats if the property would not be transferred in her name, she would falsely implicate her grand father. She further stated that on 19052011, her statement was recorded by learned MM and she had narrated the entire true and correct facts before learned MM. Her statement recorded before learned MM is Ex.DW2/A bearing her signatures at points A and B. FIR No.112/11 State Vs. Chander Singh Page No. 15 /25 PS New Usmanpur under Section 302 IPC SC/44333/15 State Vs. Chander Singh
47. The starting lines of statement of DW2 made before learned MM clears the cloud if she was present at the exact time when the incident happened is clear from the fact that she stated that "she was lying in her room, then all of a sudden, she had heard the shrieks of her bhabhi. She saw outside and saw that her bhabhi was on fire."
48. From the above, it is amply clear that she was not a witness to the actual happening of the crime. At the time of the incident, she was lying in her bed and was not present when the incident had happened. She had nowhere stated that her grandfather had gone out for a walk with one Mangat Ram. She only stated that her grand father fell down due to dizziness. This itself shows the presence of accused in the house itself and not outside as stated by DW1.
ANALYSIS OF DEFENCES RAISED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED
49. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for accused has stressed that both PW17 Shri S. Sudhakar, Senior FIR No.112/11 State Vs. Chander Singh Page No. 16 /25 PS New Usmanpur under Section 302 IPC SC/44333/15 State Vs. Chander Singh Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL, Kolkata and PW18 Dr. Kulbushan Prasad, Assistant Professor, AIIMS, Delhi, who had prepared FSL Report and conducted Postmortem of the deceased respectively had clearly stated that there was no smell of kerosene oil over the body of the deceased or on Ex.2 to Ex.4 which are clothes, one towel, one Salwar, one small piece of cloth, one match box and hair sample.
50. It may be noted that incident is of 11032011 and amongst all, the first one reached at the spot was IO PW8 SI Satya Pal, who while seizing the exhibits has clearly found that there was smell of kerosene oil in the burnt clothes. When the postmortem was conducted by PW18 Dr. Kulbushan Prasad naturally there would not be any smell of kerosene as those stained clothes were not before him at that point in time because the deceased was under treatment for about 10 days and by then, the smell of kerosene may have disappeared.
51. As regards, FSL Report again the FSL Report was FIR No.112/11 State Vs. Chander Singh Page No. 17 /25 PS New Usmanpur under Section 302 IPC SC/44333/15 State Vs. Chander Singh prepared after about 5 months of the incident and there is every likelihood of smell of kerosene fading off or gone.
52. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no smell of kerosene oil. The incident as stated by the Prosecution had not happened is absolutely incorrect and far fetched.
53. Learned counsel for accused has further stressed that as per Postmortem Report, the deceased had died because of Septicaemia consequent upon ante mortem flame burn injuries. Therefore, the main cause of death of deceased is not burn injuries but Septicaemia.
54. The submission made by learned counsel for accused is hard to stomach for the simple reason that burn injuries were the germane cause or main cause for triggering Septicaemia. It cannot occur in isolation or vacuum. It may be noted here that Septicaemia "occurs when chemical released in the blood stream to fight an infection, triggers inflammation through out the body. This can cause cascade of charges that damage multiple organ system leading them to fail sometimes even resulting in death." (Emphasis Supplied) FIR No.112/11 State Vs. Chander Singh Page No. 18 /25 PS New Usmanpur under Section 302 IPC SC/44333/15 State Vs. Chander Singh
55. From the above, it can easily be gathered if there are no burn injuries in the body, the same cannot trigger Septicaemia. Meaning thereby, for Septicaemia to happen, huge amount of burn injuries are sineque non. Therefore, it cannot be said that Septicaemia was the cause of death and not the burn injuries.
56. The third contention raised by learned counsel for accused is that there is serious anomaly in the statement of PW6 Smt. Pappo, who is the mother of the deceased, when she had stated that the deceased was harassed by the family members of her husband Bobby, who demanded a bike or car and Kajal and Chander Singh caught hold of her, Nitin poured kerosene oil on her and Bobby set her on fire.
57. The aforesaid statement made by PW6 Smt. Pappo is not at all worthy of any credence for the simple reason that she was not the person, who was present at the place of incident and it was merely an observation made by her on her own. At no point in time, deceased Farah had told her about the said demands.
58. The fourth contention raised herein that as per Postmortem FIR No.112/11 State Vs. Chander Singh Page No. 19 /25 PS New Usmanpur under Section 302 IPC SC/44333/15 State Vs. Chander Singh Report, some fracture was found on the skull of the deceased.
59. This shall have no serious consequence on the case because the same may have occurred because of her fall at the time of her burning.
60. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for accused has also stressed that the SDM has not obtained the signatures of the doctor on the alleged Dying Declaration. He has not attested the thumb impression, he has not obtained the signatures of her mother or any other patient or attendant on her statement and that the Dying Declaration is not in the question answer form.
61. The aforesaid submissions have got no legs to stand for the simple reason that the objections are only technical in nature. The Dying Declaration is cogent and free from any doubt or anomaly. PW4 Shri Vipin Garg, SDM in his statement has clearly stated that victim was in a fit state of mind till he recorded the said statement.
62. The defence raised herein is not at all probable within the ambit of "Preponderance of Probabilities". FIR No.112/11 State Vs. Chander Singh Page No. 20 /25 PS New Usmanpur under Section 302 IPC SC/44333/15 State Vs. Chander Singh
63. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for accused has relied upon following judgments; (1) Sharda Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2010 (1) JCC 362 (2) State of Punjab Vs. Parveen Kumar, Criminal Appeal No.633 of 1999 before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (3) Bhanwar Pal Singh Vs. The State (Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2009(4) JCC 2593 (4) Chinnamma Vs. State of Kerala, Criminal Appeal No.799 of 1997 before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (5) The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Vs. Jangili Nirmala & Another reported in II (1997) CCR 158 (DB) (6) Shaik Mahaboob Basha Vs. State of A.P. Criminal Appeal No.441 of 1999 before Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court (7) Kamal Kishore & Another Vs. State of Delhi reported in 2014 IV AD (CRI.) (DHC) 142 (8) Ami Lal & Others Vs. State of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No.689/2000 before Hon'ble Delhi High Court (9) Roop Chand Vs. The State reported in 1996 Crl. L.J. 4284
64. I am in complete agreement with the proposition of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and other Hon'ble High Courts, however, the aforesaid judgments are not at all helpful to FIR No.112/11 State Vs. Chander Singh Page No. 21 /25 PS New Usmanpur under Section 302 IPC SC/44333/15 State Vs. Chander Singh the case of the accused herein as the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid cases are absolutely distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case.
CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE
65. The case of the prosecution hinges on the Dying Declaration made by deceased Farha before the SDM. The SDM had duly recorded the statement of the deceased verbatim as told to him by the deceased. She was in a fit state of mind, conscious and oriented and was able to speak while recording her statement. The Dying Declaration is free from any anomaly prompting, tutoring or doubt. The Dying Declaration clearly states that on the day of incident, some hot words were exchanged between her and her grand father in law for the reason that she should vacate his house and in a fit of rage, he brought can of kerosene oil from the kitchen and poured kerosene oil on her body and burnt her.
66. The medical record fully supports the case of burning as her front and back portion of the body of the deceased Farah till knee FIR No.112/11 State Vs. Chander Singh Page No. 22 /25 PS New Usmanpur under Section 302 IPC SC/44333/15 State Vs. Chander Singh level was totally burnt. It is not a case where she had accidentally caught fire or she may have burnt herself. It clearly emerges from the attending facts and circumstances of the matter that she was burnt alive by her grand father in law.
67. Her case is fully supported and corroborated by other witnesses in all its material particulars.
68. The defence has miserably failed to demolish or put aside the case of the prosecution in any manner whatsoever. Various defences raised by the defence side are neither probable nor worthy of any credence.
69. It could be one's argument as to why, deceased Farah did not run away when accused went inside to fetch kerosene oil is a very relative reaction and the deceased herein may not have expected in her wildest of dreams that her own grand father in law would bring kerosene oil and set her on fire with the help of kerosene oil.
70. The fact that PW19 Shri Vipin, her husband had not spoken in her favour and was declared hostile is easily understandable FIR No.112/11 State Vs. Chander Singh Page No. 23 /25 PS New Usmanpur under Section 302 IPC SC/44333/15 State Vs. Chander Singh as being the grandson, he had no option left to him than to depose in favour of the accused. Therefore, his becoming hostile to the prosecution case is hardly of any consequence. Moreover, he was not present at the spot and was in the toilet at that particular time.
71. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused Chander Singh has raised a defence that deceased Farah used to pressurize him to get his property transferred in her name and since he never agreed, he has been implicated in this case by her parents and other family members.
72. The accused has miserably failed to substantiate his defence either by way of putting it before the material witnesses or by way of his own defence evidence. None of his family members have given any statement either to the police or before the Court that Farah was ever pressurized the accused to get his property transferred in her name. The defence has also not placed on record any title documents of the said house if the said house belongs to the accused or not. FIR No.112/11 State Vs. Chander Singh Page No. 24 /25 PS New Usmanpur under Section 302 IPC SC/44333/15 State Vs. Chander Singh CONCLUSION
73. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and especially considering the Dying Declaration alone or in corroboration with other witnesses and circumstances, the only irresistible conclusion points out a guilt towards the accused Chander Singh.
74. In view of the entire conspectus of facts and circumstances of the matter, the prosecution has been successfully able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Chander Singh for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
75. The accused Chander Singh is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06th SEPTEMBER, 2017 (DEEPAK JAGOTRA) DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE NORTH EAST DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI FIR No.112/11 State Vs. Chander Singh Page No. 25 /25 PS New Usmanpur under Section 302 IPC SC/44333/15 State Vs. Chander Singh IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK JAGOTRA, DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI SC/44333/2015 State Versus Chander Singh S/o Late Shri Kishan Lal R/o H.No.B6/2, Gali No.3, Vijay Colony, 3rd Pusta, New Usmanpur, Delhi FIR No.112/11 PS New Usmanpur under Section 302 IPC Date of institution of case : 06072011 Reserved for order on sentence on : 11092017 Date of passing of order : 11092017 ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. I have heard learned counsel for the convict and learned Chief Public Prosecutor for the State on the point of sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Learned counsel for the convict has submitted that convict FIR No.112/11 State Vs. Chander Singh Page No. 26 /25 PS New Usmanpur under Section 302 IPC SC/44333/15 State Vs. Chander Singh is an old man of 80 years and he has no criminal record and previous conviction in any case. Learned counsel for the convict prayed for a lenient view while awarding sentence to the convict.
3. On the other hand, learned Chief Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that convict deserves no leniency as he has committed murder of his grand daughter in law by burning her alive and convict may be dealt with stern hands.
4. It is trite that while considering the matter on the point of sentence, the retribution, reformation and correction of the convict must be kept in mind. Every endeavour shall be made that once a person has committed certain offence, he may be allowed to correct himself and become productive and proactive citizen of the country. No doubt at times correcting oneself is the best way out. At the same time, as the human being has progressed, the crime has also progressed side by side. It also cast a burden on the Courts to have deterrence effect on the citizens, so that they may not deviate from the path of righteousness and choose a path which is not only detrimental FIR No.112/11 State Vs. Chander Singh Page No. 27 /25 PS New Usmanpur under Section 302 IPC SC/44333/15 State Vs. Chander Singh to himself but his family as well. The illaction of the convict not only leaves an indelible scar on the victim's family but to some extent, he also puts his own family into lot of trouble.
5. No universal fixed rule can be applied while sentencing a person for an offence. The entire conspectus of facts and circumstances shall be pressed into consideration while awarding the sentence.
6. In the present case, the convict has committed murder of his grand daughter in law by burning her alive. In Indian Society, the relationship of grand daughter in law and grand father in law is very revered and pious. The grand father in laws love their grand daughter in laws more than their own daughters. The present convict has done exact opposite to the said norm. Instead of taking care of his grand daughter in law and making her comfortable to the fullest extent, he had indulged himself in smothering the life which has yet to blossom in the house. The convict has committed such a crime at this last stage of his life when he should have been a role modal for his grand FIR No.112/11 State Vs. Chander Singh Page No. 28 /25 PS New Usmanpur under Section 302 IPC SC/44333/15 State Vs. Chander Singh children and the society. For such an offence, he deserves no leniency and deserves appropriate punishment. Such like incidents are happening day in and day out and the law has to deal with them with some stern hands.
7. In view of the foregoing reasons and discussion, convict Chander Singh is sentenced life imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000/ (Twenty Thousand) and in default thereof, convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
8. Convict shall be entitled to benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C., if applicable.
9. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11th SEPTEMBER, 2017 (DEEPAK JAGOTRA) DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE NORTH EAST DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI FIR No.112/11 State Vs. Chander Singh Page No. 29 /25 PS New Usmanpur under Section 302 IPC