Delhi District Court
State vs Mahender Singh on 16 March, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF RAJIV MEHRA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: DELHI.
S.C. No.45/05
FIR No.553/04
P.S. Timarpur
Under Section 302 IPC
State
VERSUS
Mahender Singh
S/o Sh. Mohan Singh,
R/o H.No.2818, Gali No.70,
B Block, Sant Nagar,
Delhi.
Date of hearing the Arguments : 9.3.2007
Date of passing the Judgment : 16.3.2007
JUDGMENT
On the intervening night of 28/29.11.2004 H.No.2818 in Gali No.70, B Block, Sant Nagar, Buradi, Delhi was a mute 2 witness to a ghasty crime in which Smt. Bharti W/o Diwan Singh complainant in this case aged about 24 years mother of the two small kids was subjected to a brutal multiple assault by a sharp edged weapon as a result she died same night.
The information of the incident was reported to the police station Timarpur and was recorded as DD No.5A. The message was conveyed on wireless. SI Arvind along with Ct. Joseph, ASI Ramesh and Ct. Satyavir reached the spot. SHO Inspector Bir Sigh with the staff followed them soon after. On the ground floor of the house one dead body of a lady was seen in the room after entry in the house having multiple sharp edge wounds on her face, neck, leg and thighs. The clothes of the lady were soaked with blood. One bed was lying in the said room beside other household articles and bed sheet on the bed was soaked with blood. There was one more room in the inside portion and in that room one bed of 6 x 4 was lying and a lot of blood was on the bed sheet and mattress on that bed. Few broken green and orange colour bangles were scattered on the bed and in the left side of that room one tin kanaster was kept and led of the same was found forcibly lifted. Kanaster was locked. In that 3 room cigarette buds were lying near kanaster and bed side.
2. Dead body was disclosed to be of Bharti. Her husband Diwan Singh was present there along with his parents. Diwan Sigh made his statement to the police. In that statement it was disclosed by him that he is working as a waiter in a banquet hall at Vijay Nagar and have no fixed hours of duty and most of the time he does night duty for which he leaves the house around 2-3 pm and comes in the night after finishing of the work. On the date of the incident he had gone to his duty at 9.30 am and returned at 3.00/3.15 midnight. On coming back he saw that gate of his portion was open and when he entered inside the house he found his wife lying in the pool of blood on the floor and her salwar was towards downside. He tide the string of her salwar and tried to move her and also called his parents who came there immediately and he also informed the police at No.100. At that point of time Bharti was breathing at a slow pace. She was given water to drink by his father. He made inquiry from her and in reply Bharti told him that 'Munia had come' and after that she breathed her last. He disclosed that 4 Mania is the nick name of his younger brother Mahender who was 25-26 years of age and is unmarried and from last 3-4 months he was unemployed and was in the habit of drinking. He was not present in the house. The complainant suspected that his brother has committed the crime because he was seen at about 1.00 am by the neighbors entering in his portion. In this complaint it was stated by the complainant that his wife used to keep her cash and silver ornaments and one small gold chain in the tin kanaster and these items were missing but other ornaments on the body of the deceased were intact.
3. This statement was recorded and IO made his endorsement on the same and Ct. Satbir was sent for registration of the case. Senior officers were informed through special messenger. Crime team was called and developed three chance prints from the spot from a glass tumbler. In the course of the investigation IO collected all the incriminating articles including glass tumbler beside collecting earth control, blood stain earth and blood sample.
5
4. Dead body was shifted to mortuary for postmortem. In postmortem of the dead body ten injuries were reported. Cause of death was given as hemorrhagic shock consequent upon excessive hemorrhage from neck injury combined with the liver injury. All the injuries were reported to be antemortem caused by Sharp, cutting penetrating weapon. In autopsy report injuries were reported on face, neck, chest, hands, thighs and private parts of the deceased.
5. Accused was arrested same day on 29.11.2004 in the evening hours from 'Y' point, Hardev Nagar, Delhi in the presence of complainant Diwan Singh and public witness Kuldip Singh. The clothes which he was wearing was found having blood stains. His jacket, shirt jean pant, baniyan and underwear were seized. From the pocket of his jacket a cash amount of Rs.5950 one gold chain, one pair of pajeb and five kadas were recovered and these ornaments were identified by Diwan Singh as of his wife. Accused also got recovered a knife having blood stains from a vacant plot opposite H.No.31/135, Sant Nagar Area. This knife was sent to the autopsy surgeon and he 6 submitted his report that possibility of the injuries on the person of the deceased from this weapon or from the similar kind of weapon cannot be ruled out.
6. The exhibits were sent to the FSL and as per the report of the FSL the stains of 'O' blood group was present on the shirt, baniyan, underwear of the accused and also on the weapon which was got recovered by the accused and the blood of the same group was found on the bed sheet, mattresses and clothes of the deceased. As per the report of the finger print bureau one of the chance prints lifted from the spot match to the finger print impression of the accused.
7. After completing the investigation charge sheet was filed under Section 302 IPC. Vide order dated 19.5.2005 charge was framed under Section 302/380/411 IPC. Accused denied the charge.
8. To prove its case prosecution has examined 25 witnesses. They may be put into three categories. The first 7 category of the witnesses includes the husband of the deceased who is the complainant in this case and his parents who were examined as PW4, 6 and 7. The other set of witnesses includes the last seen witness Smt. Murshida examined as PW5, PW1 Manohar Lal father of the deceased and PW2 Kuldip Singh public witness to the arrest of the accused and recovery of the cash, ornaments and knife from him and at his instance. The other category of the witnesses includes PW11 Dr. K. Goel who had conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body and police officers including IO Inspector Bir Singh examined as PW25.
9. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC accused has taken up a plea of alibi. According to him on 29.11.2004 he returned from his Village Almoda and when he returned and reached near Hardev Nagar he found police and was apprehended and was brought to his house where he was disclosed about the killing of his Bhabhi. According to him he was given water to drink and inquiry was made from him. He was threatened that if he would accept the blame only then his 8 parents would be let off who were at PS at that point of time. According to him he was taken to the room of his brother where blood was lying at the floor where he was asked to dip his hands and after that impression of that blood stains were put on his clothes. He denied of any recovery at his instance and denied that any knife was recovered at his instance. He pleaded his innocence.
10. Accused did not examine any witness in defence.
11. To the discomfiture of the case of the prosecution their main witnesses including complainant, his parents and the last seen witness have left their support and they were declared hostile. In his testimony complainant Diwan Singh appearing as PW4 while admitting that he made complaint Ex.PW4/A to the police which bear his signatures has stated in reply to the question put to him in cross examination by the defence counsel that it was not read over to him. While admitting in his examination in chief that Munia is the nick name of the accused, he has denied that his wife has told him of his return from job 9 when he found her in injured condition that Munia had come.
12. PW5 Smt. Murshida was the witness to the case of the prosecution to prove the fact that accused was last seen by her entering in the midnight in the portion of the house of the deceased. In witness box she has become completely hostile. Similarly PW6 Mohan Singh father of the complainant while admitting in his examination in chief that he had come over to the spot when called by the complainant and further admitting that accused was present at that point of time has taken a complete U turn in cross examination by the defence counsel admitting his suggestion that accused was not present in the house from last one week before the incident and he had gone to Almoda.
13. The defence counsel submits there is no eye witness of the case. The witnesses to the circumstances are not supporting the case of the prosecution and as such prosecution would be deemed to have failed to prove the case against the accused and accused would be acquitted of the charges against 10 him.
14. An examination of the entire record would show that following facts remain uncontroverted:-
(i) Time of the incident which as per the prosecution case was in between 1.00 am to 3.00 am on the intervening night of 28/29.11.2004 and the place of the occurrence being H.No.2818, Gali No.70, B Block, Sant Nagar, Delhi.
(ii) Death of Bharti was not normal and it was homicidal death. As per Postmortem report Ex.PW11/B the death was due to hemorrhagic shock consequent upon excessive hemorrhage from neck injury combined with the lever injury and in the opinion of the doctor K. Goel examined as PW11 who conducted the postmortem all the injuries were antemotem caused by sharp, cutting penetrating flat or straight weapon by other party and cut throat 11 injury according to him was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
(iii) The accused is the real brother of the complainant;
(iv) That accused was living in the adjoining interconnected house as deposed by PW4.
(v) Accused was not present in the house since after the incident till the time of his arrest after about 13 hours as deposed by PW2 and PW4.
(vi) Accused was jobless from last 3-4 months prior to the incident as deposed by PW4 and PW6.
15. The prosecution has relied upon the following other factors against the accused:-
(i) FIR is by name against the accused; (ii) The matching of his finger prints with the chance
prints lifted from a transparent glass at the spot and confirmed by the report of Finger Print Bureau proved as Ex.PW25/F;
(iii) The missing of cash and ornaments of the deceased 12 kept in a tin kanaster in the inside room of the house of the deceased as stated in complaint Ex.PW4/A;
(iv) The recovery of the cash amount of Rs.5950/- and ornaments of the deceased from the accused in the presence of PW2 Kuldip Singh on his arrest from his possession;
(v) The presence of the blood stain marks on the clothes of the accused as seen by PW2 who was a witness to the same;
(vi) The matching of the blood stain of 'O' Group on the clothes of the accused and also on the clothes of the deceased as confirmed by the FSL report Ex.PW25/E;
(vii) The recovery of the blood stained knife at the instance of the accused;
(viii) The opinion of the postmortem doctor
examined as PW11 that the possibility of the use
of the said knife or the similar other like weapon in causing the injuries to the deceased in his report Ex.PW11/D;
13
(ix) The presence of the blood stain of the 'O' blood group on the said knife proved by FSL report Ex.PW25/E;
16. According to the APP even if the witnesses are not supporting to the case of the prosecution completely still from the statements made by them in their depositions coupled with the aforesaid incriminating circumstances conclusively prove the case of the prosecution that accused is the person committing the offence and this is further fortified by his own conduct of disappearing by the accused from the spot subsequent to the commission of the offence till the time of his arrest. According to the APP the recovery of the articles of the deceased and recovery of the knife has been witnessed by independent public witness PW2 Kuldip who has supported the prosecution case. According to him other witnesses who have turned hostile are the family members of the accused and the neighbour and even if they are trying to shied the accused, the presence of the FSL report and the finger print bureau report would be sufficient to hold the accused guilty for the offence.
17. PW4 Diwan Singh is the author of the FIR. In his 14 examination in chief he has admitted that he made the complaint Ex.PW4/A. He has admitted his signatures on that complaint. From this complaint the IO had prepared the rukka and got the FIR registered. PW4 however, has denied in the witness box that his wife had ever told him that 'Munia had come.
18. According to the defence counsel PW4 was declared hostile and admission on his part that Ex.PW4/A was made by him is of no help to the prosecution after the denial of this witness of having told anything to him about the name of the accused by his wife. According to the defence counsel FIR was recorded in ante time.
19. So far as first part of the submission of the defence counsel is concerned it is no need to repeat that even the part of the statement of the witness who has been declared hostile by the state can be utilized by the prosecution for its benefit.
20. So far as contention of the defecne counsel that FIR was recorded ante time, it may be seen that it was recorded by 15 PW3 ASI Chander Pal who was working as duty officer in the police station. According to PW3 FIR of this case was recorded by him at 4.45 am of receiving of rukka by Ct. Satbir. However, according to the defence counsel the FIR is ante time in view of the absence of the details in DD No.6A which was the entry by which PW3 had initiated writing the FIR. In support of his contention he has relied upon a judgment reported in the matter of Vijay @ Brij Mohan V. State 19 (1981) Delhi Law Times (SN) 28 .
21. In the present case DD No.6A Ex.PW3/A does not bear the material details. It may also be seen on a careful examination of Ex.PW8/A which is the report of the crime mobile team that against the column of property stolen it has been written as not known. Crime team as per the rukka Ex.PW25/A was called after recording of the statement Ex.PW4/A of the complainant. In his statement Ex.PW4/A complainant had mentioned that his wife was keeping some cash amount, silver ornaments and gold chain in a tin kanaster which were now missing. If this statement was available through complaint Ex.PW4/A prior to the coming of the crime team at 16 the spot then answer to the column in the crime report Ex.PW8/A would have been a different answer against this column. The doubt to the time of writing of the FIR not being 4.45 am as told by PW3 also arises from the fact that in copy of the FIR dispatched to the Magistrate the time of 2.00 pm has been recorded when it was seen by him. This delay accordingly would raises a serious doubt if the FIR was recorded at 4.45 am as deposed by PW3 ASI Chander Pal. The motorcycle rider who had delivered the special reports was examined as PW16 and he does not give the time when the same was delivered by him to the Magistrate. Accordingly in view of this position the contention of the defence in this regard that FIR is ante time cannot be lightly brushed aside.
22. However, despite all the above said discrepancies regarding the actual time of recording of the FIR, it may be safely presumed that it was recorded prior to the arrest of the accused. The copy of the FIR dispatched to the Magistrate bear his endorsement of having seen the same at 2.00 pm. The brief facts giving details of the case submitting alongwith the 17 postmortem were also haded over to PW11. Dr. K. Goel when he conducted the postmortem at 2.00 pm on 29.11.2004 in which the name of the accused was mentioned as the suspect in the case. The arrest of the accused as per the deposition of PW2 and PW4 was made at 5.45 pm on 29.11.2004 and this fact has not been challenged in cross examination of these witnesses nor in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC accused has made a challenge to the time of his arrest as put forward by the police. So from all these documentary and ocular evidence it is established beyond doubt that FIR howsoever late, it may be, was a document coming into existence prior to the arrest of the accused and appearing of his name in the FIR would be considered a strong circumstance against him.
23. While appreciating the evidence of PW4 the factor of his relationship with the accused cannot be done away. Accused is the real brother of this witness. He has already lost his wife and now if he makes a statement unfavouring to the accused, accused would also be in jail. A close scrutiny of the statement of PW4 shows that no challenge has been put by the defence that 18 complainant did not make Ex.PW4/A to the police. His only defence is that contents of the complaint were not read over to the witness. This statement Ex.PW4/A was the first statement of the complainant after the incident made by him to the police. There is a little likelihood that witness would take the name of the accused who is the real brother of him and living in the same house unless having been so told. It is nowhere the case of the defence that due to some other motive or enmity his name was taken by the witness. PW4 is now trying to shield his brother. The swing in emotions after passing of time may change the testimony of a witness but the same cannot change the contents of the documents. This is an old saying that witness may tell lie but not the documents.
24. The appearance of the name of the accused in the FIR made on the complaint of his own brother without there being any other reason is a strong circumstance against him. The turning of the complainant hostile in the witness box would hardly effect the veracity about this circumstance against the accused.
19
25. In the course of the trial the accused has taken up a plea of alibi. According to his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, on 29.11.2004 he had returned from his village Almoda. His father Mohan Singh appearing as PW6 was given suggestion in cross examination by the defence and admitted by him that accused was disturbed and for that reason from last one week before the incident he had gone to Almoda. This witness however in his examination in chief has made a positive statement about the presence of the accused in the house by testifying that Mahender was also present with him when he came to the room of Bharti and in cross examination by APP also admitted that police had arrived to his house within 15 minutes of call and at that point of time except Mahender all other members were present in the house.
26. According to APP if the statement of PW6 regarding the presence of the accused in the house at the time of incident is considered in the light of the statement of the complainant made by him in Ex.PW4/A, this would falsify the plea of the accused 20 of his alibi. According to him in statement Ex.PW4/A it was stated by the complainant that accused was not present in the house at that point of time and nowhere it was stated by him that he was not present in the house from last about one week.
27. The plea of alibi taken up by the accused is only to be rejected. There are more reasons than one. First of all on the law point the reason is that visit of the accused to Almoda for a period of one week before the incident was a special fact within the exclusive knowledge of the accused and as per the requirement of Section 106 Indian Evidence Act it was for the accused to prove this fact. Accused has not examined any witness in defence in support of this plea. The only assertion made by him in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC or suggestion given by him to PW6 and admitted by him in cross examination could not be taken as sufficient to discharge this burden. PW6 like PW4 is the own family member of the accused. Accused is the son of PW6.
28. Then at the same time if statement Ex. PW4/A of the 21 complainant if seen alongwith the statement of PW6 made by him in his examination in chief on this point it would only compel this Court to reject the plea of alibi so raised on the ground that it is a false plea. In statement Ex.PW4/A complainant on the point of absence of the accused in the house has stated that "(Jo Ab Ghar Par Mozud Nahi Hai)" he does not say that he was not in the house from the last one week. As admitted by PW6 himself in cross examination by the APP accused left the house when police arrived but he was there when all of them had come to the room of the deceased. So this way any defence put forward by the accused on the plea of his alibi is only to be rejected being unbelievable and false.
29. Then at the same time in support of its case the prosecution has also proved on record alongwith the other incriminating evidence the report of the finger print bureau which has been proved on record as Ex.PW25/F. The prosecution has examined PW9 HC Satyavan who was a member of the mobile crime team. In the course of his testimony PW9 has deposed that on 29.1.2004 he alongwith the 22 other members of the mobile team had come to the spot and number of articles were lying scattered in the room. According to this witness three chance prints Q1, Q2 and Q3 were lifted from a transparent glass lying there alongwith the other articles by using grey powder. There is no cross examination of PW9 that on that day no such chance prints were lifted by the witness. The witness has proved his report as Ex.PW9/A. He was also shown the glass Ex.P1 from which he lifted the chance prints. There is no suggestion to PW9 that this is a maneuvered report and he had never made any visit to the spot and lifted any such chance prints. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the report of PW9, his statement and also to the report of finger print bureau proved as Ex.P25/F which support the case of the prosecution on the point on the presence of the accused at the spot at the time of occurrence.
30. So far as statement of PW5 Smt. Murshida Begum is concerned she was a witness to the case of the prosecution of having seen the accused going to the room of the deceased on that fateful night. She is the witness to the fact of last seen of 23 the accused about his moving to the room of the deceased. No support from the testimony of this witness to the prosecution case would hardly effect the veracity of the prosecution case in any manner. Her not supporting the prosecution case would not break the chain of the evidence in view of background that accused and the deceased were living in the adjoining houses. So the fact of his presence near the place of occurrence was not dependent upon the sole testimony of PW5 alone. PW4 in his examination in chief has deposed that this houses were interconnected. The plea of alibi taken up by the accused has not been found believable. Accused admittedly was not at the spot after the arrival of the police and his conduct of disappearance from the spot by itself is a circumstance against him.
31. So far as the question of arrest and recovery is concerned the arrest of the accused has been proved by PW2 and PW4. Accused himself has admitted his arrest by the police. The only denial is on the fact of recovery of cash amount, silver ornaments, gold chain, blood stain clothes and recovery of knife at his instance from vacant plot opposite H.No.31/135, Sant 24 Nagar area. According to PW2 accused went inside the bushes and brought out one knife and blade of the same was having blood stains. PW2 through out being supportive to the case of the prosecution on the point of recovery, presence of blood stains on the clothes which accused was wearing at the time of his arrest and also to the recovery of knife at his instance. The clothes of the accused were sent to the FSL and report of the FSL proved as Ex.PW25/E confirmed that blood was found on the clothes of the accused was of the same 'O' blood group which was also found on the clothes of the deceased and other incriminating articles in the room where the dead body was lying . Even on the knife blood of 'O' group was detected. The knife was examined by Dr. K. Goel and he has submitted his report as Ex.PW11/D and as per the opinion of the doctor all injuries no.1 to 10 mentioned in the postmortem report on the body of Mrs. Bharti Wife of Diwan Singh are possible by this weapon or by similar such type of weapon. PW4 has given no support to the prosecution story on this point but that in no way would adversely effect the case of the prosecution in view of the support given to it by the independent public witnesses. There is 25 no reason not to believe the testimony of PW2 Kuldip Singh.
32. According to the defence counsel it would be difficult to believe that accused would continue to wear the same clothes upto the time of his arrest. According to him as per own case of the prosecution accused was arrested after 13 hours of the crime and he had sufficient opportunity to change the clothes. This contention is however, to be examined in the light of the statement of the witnesses, particularly PW6 that police had arrived to the spot within 15 minutes after report and accused before that was there but not after that. The time of 13 hours in arrest of accused in same clothes cannot be considered by any stretch such a long time that it would make case of the prosecution unbelievable on this point. There is not much time gap between the crime and arrival of the police. The accused left the house on having seen the police. His arrest is of the same day in the same clothes. The statement of PW2 Kuldip Kumar inspires confidence and there is no reason to doubt the same.
33. Lastly it was argued by the defence counsel that there 26 is no reason with the accused to kill the deceased. It may be seen from the allegations in the complaint which have been steadfast by the complainant in his testimony before the court that when he entered the house the clothes of the deceased were disturbed. Her salwar was down. This part of testimony of the complainant gives enough reason to presume that the possibility of the reason of the assault was the monstrous urge of his lust which made him to forget even the sanctity of his relationship with deceased.
34. Even though the witnesses being neighbour and family members of the accused have been trying to shield him by making their statement unfavourable to the prosecution but still there is sufficient circumstance against him on the record including his finger print impression on glass tumbler and recovery of incriminating articles, his blood stained clothes and blood stained knife having blood stain of the blood group of deceased, on consideration of which it would lead to no other conclusion except that accused is the person behind the crime. The own conduct of the accused of disappearing from the spot 27 and taking up of a plea of alibi which has been found false further support the prosecution case in this regard.
35. The defence counsel has also placed reliance upon Mohd. Shafi V. State 37 (1989) Delhi Law Times 406 where it was held by our own High Court that motive of the crime not established, FIR not recorded at the time indicted in it and special report was sent to the Ilaka Magistrate a day later and inquest papers alognwith other connected papers were sent next day. Attempt was made by the prosecution to produce false witnesses and on having considered the order of conviction was converted into acquittal holding that prosecution has not established time facts of the crime. However, facts of the present case are quite different to that case and this judgment has no application of facts to the case in hand.
36. Similarly the judgment relied upon by the defence counsel in the matter of Hargovandas Devrajbhai Patel & Ors. V. State of Gujarat 1997 (4) Crimes 283 (SC) was a judgment in which the conviction was set aside holding that the evidence 28 on record does not support the case of the prosecution and this case was repeating the preposition of law that in murder case based on circumstantial evidence, circumstance from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully proved.
37. While there is no dispute to the legal preposition as laid down in the aforesaid judgment it is to be held that in the present case prosecution has been successfully able to bring on record the circumstance against the accused proving his guilt beyond doubt.
38. The defence has also relied upon the judgment reported in the matter of Balbir Singh & Anr. V. State of Punjab 1997 (1) C.C. Cases 136 (SC) where it was held that footprints was not conclusive evidence to establish the complicity of the accused in the crime for the reason of absence of any identity mark on the articles recovered to connect the accused with the crime was considered a weak evidence. However, on fact situation the case in hand differs from this judgment. The counsel for the accused has also relied upon 29 State of Gujrat V. Rasulmiyan Ahmedmiyan Malek & Ors. 1991 (2) C.C. Cases 1 (SC) where it was held that where two reasonable views are possible, one which is more favourbale to the accused be accepted. There is no dispute to this well settled preposition which has a long established history, still in view of the facts of the present case such conclusion is not borne out from the material on record. No two views are possible in the present case. Accused is the person behind the crime. He was living in the same house. He was present in the house. The plea of his alibi is false and his conduct of disappearing from the spot are the strong factors beside other incriminating material discussed above conclusively link up all the connections and prove the guilt of the accused. He is held guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and also for offence under Section 380 IPC and is convicted accordingly on both these counts. Order is made accordingly.
Dictated and announced in the open Court on 16.3.2007.
( RAJIV MEHRA ) 30 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: DELHI.
31
"!$#% "#&#&' ( # ) +* +,$ -. /0! 1&243"265+7 8:9&;=<?>@;
ACBED 5 7(8);F;HGI<J>K9
L 1M8ONQPSR/TVU L@W UX2
Y <[Z\8]GK>F^ B L 3"2
1)_`T\_ba c Z02 deTVfgaVhgija=Uk1gPShFljfm1K<on
denHfgTVh 1gPShFljf D <Jn ^Hp qrp
s TVtuPg5+nv2jwx>%y{z |vtunF}V~ y
1@T\hj_%5 TVlgTVUX2
( ]%
+
1. Heard the parties on the point of sentence. Convict is the real brother in law of the deceased lady. He had tried to scar her body and life by making an attempt to physical abuse her and resistance put forward by the deceased has costed her with her own life. The convict has stabbed her to death. As many as 10 injuries have been reported in the post mortem report on the different parts of the body of the deceased. Deceased was a young lady with two small kids. The incident is cutting short her life in this unfortunate way is sad and shocking. It does not speak but says a lot and leaves indelible mark where one is 32 compelled to think if one is safe even in the four walls of her house, when she is with her close relatives? It would probably be a mistake to see this incident in isolation as an individual case. The incident is not an attack on the individual body alone. It is rather an index of the declining ethical standards in the society.
2. However, since the case is not one such which is covered in the category of the rarest of the rare case, the life imprisonment is only alternative punishment to be awarded to the convict.
3. On consideration of the overall facts and circumstances, the convict is awarded life imprisonment and is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence u/s 302 IPC. In default of payment of fine he would undergo SI for a period of 6 months. For the offence u/s 380 IPC the convict is awarded RI for 3 years and is also imposed with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo SI for 3 months. Both the sentences would run 33 concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 CrPC be also given to the convict. He be given copy of the judgment and order on sentence free of cost. Order is made accordingly.
(RAJIV MEHRA) ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE:DELHI.
21.03.2007.