Delhi District Court
State vs . Vinod Kumar S/O Roshan Lal, on 24 March, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF DR. R.K. YADAV : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI :
Sessions Case No. 08/06
Date of Institution : 16.11.06
Date on which reserved for order : 15.03.08
Date of Delivery of Judgement : 17.03.08
State Vs. Vinod Kumar S/o Roshan Lal,
R/o A2/226, East Gokalpur, Amar Colony, Delhi.
FIR No. 631/05
PS Nand Nagri
U/s 302 IPC & 27 of the Arms Act.
J U D G E M E N T : In order to establish an offence of murder, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove following counts : (1) death of a human being, (2) that it was caused by the accused, (3) that the act by which the accused caused it was done : (a) with an intention of causing death, or (b) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the accused knew to be likely to cause death of a person to whom the harm was caused, or (c) with the intention of causing injury to the deceased person and the injury intended to be inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or
(d) with the knowledge that the act was so imminently dangerous that it must in all probabilities cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and committed such act without any excuse of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
2. Whether prosecution has been able to show aforesaid ingredients in the present controversy? For an answer facts gain importance. As borne out of report lodged under section 173 of the Code Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code), Ravi Kumar resides with his 2 parents at H.No. 678, Street No.8, Panchwati Colony, PS Loni, U.P. He does embroidery work on jeans pants at Karawal Nagar, Delhi. On 01.09.05 at about 9.30pm, Vinod, brotherinlaw of Ravi, reached his house. He started abusing him and his mother Sushila. Vinod was of the view that Smt. Sushila, his motherinlaw was a lady of easy virtues. After abusing him and his mother, Vinod went back to his tenanted accommodation at premises No. A2/226, West Gokalpur, Delhi. At about 10:30pm, he along with his mother Sushila, aunt Kanta and grandmother Kashmiri went to house of Puja to make her understand. At that time, Puja and Vinod met them sitting outside the house. When Sushila and Kashmiri tried to make understand Puja about behaviour of her husband, at that very moment he went inside his house. He came out with a country made pistol and fired a shot on abdomen of Sushila. Ravi tried to obstruct him, but he fired another round on his mother, who fell on the ground then and there. Blood started oozing out of her abdomen and eyes. He snatched country made pistol from his hands, while his aunt and grandmother overpowered Vinod. Police was informed by him. PCR Van reached spot and removed his mother to GTB Hospital. She was declared brought dead in the hospital. Statement of Ravi Kumar was recorded, which became bedrock of the case. Investigation was taken up. During the course of investigation, accused was arrested. Investigation culminated into a chargesheet against him.
3. Charge for offence punishable under section 302 of the Penal Code was framed against the accused, besides a separate charge for 3 offence punishable under section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short the Act), to which charges he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To substantiate the charges, prosecution has examined Rohtash Singh (PW1), Ravi Kumar (PW2), Kanta (PW3), Kashmiri (PW4), Sh. Nanhe Lal Nigam (PW5), Smt. Puja (PW6), Virender Singh, Constable (PW7), Krishan Pal ASI (PW8), Anand Kumar (PW9), Dr. Prabhakar Yadav (PW10), Rakesh Kumar SI (PW11), Dr. S.K. Verma (PW12), Jagbir Singh, Head Constable (PW13), Raghvinder Singh, Constable (PW14), Mukesh Kumar, Draughtsman (PW15), Jai Prakash Meena SI (PW16) and Bahori Singh, Inspector (PW17) in the case.
5. Krishan Pal ASI was working as duty officer on 02.09.05, who recorded DD No.28A and formal FIR. He proved copy of DD No. 28A and carbon copy of FIR as Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B respectively. Anand Kumar, photographer, accompanied police officials to spot. He took five photographs of the spot. He proved photographs as Ex.PW9/A1 to Ex.PW9/A5, besides negatives thereof as Ex.PW9/B1 to Ex.PW9/B5. Virender Singh, Constable, took rukka, recorded by J.P. Meena SI, and got a case registered. He detailed all investigative steps, which took place in his presence. Rakesh Kumar SI reached spot and found J.P. Meena with his staff present there. He instructed investigating officer to take blood samples from the spot. Jagbir Singh, Head Constable, unfolds that five parcels duly sealed with seal of AKS and hospital were deposited with him. He recorded entry to this effect in register No.19 and proved it as Ex.PW13/A. Raghvinder Singh, Constable, delivered special report to Sr. 4 police officers and Magistrate of the area. Mukesh Kumar, Draughtsman, prepared scaled site plan of spot and proved it as Ex.PW15/A. Jai Prakash Meena conducted investigation of the case at initial stage. He got a case registered against the accused. He detailed all investigative steps, which were taken by him. Bahori Singh, Inspector, took over investigation of the case from J.P. Meena SI. He detailed all investigative steps, including arrest of accused and conduct of inquest proceedings.
6. Dr. Prabhakar Yadav examined Sushila Devi and declared her brought dead. He proved MLC of Sushila as Ex.PW10/A, which was prepared by him. Dr. S.K. Verma conducted postmortem on dead body of Sushila. He opined that time since death was half a day and cause of death was due to antemortem fire arm injuries. He proved his report to this effect as Ex.PW12/A.
7. Rohtash Singh entered the witness box and unfolded ocular facts of the case. He unfolds that on hearing noise of gun shot, he came in the street and found a dead body of Sushila lying there. Nanhe Lal Nigam unfolds that on being told by neighbours about the incident, he reached spot. He found Sushila soaked in blood at the spot, who was removed to hospital by PCR Van. Ravi Kumar, Smt. Puja, Kanta and Kashmiri unfolded facts of the case. Ravi Kumar details that on 01.09.05 at about 10pm, accused Vinod came to his house and demanded money from his mother. When money was not paid to him, he uttered that he will beat Puja. At about 10.15pm, he along with his mother and aunt reached house of accused Vinod. Accused came out of his house, having a country made 5 pistol in his hands. He fired one shot on abdomen and another shot on tample of Sushila, his mother, who met her death. Smt. Kanta, Puja and Kashmiri gave confirmation to facts deposed by Ravi Kumar.
8. In order to afford an opportunity to explain circumstances appearing in evidence against him, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. He had denied all allegations levelled against him. His case was of denial simplicitor. He pleads that he has been falsely implicated in the case by Ravi, Kanta, Kashmiri, Smt. Puja and Nanhe Lal Nigam. He claims himself to be innocent. However, he opted not to produce any evidence in support of his defence.
9. Arguments were heard at the bar. Sh. R.K. Pandey, ld. Prosecutor, presented facts on behalf of the State. Sh. Dasa Ram, Advocate, had advanced arguments on behalf of the defence. I have given my careful considerations to arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings on the issues involved in the controversy are as follows :
10. To have his fingers in the pie, it has been claimed on behalf of the accused that testimony of Ravi Kumar is unworthy of credence. Sh. Dasa Ram argued that Ravi Kumar had improved himself on material particulars. He agitates that Ravi Kumar had improved himself on the count that accused was demanding money from his mother, or no money was paid to the accused, or he (witness) had closed main door of the house, or that Vinod came out of house through door, which opens in a shop, or there was a country made pistol in his hands, or that when his 6 mother sustained gun shot injuries, she cried for help and asked him to give a telephone call to PCR, or he gave a telephone call to police control room at the instance of his mother, or that when his mother fell down his sister tied her chunni around her wound, or that when he returned after making a telephone call, he found one gun shot injury on left eye of his mother, or that Vinod was present there having country made pistol in his hands, or that police reached there and seized country made pistol from his possession, or that he went to police station, Nand Nagri, Delhi, where his statement was recorded. He argued that aforesaid aspects have bearing on the case. When Ravi Kumar improved his version on material points, he is not at all a reliable witness, argued Sh. Dasa Ram. According to him, Ravi Kumar was doubting chastity of his mother. He killed his mother and put blame on the accused, since he was bearing grudge against him. He presents that it was Ravi Kumar, who was author of crime. Contra to it, ld. Prosecutor presents that discrepancies detailed above are on mere matters of detail. He projects that Ravi Kumar is a reliable witness. He further argued that facts projected by Ravi Kumar are substantiated by Smt. Kanta, Puja, Kashmiri Devi, Rohtash Singh and Nanhe Lal Nigam.
11. Discrepancies or inconsistencies in a prosecution evidence is a shortfall from which no criminal case is free. While appreciating evidence, the court has to consider as to whether the discrepancies go to root of the matter or relate to immaterial aspect thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of incongruities in evidence, 7 however in the latter case no such benefit may be available. Discrepancies are either normally or materially. Normally discrepancies are those which occure due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory, due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock or horror at the time of occurrence and the like. Material discrepancies are those, which are not normal and not expected of a normal person. Where discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are minor and not material, rejection of evidence solely on the ground of discrepancies cannot be termed as proper. Law to this effect was laid by the Apex Court in Krishna Pillai Sree Kumar and another (AIR 1981 SC 1237), Smt. Kalki and another (AIR 1981 SC 1390) and Appabhai and another (AIR 1988 SC
696).
12. Ravi Kumar lodged report Ex.PW2/A before police on the night intervening 01/020905. He details therein that on 01.09.05 at about 9.30pm, Vinod Kumar came to his house and started calling names to his mother. He unfolds therein that his sister Puja was married with Vinod Kumar on 02.06.04. He was not sending Puja to her parental home, since he was doubting character of his mother. After calling names to his mother, Vinod Kumar went to his tenanted accommodation. When Vinod Kumar left, they became apprehensive that he may not assault Puja. He along with his mother, father's sister Kanta and grandmother Kashmiri went to matrimonial home of Puja to make her understand. At about 10.30pm, his sister and brotherinlaw (jija) Vinod met them sitting outside their house. At that time, his mother and grandmother were trying to 8 advise Vinod and Puja, so that Vinod may not raise an altercation again. Suddenly, Vinod lost his temper, went inside his room, came out and fired at his mother through a country made pistol. His mother sustained gun shot injuries in her abdomen. When he tried to snatch country made pistol from his hands, Vinod cried loudly directing him to be away, otherwise he would fire a shot on him. Vinod refilled his country made pistol and fired shot on his mother. She fell down and blood started oozing out of her abdomen and eye. He pounced upon Vinod and snatched country made pistol from his possession. He gave a telephone call to police control room. Police gypsy removed his mother to GTB Hospital. He produced Vinod with country made pistol before the police, who had fired shots on his mother with an intention to kill her.
13. When facts projected in Ex.PW2/A are reconciled with statement made by Ravi Kumar before the Court, it is emerging over record that in his testimony before the Court, Ravi Kumar kept silence over the issue as to whether Vinod was doubting character of his mother. Instead of that fact, he highlights that Vinod came to their house and demanded money. In his testimony before the Court, Ravi Kumar presents that when Vinod went inside the house, he closed main door and after sometime Vinod came out of house through other door, which opens in a shop. Such facts were not narrated by Ravi Kumar in his report Ex.PW2/A. He builds up a case that Vinod Kumar came out of the house and fired shot on his mother through a country made pistol. These facts were reaffirmed by Ravi Kumar in his testimony. However, Ravi Kumar builds up edifice of 9 prosecution, detailing therein that when Vinod Kumar fired shot on Smt. Sushila Devi, he rushed towards her. She asked him to give a telephone call to PCR and accordingly he went to make a telephone call. When report Ex.PW2/A was lodged, Ravi Kumar detailed therein that he tried to snatch country made pistol from hands of Vinod Kumar and at that juncture Vinod Kumar cried loudly and asked him to be away, otherwise he would fire a shot on him. Vinod Kumar refilled country made pistol and fired shot on his mother, who fell down and started bleeding from her abdomen as well as eyes. These facts were not projected by Ravi Kumar in his testimony before the Court. In his testimony, he tells that when he returned, after making a telephone call to police control room, he found his mother lying and there was a gun shot wound on her left eye. Accused was standing there having country made pistol in his hands. It is evident that there are inconsistencies in facts detailed in Ex.PW2/A and those testified by Ravi Kumar before the Court. Ex.PW2/A is FIR lodged by Ravi Kumar. It was not containing details on issues referred above, since it was written under circumstances of haste. When Ravi Kumar was called upon to project facts before the investigating officer, he reached stage of anxiety, agony and anger, since his mother was shot by the accused, who happens to be his brotherinlaw (jija). The circumstances in which his mother was murdered pushed him in a state of high arousal. His power of observation was constrained a lot due to mental disposition on account of shock or horror. In these circumstances, discrepancies detailed above are bound to occur. Such discrepancies cannot be termed as material, since 10 they did not affect substratum of his testimony. I am of considered opinion that events unfolded by Ravi Kumar are intact and project a true picture. Claim made by the defence to the effect that his testimony is unworthy of credit is found to be farfetched idea. When a case is true in main, it cannot be discarded due to some discrepancies in the deposition of the witness. Law to this effect was laid by the Apex Court in Anil Singh (AIR 1988 SC 1998), wherein it was held that it is the duty of the Court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in the witnesses. Inconsistencies highlighted by the defence nowhere destroy confidence in the witness. Hence, discrepancies or exaggerations made by Ravi Kumar are discarded and grain of truth is accepted, to adjudicate the accountability of the accused. In view of the aforesaid facts I am of the considered view that discrepancies highlighted by the defence nowhere affect deposition of the witness.
14. Defence had not tried to castigate testimony of Rohtash Singh, Smt. Kanta, Smt. Kashmiri, Nanhe Lal Nigam and Smt. Puja on the count that they were bearing hostility against the accused and were motivated to testify facts against him. No hue and cry was raised by the defence to probabilize factum that on receipt of bribe or any other corrupt inducement to give their evidence in the case, they had entered the witness box. No claim was made to the effect that witnesses were not persons of veracity. When facts projected by them were closely perused, it came to light that events unfolded by them do not suffer from inherent infirmities or material 11 discrepancies. They fared well in crossexamination, when efforts were made by the defence to purify their depositions. Their demeanour remained satisfactory and in consonance with ordinary human behaviour. No circumstances came to light that aforesaid witnesses are not worthy of credence.
15. Rohtash Singh unfolds that on 01.09.05 at about 10:30pm, he was present at roof of his house with his family members. He heard noise of gun shot and went downstairs. He reached the street, where dead body of Sushila was lying. When dead body of Sushila was removed, he found blood lying there at the spot. Ravi Kumar gives confirmation to facts testified by Sh. Rohtash Singh. He projects that his mother expired after receipt of gun shot injuries. Smt. Kanta tells that on 01.09.05, accused fired shot on Smt. Sushila, who sustained injuries in her abdomen and fell down. Accused fired another shot on eye of Sushila. She expired instantaneously. Smt. Kashmiri Devi projects that when accused fired shot on Sushila, she started writhing in pain. He fired another shot on left eye of Sushila. Sushila met her death. Nanhe Lal Nigam tells that when he reached spot, he found Sushila lying on the ground. When Sushila was removed to hospital, blood was oozing out of her wounds. Smt. Puja gives confirmation to facts testified by aforesaid witnesses, when she highlights that accused took out a country made pistol and fired shot on her mother. When she saw her mother, by that time she had expired.
16. Dr. Prabhakar Yadav had examined Sushila Devi in GTB Hospital at 12 midnight on 02.09.05. He declared her brought dead. He 12 prepared her MLC Ex.PW10/A. At that time, he was assisted by Dr. Bhupender Chauhan. When MLC Ex.PW10/A was perused, it came to light that on clinical examination, Dr. Prabhakar Yadav declared her brought dead. Dr. S.K. Verma had conducted autopsy on dead body of Sushila on 02.09.05. He found fire arm entry wound on left side of lower chest, 7cm from midline and 23.3cm below left mid clavicular point, having blackening and tattooing on lower aspect from main wound. He found another fire arm entry wound over left eye with total destruction of eye architecture and fracture of orbit, with no blackening and tattooing visible outside. He opined that time since death was about half a day. Cause of death was antemortem fire arm injuries, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, independently and collectively. He gave his report Ex.PW12/A in that regard.
17. Bohri Singh, Inspector, projects that on 01.09.05 at about 11.10pm, he reached spot along with SHO. There he came to know that injured was already removed to GTB Hospital. He arrested accused and took investigative steps. He reached GTB Hospital, where dead body of Sushila was lying in mortuary. He conducted inquest proceedings and prepared brief facts Ex.PW17/B, death report Ex.PW17/C and moved application Ex.PW17/D for getting postmortem examination conducted on her dead body. J.P. Meena SI gives confirmation to facts testified by Bohri Singh, Inspector. He unfolds that on 01.09.05, he reached spot where Ravi Kumar met him. He was informed that Sushila was removed to GTB Hospital by PCR Van. He reached GTB Hospital and collected MLC of 13 Sushila, who was declared brought dead. Out of facts projected by the aforesaid ocular witnesses, expert witnesses and investigating officer, it has been brought over record that on 01.09.05 Sushila was removed to GTB Hospital with gun shot injuries, where she was declared brought dead. Prosecution has been able to establish that on 01.09.05, death of Sushila was caused.
18. Ravi Kumar tells that when accused left for his tenanted accommodation, he was followed by him and his mother. His grandmother and father's sister were behind them. When they reached there in front of house, located in street No.2, Amar Colony, East Gokalpuri, Delhi, he bolted door of house from outside. Accused Vinod came out of house through shop, which was located in that very house. He was having a country made pistol in his hands. He fired a shot on his mother, which hit in her abdomen. He went to give a telephone call to PCR, while his father's sister tied chunni around wound of his mother. When he came back, he found another gun shot injury on left eye of his mother. Accused Vinod was standing there, having country made pistol in his hands. Out of facts projected by Ravi Kumar, it emerges over record that accused fired a shot in abdomen of Smt. Sushila with a country made pistol. In a bid to inform the police, Ravi Kumar went to a PCO booth to make a telephone call. On his return, he found his mother lying on the ground, having another gun shot wound over her left eye. Accused was standing there having country made pistol in his hands. The facts that when Ravi Kumar returned after making a telephone call to PCR, he found another gun shot 14 wound over left eye of his mother and accused standing by her side, are incidental to main fact, viz incident of firing on Sushila and explain it. These circumstances are so closely connected with main fact as to constitute a part of transaction and make main facts probable. Therefore, these events unfolded by Ravi Kumar are relevant under section 6 of the Evidence Act, since presence of accused at the spot, having a country made pistol in his hands explains that second gun shot wound was fired on left eye of Sushila by the accused and noneelse. Events that his gun shot was fired by accused in abdomen of Sushila and when Ravi Kumar returned after making PCR call, he found another gun shot wound over her left eye, give inference to the situation that it was noneelse, but the accused who fired gun shot wound on the deceased. Out of these events, it is clear that Ravi Kumar makes it clear that two gun shots wounds were fired on his mother by the accused.
19. Smt. Kanta tells that on 01.09.05 around 10pm, accused came to their house and demanded money from Smt. Sushila. Sushila did not pay any money and made accused to leave for his house. Sushila and Ravi went along with accused, since latter had raised an altercation at their house. She along with her mother followed them. At about 10:15pm, accused went inside his house and came out from other door, having a country made pistol in his hands. He fired shot on her sisterinlaw, who sustained injuries on her abdomen and fell down. She tied her chunni on her wound. Accused asked her to be away from Sushila, otherwise he would fire shot on her too. She went some distance away from Sushila.
15 Immediately, accused fired another shot on eyes of Sushila and she expired instantaneously. Smt. Kashmiri and Smt. Puja reaffirm facts testified by Smt. Kanta. Both of them highlight that accused took out a country made pistol from his house and fired shots on Sushila. She expired there at the spot. Nanhe Lal Nigam projects that at about 10pm, he was told by his neighbours that gun shot was fired. He reached spot and found Sushila lying there on the ground. PCR Van reached there and Sushila was removed to hospital. Accused Vinod was present there in the custody of police. Sh. Rohtash Singh detailed facts in the same vein. He unfolds that on 01.09.05 at about 10:30pm, he heard noise of gun shot. He went downstairs and found dead body of Sushila lying at the threshold of his house. Accused Vinod was standing there, who was overpowered and taken away by the police. Events unfolded by aforesaid witnesses make it clear that it was accused who fired gun shot on Sushila Devi from his country made pistol and caused her instant death.
20. Ravi Kumar, Kanta and Smt. Kashmiri highlight that on the date of incident at about 10pm, accused came to house of Smt. Sushila. He demanded money from Smt. Sushila, who put him off on the pretext of talking to him in morning hours. At that juncture, Vinod declared that he will teach a lesson to Puja. Sushila, Ravi, Kashmiri and Kanta followed the accused. Therefore, out of facts projected by these witnesses, it is crystal clear that accused felt offended, when Sushila did not pay heed to his demands. Sushila along with others followed the accused, so that he may not illtreat Puja. When they reached there at the house of accused, he 16 took out a country made pistol and fired two shots on the deceased. Smt. Puja, wife of accused, gives confirmation to facts testified by aforesaid witnesses. She tells that she was informed by Ravi Kumar that accused was quarreling with their mother. Accused went inside the house, brought a country made pistol and fired two shots on Smt. Sushila, her mother. Therefore events projected by these witnesses make it clear that accused was not happy with Sushila, who had put him off on the pretext of talking to him in morning. He fired two shots on her from country made pistol and caused her instant death.
21. Intention is a man's state of mind, direct evidence thereof except through his own confession cannot be had and apart from confession it can be proved by circumstantial evidence. In other words, it is a matter for inference from all circumstances of a case such as motive, preparations made, declarations of the offender, weapon of offence used, number of blows given, part of the body selected and nature of injuries actually inflicted.
22. Here in the case, accused had fired two gun shot wounds on Sushila from a country made pistol. One shot was fired on left side of lower chest, 7cm from midline and 23.3cm below left mid clavicular point and another shot was fired over left eye of the deceased. It is evident that accused fired two shots on the deceased on vital parts. Country made pistol is a lethal weapon. If, one fires a shot on vital part of the body, it would certainly cause death of the victim. Here in the case, accused fired two shots on deceased. That fact make his intention to cause death of 17 victim known. Therefore, it is evident that circumstances detailed above are sufficient to infer that accused fired two shots on Smt. Sushila with intention to cause her death.
23. Dr. S.K. Verma opines that fire arm entry would on left side chest, which was 7cm from midline and 23.3cm below left mid clavicular point was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. He further opined that fire arm entry wound over left eye with dimension of 4X2cm with total destruction of eye architecture and fracture of orbit going backward or medially through the base of skull, was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. He makes it clear that these two fire arm injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, independently and collectively. Therefore, it is crystal clear that injuries caused by accused were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death of Sushila Devi.
24. Ravi Kumar unfolds that accused fired shots on his mother with a country made pistol. Said country made pistol was seized from possession of accused. It was converted into a cloth parcel and taken into possession, vide memo Ex.PW2/B, after preparing its sketch, which is Ex.PW2/C. Country made pistol Ex.P1 is the same, which was recovered from possession of accused. Smt. Kanta, Smt. Kashmiri and Puja gave confirmation to facts testified by Ravi Kumar in that regard. Virender Singh, Constable, deposed that sketch of country made pistol was prepared and it was taken into possession. He declares that country made pistol Ex.P1 is the same, which was handed over to J.P. Meena SI by Ravi 18 Kumar. J.P. Meena SI had also testified that country made pistol Ex.P1 was seized by him. Therefore, out of facts testified by the aforesaid witnesses, it has been brought over record that country made pistol Ex.P1 was snatched from hands of accused Vinod Kumar and it was handed over to police by witness Ravi Kumar. At the cost of repetition, it is said that Ravi Kumar, Smt. Kanta, Kashmiri Devi and Smt. Puja had established that accused had used country made pistol Ex.P1 in causing death of Smt. Sushila Devi. An unlicenced pistol was used for causing death of Smt. Sushila. Consequently, it is clear that prosecution has been able to establish that accused had used unlicensed pistol for committing murder. All ingredients for offence punishable under section 27 the Act has also been established against the accused to the hilt.
25. Accused has not been able to probabilize that it was someone else, who had caused death of Smt. Sushila. On the other hand prosecution has been able to prove it beyond doubt that accused had used country made pistol, fried two shots and caused instant death of Sushila Devi on 01.09.05 at about 10.30pm in front of H.No. A2/226, West Gokalpuri, Delhi. Evidence brought over record is sufficient to hold him accountable for charges. He is, therefore, held guilty and convicted for offences punishable under section 302 of the Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act.
Announced in the Open Court (Dr. R.K. Yadav)
th
On this 17 day of March, 2008. Additional Sessions Judge :
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. 19 IN THE COURT OF DR. R.K. YADAV : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI :
Sessions Case No. 08/06
State Vs. Vinod Kumar S/o Roshan Lal,
R/o A2/226, East Gokalpur, Amar Colony, Delhi.
FIR No. 631/05
PS Nand Nagri
U/s 302 IPC & 27 of the Arms Act.
ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE :
I have heard Sh. Dasa Ram, Advocate, on the point of sentence. He presents that it is not a rarest of rare case to award ultimate punishment of death to the convict. He claims leniency for him.
2. On 01.09.05 at about 9.30pm, convict went to his inlaws house, where he raised an altercation with his motherinlaw. He left home declaring that he would teach a lesson to his wife. Ravi Kumar and Smt. Sushila Devi followed the convict. Smt. Kashmiri Devi and Smt. Kanta also went to the house of convict, located at premises No. A2/226, West Gokalpuri, Delhi. Smt. Sushila tried to advise the convict. He went inside his house and brought a country made pistol. He fired two shots on Smt. Sushila and caused her instant death. He was overpowered at the spot and country made pistol was recovered from his possession.
3. Circumstances detailed above nowhere project a rarest of rare case to award ultimate punishment of death. Consequently, convict is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/ for offence punishable under section 302 of the Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, he would further undergo RI for two years. He is also sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/ for 20 an offence punishable under section 27 of the Arms Act. In default of payment of fine, he would further undergo RI for six months.
4. Both substantive sentences awarded to the convict shall run concurrently. Out of fine, if recovered, a sum of Rs.20,000/ be paid to heirs of deceased as token of compensation. A copy of judgement and order on sentence be supplied to him free of cost.
Announced in the Open Court (Dr. R.K. Yadav)
th
On this 24 day of March, 2008. Additional Sessions Judge :
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.