Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Darshana vs State(Govt.Of N.C.T.Of Delhi on 16 May, 2014
|lITEM NO.112 COURT NO.2 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 2124-2125 OF 2010
DARSHANA & ANR. Appellant (s)
VERSUS
STATE(GOVT.OF N.C.T.OF DELHI Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for bail)
Date: 16/05/2014 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
(VACATION BENCH)
For Appellant(s) Ms. Sunita Sharma,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri,Adv.
Mr. M.P.S. Tomar,Adv.
Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.
Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeals are dismissed, in terms of the signed order.
(O.P. SHARMA) (M.S. NEGI)
COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file) 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 2124-2125 OF 2010 DARSHANA & ANR. Appellant (s) VERSUS STATE(GOVT.OF N.C.T.OF DELHI) Respondent(s) O R D E R Two appellants herein are mother and daughter respectively. They have been convicted of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge was that they killed Raj, who was daughter of appellant No.1 and elder sister of appellant No.1.
As per the prosecution, it was a case of honour killing as Raj, though unmarried, was pregnant and the two appellants in order to save the family from any social stigma, killed the deceased. There were no eye- witness and it was a case of circumstantial evidence. It is not in dispute that the incident which occurred on the night of 16th April, 2002, the two appellants and the deceased were the only persons in the house from that family. The husband of appellant No.1 had gone to Gurdaspur, Punjab. The learned trial Court, on the basis of prosecution evidence which was led, came to the conclusion that the circumstances point out accusing finger at the appellants and the entire evidence adduced 2 by the prosecution forms a complete chain. The circumstances which are stated in the judgment of the trial court are the following:
"1. Smt. Darshna, Rajni and Miss Raj were residing in house No.D-147, Bhagwati Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
2. Kumari Raj was an unmarried daughter of Roop Lal and Smt. Darshna. She indulged in free sex and became pregnant.
3. On 5.4.2002 she was pregnant by 19 weeks and four days.
4. She had undergone ultra sound test and report Ex.PW2/A highlights that she was pregnant, which report was kept by her underneath mattress of her bed from where it was recovered.
5. On 14.4.2002 her father Roop Lal had gone to village Putey, District Gurdaspur, Punjab to attend a marriage.
6. He returned home at about 6.45 PM on 17.4.2003.
7. Smt. Darshna were alone in the house.
8. Their tenant Jaipal was residing in a room on first floor of the house alongwith his wife.
9. On the night intervening 16th and 17th April, 2002 Kumari Raj was sleeping in the front room, while Smt. Darshna and Kumari Rajni 3 were sleeping in rear room of the house on the ground floor.
10. At about 10.30 PM Jaipal returned from his factory and Kumari Raj opened the door. She was hale and hearty at that time.
11. Jaipal had gone to his bed at about 11.30PM and woke up in the morning and at about 6.00AM came downstairs where he found Darshna coming out of her room.
12. Darshna gave him keys of the main door.
Jaipal opened the door and went away to fetch water.
13. He returned after about one hour and at that time Smt. Darshna opened the door and Jaipal went upstairs.
14. Jaipal took his meal, got his tiffin packed and left for his factory premises at 8.45AM.
15. Kumari Rajni goes to the house of Seema, tells that Raj had done something to herself and brings her to their house at 9.15AM.
16. Seema found dead body of Raj lying and blood in plenty lying in front room. On seeing blood and dead body she became perturbed.
17. Darshna and Rajni were present in the house at that time and Seema asked them to inform the police. They told her that their relations had been informed by them about the 4 incident. By this answer they put Seema off and had opted not to inform the police.
18. Seema leaves place of occurrence saying that she had to appear for her exam.
19. Wife of Jaipal was roaming on ground floor portion of the house of the accused persons.
20. At about 12.15 PM Rajni gave a telephone call at factory premises of Jaipal and asked him to come home while weeping. When he enquires as to what had happened, Rajni disconnects the line.
21. Jaipal feels disturbed, waits for her employer, seeks his permission and returns home at 1.30 PM.
22. He finds main door of the house lying open and Darshna and Rajni sitting in front room almost in semi unconscious state.
23. He enquires from Darshna as to what the matter was and then she tells Jaipal that Miss Raj had not woke up by then.
24. When Jaipal had enquired as to what the matter was, by that time dead body of Raj had been seen by Miss Seema and she had advised the accused persons to inform the police.
25. Rajni weeps on telephone in order to gain sympathy of Jaipal and Smt. Darshana intentionally tells him wrong fact that Raj had not come out of her slumbers by that 5 time.
26. Jaipal insists and at his instance Darshna and Rajni took him to the room in which dead body of Raj was lying.
27. On seeing dead body of Raj, Jaipal became perturbed and Darshna caught hold of him in order to give him support and accused persons had brought him out of the room.
28. Dead body of Raj was lying covered with a sheet when it was seen by Jaipal.
29. The fact that Jaipal was given support by Darshna and was brought outside the room by the accused persons suggest that accused persons were in possession of their faculties and they had posed themselves to be in semi unconscious state when Jaipal had returned home from his factory premises.
30. Jaipal was given water to drink by accused Darshna, which fact further substantiate that accused persons were acting cautiously and were aware as to what had happened and how situation is to be betackled.
31. Jaipal questions them as to how incident had taken place to which query accused Darshna had feigned ignorance.
32. Neither accused Darshna nor accused Rajni tell him as to how the incident had occurred and at what time they came to know about 6 murder of Raj. None of them talked about the incident pondering as to how and by whom the offence was committed. This conduct of the accused persons highlights that they were more cautious to conceal the facts.
33. Within 5 to 10 minutes brother and sister in law (bhabhi) of Darshna reached there which fact makes it clear that they were summoned there by the accused persons.
34. Accused Darshna and Rajni had not informed the police and became busy in deliberation with their relations.
35. One person residing in neighbourhood reaches there and Jaipal discusses events with him and showed his apprehension that in case police would not be informed, then they would be entangled in the matter. Despite this fact accused persons had not informed the police.
36. Ultimately at 4.15 PM Kumari Rajni gives a telephone call to PCR and constable Sharda passes on this information to P.P. East Uttam Nagar where DD No.22 was recorded at 4.18 PM.
37. Kashmiri Lal SI reached the spot when the said DD was assigned to him for action in the matter. He was followed by Inspector Rameshwar Khatri.
38. Kashmiri Lal observes that dead body of 7 Kumari Raj was lying in the room, blood was lying on the floor as well as splashed on walls.
39. He noted multiple injuries on the dead body of Raj. Medical prescription slips were recovered from underneath mattress of her bag.
40. Inspector Khatri conducts inquest proceedings and dead body was sent to autopsy examination. Dr. Nagpal finds more than 50 injuries on the dead body.
41. Seven stab wounds were with uneven margins, while more than 45 woulds were caused by a sharp edged weapon, having sharp margins, which fact indicate that two weapons of offence were used in the crime.
42. No hue and cry was raised by the victim when she was put to death. Jaipal or his wife had not heard and cries of help raised by the deceased, which fact is suggestive that the deceased was assaulted when she was in deep slumbers.
43. Main door of the house was bolted from inside.
Door of room in which dead body was lying open inside the house which the door opening in the street was closed from inside. This position of the doors bespeak that someone occupant of the house had assaulted and murdered Raj.
8
44. No chance prints were found in the room which fact further suggest that assailants had an opportunity and time to wipe out chance prints. This fact further suggests that assailants were the occupants of the house and none else.
45. Screw driver and knife recovered at the instance of Rajni and Darshna respectively.
46. Use of two weapons of offence in commission of crime suggests that assailants were more than one. Accused Darshna and Rajni were only persons present on the ground floor portion of the house that night, besides the victim.
47. Conduct of the persons causing delay to lodge the FIR speak volumes against them.
48. Contents of report Ex.PW12/A lodged by Rajni highlights that efforts were made by the accused persons to misguide the investigating agency."
In the appeal filed by the appellants the High Court revisited the entire case and considered the various submissions that refers to the evidence on record., their findings about the motive to commit the crime and also to the fact that the chain of circumstances exclusively pointed to the guilt of the appellants- accused persons.
The aforesaid circumstances not only provide motive 9 for the commission of heinous crime, but also lead to irresistible conclusion that there was no body else in the house than the appellants. Further, possibility of any outside coming also stands eliminated. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any infirmity in the aforesaid approach of the trial court as well as of the High Court. We find that the findings recorded by the court below are pure findings of fact and we do not find any perversity therein. The appeals are therefore dismissed.
................J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN) ................J. (A.K. SIKRI) New Delhi, May 16, 2014 10