Delhi District Court
State vs . Harish Chander Etc. on 20 July, 2011
SC No: 11/08
FIR No: 413/06
PS: Najafgarh
State Vs. Harish Chander etc.
IN THE COURT OF MS. MAMTA TAYAL
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : DWARKA COURTS
NEW DELHI
SC No. 11/08
FIR No. 413/06
Police Station Najafgarh
U/Section 302/498A/304 B/201/34 IPC
Received on transfer 18.10.2008
Reserved for orders on 04.07.2011
Judgment announced on 06.07.2011
State V/s 1. Harish Chander Parsad,
S/o Late Sukhdev Parsad,
Present Address: H. NO. 124,
Sainik Enclave, CRPF Camps,
Jharoda Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi.
Permanent Address: Village Kuda Ghat,
PS Cantt., Distt. Gorakhpur, UP.
2. Smt. Geeta Devi,
W/o Sh. Harish Chander Parsad,
Present Address: H. NO. 124,
Sainik Enclave, CRPF Camps,
SC No. 11/08 1 of 28 D.O.O. 06.07.2011
SC No: 11/08
FIR No: 413/06
PS: Najafgarh
State Vs. Harish Chander etc.
Jharoda Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi.
Permanent Address: Village Kuda Ghat,
PS Cantt., Distt. Gorakhpur, UP.
J U D G M E N T
1. On 30.04.2006, one Laxmi Devi (since deceased) was got admitted in Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, Hari Nagar by her husband Anil Kumar with alleged history of burns. DD no. 7 B was recorded at the PS Najafgarh in that regard. On receipt of said DD, ASI Dharambir Singh reached DDU hospital. SDM Delhi Cantt. was informed, who also arrived there and recorded the statement of Laxmi. Crime team inspected the spot i.e. matrimonial house of deceased. One kerosene wick stove lying outside the kitchen was seized by police. However, no case was registered at that time as Laxmi did not blame anyone for her condition at that time. On 2.5.2006, Laxmi was shifted to Sanjeevani Hosptial, Dariyaganj by her parents. On 4.5.2006, Sh. Mahender Parsad, father of Laxmi, informed ASI Dharambir that Laxmi wanted to give her further statement to the SDM. SDM SC No. 11/08 2 of 28 D.O.O. 06.07.2011 SC No: 11/08 FIR No: 413/06 PS: Najafgarh State Vs. Harish Chander etc. Najafgarh was accordingly informed and he recorded second statement of Laxmi after she was declared fit by doctor to give statement. On the said statement, FIR was registered. Accused Geeta Devi was arrested who made a disclosure statement and got recovered a plastic can smelling of kerosene oil from near the door of kitchen and also the burnt clothes of deceased Laxmi Devi from the dustbin outside their house. Laxmi Devi was subsequently shifted to Medical College, Gorakhpur where she died on 17.5.2006. Accused Harish Chander was arrested on 6.6.2006. On completion of necessary investigation, IO filed the chargesheet in the court.
2. After supplying copies to accused persons as per law, the case was committed to Sessions where after due deliberation, charge under Section 304 B IPC, in alternative U/s 302 IPC /201/498A IPC against accused Geeta and a charge U/s 498A IPC against accused Harish Chander was framed and served upon accused persons. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
SC No. 11/08 3 of 28 D.O.O. 06.07.2011
SC No: 11/08
FIR No: 413/06
PS: Najafgarh
State Vs. Harish Chander etc.
3. Prosecution was called upon to adduce evidence to prove the charges as per law. 22 witnesses in all were tendered by the prosecution in support of its case.
4. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons was recorded u/s 313 Cr. P. C. wherein they controverted the entire evidence as false. They tendered four witnesses in their defence.
5. I have heard Ld Addl. PP for the State and also Ld counsel representing all the accused persons. I have carefully analysed ocular evidence brought on record along with the documents proved during trial and given my anxious consideration to the controversy in hand.
6. PW1 is HC Anita who had joined the investigation of this case with the IO on 6.5.2006. PW2 is ASI Dharambir Singh, the initial IO of the case. PW3 Mahender Parsad and PW4 Smt. Vidya Devi are the parents of deceased Laxmi Devi. PW5 is Sh. S. S. Parihar, the then SDM Najafgarh who had recorded the second dying declaration Ex. PW 5/A of deceased Laxmi on SC No. 11/08 4 of 28 D.O.O. 06.07.2011 SC No: 11/08 FIR No: 413/06 PS: Najafgarh State Vs. Harish Chander etc. 5.5.2006. PW6 is Dr. Dipali Taneja, CMO DDU Hospital who proved the MLC Ex. PW 6/A of deceased Laxmi Devi. PW7 is Virender Nishat, brother of deceased Laxmi Devi. PW8 is Sh. S. M. Bhardwaj, the then SDM Delhi Cantt. who had recorded the initial statement Ex. PW 8/A of victim Laxmi on 30.4.2006. PW9 is Nand Kumar, Naib Tehsildar, Shajanwa, Distt. Gorakhpur, UP who proved the panchnama Ex. PW 7/A and the inquest papers Ex. PW 9/A to Ex. PW 9/D prepared in respect of unnatural death of Laxmi there. PW10 is Sh. Bechan Parsad, uncle (Chacha) of deceased Laxmi Devi. PW11, Ct. Jai Bhagwan and PW12 Sh. Sumit Kumar, Ex. Constable, Delhi Home Guard had joined the investigation of the case with the IO. PW13 is ASI Shri Nath, the Duty Officer who had recorded the FIR Ex. PW 13/A and made his endorsement Ex. PW 13/B on the rukka. PW14 is Dr. R. N. Singh who had conducted the post mortem on the body of Laxmi and given his report Ex. PW 14/A. PW15 is SI Madan Pal who had prepared the scaled site plan Ex. PW 15/A. PW16 is Ct. Shashi Kapur, who had joined the investigation of this case with SC No. 11/08 5 of 28 D.O.O. 06.07.2011 SC No: 11/08 FIR No: 413/06 PS: Najafgarh State Vs. Harish Chander etc. the IO on 6.6.2006. PW17 is HC Nihal Singh, the then MHC(M) with whom the case property of this case was deposited on different dates. He proved the relevant entries and the RC through which the exhibits were sent to FSL as Ex. PW 17/A and Ex. PW 17/B respectively. He also proved the copy of acknowledgment received from FSL as Ex. PW 17/C. PW18 is Dr. Ashish, Medical Officer, Sanjeevan Hospital. He proved the admission form of deceased Laxmi as Ex. PW18/A. PW19 is Inspector Mahender Singh, part IO of the case. PW20 is HC Bijender. He proved the copy of DD no. 7 B as Ex. PW 20/A. PW21 is Ct. Naval Singh who had deposited the case property at CFSL Hyderabad. PW22 is Dr. Prem Aggarwal, MS, Sanjeevani Hospital. He proved his endorsement regarding fitness of Smt. Laxmi Devi (since deceased) to give statement on 5.5.2006 as Ex. PW 22/A.
7. The facts that Laxmi Devi was daughter in law of accused Geeta and that she died an unnatural death at her matrimonial home within one year of her marriage are not in dispute. It is also not controverted that at the time of incident SC No. 11/08 6 of 28 D.O.O. 06.07.2011 SC No: 11/08 FIR No: 413/06 PS: Najafgarh State Vs. Harish Chander etc. leading to death of Laxmi, accused Geeta Devi was living with her in the same house and was present there with Laxmi at that time. The moot question which needs to be answered now is whether the accused persons played any role in the untimely demise of Laxmi.
8. The present case was registered on the statement of Laxmi herself as given by her, to the SDM Najafgarh, on 5th May, 2006, wherein she alleged that on 29th April, 2006 at about 11 pm when she was lighting the stove to make tea for herself, her mother in law accused Geeta had poured kerosene oil over her and had set her ablaze because she did not use to like her and used to taunt her regularly. On that day, prior to the incident, accused Geeta had fought with her over food and was angry with her. She further stated that her husband Anil who had returned from office at that time only, had tried to save her and taken her to hospital. In her initial statement recorded by another SEM on the very next date of the incident, Laxmi had exonerated her husband and her mother in law stating that she had caught fire accidentally when she was trying to light the stove. At that time, when only her husband and SC No. 11/08 7 of 28 D.O.O. 06.07.2011 SC No: 11/08 FIR No: 413/06 PS: Najafgarh State Vs. Harish Chander etc. motherinlaw were with her and her parents, residents of Gorakhpur, had not reached Delhi, she had further stated that after recovery, she wanted to live with her husband Anil. The second statement was given by her after her parents had arrived at the scene. On being asked by SDM about the cause for changing her version, Laxmi clarified that her previous statement was made under fear. The first statement was proved in the court as Ex. PW 8/A by Sh. S. M. Bhardwaj, PW8 while the second statement forming basis of FIR was proved as Ex. PW 5/A by Sh. S. S. Parihar, PW5. In crossexamination of both the said witnesses, it was not disputed that these statements were actually made by Laxmi, the deceased before her death and were recorded as such by the concerned SDMs. In crossexamination of PW5, the only material suggestion given was that Laxmi was not fit to give her statement at that time but the suggestion is irrelevant and inconsequential in view of endorsement Ex. PW 22/A made by the concerned doctor declaring Laxmi as fit to make statement, before Ex. PW 5/A was actually recorded.
SC No. 11/08 8 of 28 D.O.O. 06.07.2011
SC No: 11/08
FIR No: 413/06
PS: Najafgarh
State Vs. Harish Chander etc.
9. During course of arguments, Ld. Defence Counsels have assailed the statement Ex.PW5/A contending that it was outcome of tutoring of Laxmi by her parents and was not made voluntarily. However, PW5, the then SDM in his examination in chief made a specific affirmation on oath that before recording the statement of Laxmi, he had satisfied himself that she was speaking voluntarily. No suggestion to the contrary was given to the witness in crossexamination. The argument is otherwise bound to be rejected because the parents of the deceased in their statement to the police have levelled allegations against both the accused persons. Father of Laxmi during his testimony in the court as PW3 deposed that even Anil, husband of Laxmi had joined his parents in demanding cash from them after marriage. Had Laxmi been influenced by her parents and had she changed her statement at their instance, she could have implicated both her husband as well as her father in law in the case, which she actually did not do. In contrast, she limited her statement to the role played by accused Geeta and completely exonerated her husband. She did not say SC No. 11/08 9 of 28 D.O.O. 06.07.2011 SC No: 11/08 FIR No: 413/06 PS: Najafgarh State Vs. Harish Chander etc. anything incriminating against her fatherinlaw despite specific question having been put to her by SDM in that regard. Even for accused Geeta, Laxmi did not level any undue allegations of demand of dowry or cruelty on that account. She merely averred that accused Geeta did not use to like her generally and used to fight with her over small issues and on that day, after one such incident, accused Geeta had set her on fire.
10. Law relating to appreciation of evidence in the form of more than one dying declaration is well settled. It is not the plurality of the dying declarations but the reliability thereof that adds weight to the prosecution case. If a dying declaration is found to be voluntary, reliable and made in fit mental condition, it can be relied upon without any corroboration. The statement should be consistent throughout. If the deceased had several opportunities of making such dying declarations, that is to say, if there are more than one dying declaration they should be consistent. However, if some inconsistencies are noticed between one dying declaration and the other, the court has to examine the nature of the SC No. 11/08 10 of 28 D.O.O. 06.07.2011 SC No: 11/08 FIR No: 413/06 PS: Najafgarh State Vs. Harish Chander etc. inconsistencies, namely, whether they are material or not. While scruitinizing the contents of various dying declarations, in such a situation, the court has to examine the same in the light of the various surrounding facts and circumstances.
11. No doubt in the case in hand, the deceased in her initial statement did not hold anyone responsible for her injuries and claimed to have got burnt accidentally but the circumstances speak otherwise. Suffice to say that merely by reason of there being two contradictory dying declarations, the one incriminating the accused cannot be rejected on suspicion of it being tutored. The same reasoning can apply to the first statement as at that time only husband and motherinlaw of Laxmi were with her and they had every opportunity to overawe and influence her to make a statement in their favour. In case of two contrary statements, it is the duty of the court to find out which of the two is truthful. On a careful scrutiny of the first statement, it is seen that at that time, the victim was with her in laws. She actually did not have any grievance against her husband and wanted to continue to live with SC No. 11/08 11 of 28 D.O.O. 06.07.2011 SC No: 11/08 FIR No: 413/06 PS: Najafgarh State Vs. Harish Chander etc. him. After the incident, Laxmi survived for more than 10 days. Apparently, on the very next day of incident, she did not apprehend that she was going to die. This can be gathered from the statement Ex. PW 8/A wherein she made a categorical assertion that after recovery, she wanted to live with her husband. She had no inkling of her impending death at that moment. The said part of her statement is significant because it reflects the mental status of a newly married women who was loved by her husband but disliked by her motherinlaw. Even after the incident, she wanted to continue her relation with her husband because he was not at fault. But she realised that by putting her motherinlaw in dock, she cannot restart her married life with Anil, son of her mother in law. Hence her statement that the fire had started accidentally. Here it may be noted that, even in her initial statement though Laxmi expressed desire to live with her husband on being discharged from hospital but she did not state so for her motherinlaw. Had her motherinlaw been innocent, obviously, Laxmi would have wanted to continue living with both, SC No. 11/08 12 of 28 D.O.O. 06.07.2011 SC No: 11/08 FIR No: 413/06 PS: Najafgarh State Vs. Harish Chander etc. her husband and motherinlaw, as earlier and not with her husband alone as stated in Ex. PW 8/A.
12. Besides this, the circumstantial evidence also does not support the statement of Laxmi recorded on 30th April, 2006. It is a matter of record that the stove which was recovered from the house of deceased and the accused persons was a kerosene stove with wicks. It was not a traditional pressure stove in which the flame is given directly by kerosene oil only. In such kind of stove, the wicks actually provide the flame and there is a separate closed tank for kerosene. There is no probability of kerosene splashing from such kind of stove on the person lighting it. Moreover, as per the uncontested and unrebutted statement of police witnesses, the stove was found lying outside the door of the kitchen. The kitchen had been recently washed, obviously by the accused as there was noone else living there with accused, her son and the deceased. Even the burnt clothes were thrown in the dustbin and were recovered from there. PW2 ASI Dharambir who was initially entrusted with DD no. 7 B recorded at PS Najafgarh on admission SC No. 11/08 13 of 28 D.O.O. 06.07.2011 SC No: 11/08 FIR No: 413/06 PS: Najafgarh State Vs. Harish Chander etc. of Laxmi in the hospital specifically affirmed on oath that, on spot inspection, the crime scene was found tampered and floor of the house was seen as having been washed, when he reached there next morning. This part of his statement on oath was not rebutted or challenged during crossexamination. He further testified that the burnt clothes of deceased were got recovered by accused Geeta from a dustbin outside the house. In crossexamination, though he was suggested that no recovery was effected at the instance of accused Geeta but the fact that the burnt clothes recovered from the dustbin were of Laxmi was again not contested. The conduct of accused Geeta in tampering with the scene of crime even before it was inspected by police, creates a strong suspicion as to her involvement in the incident.
13. Further, as per MLC Ex. PW 6/A, Laxmi was admitted in the hospital on the night intervening 29th and 30th April, 2006 at about 2.45 am with more than 90 % burns over her body. In case she had got burnt by accidental spilling of oil from the kerosene stove and if the fire was immediately doused by her SC No. 11/08 14 of 28 D.O.O. 06.07.2011 SC No: 11/08 FIR No: 413/06 PS: Najafgarh State Vs. Harish Chander etc. motherinlaw and husband, she could not have sustained burns over such a large area of her body. As per post mortem report, the burn injuries were there all over the front as well as back side of body of Laxmi. Again, if the oil had spilled on her while lighting the stove, it would have come only on her front portion. It is difficult to accept that without any oil there on her back, both her front as well as back portion were engulfed in fire within seconds. It could have occurred only if somebody had poured kerosene oil on victim and then set her on fire as stated by Laxmi in her statement Ex. PW 5/A. The circumstantial evidence, hence supports, supplements and corroborates, the second statement given by deceased Laxmi on 5th May, 2006. Another important factor pointing towards truthfulness of second dying declaration is nonappearance of Anil, S/o accused Geeta in her defence. Had Laxmi made a false dying declaration on 5.5.2006 and had Geeta been innocent, Anil would have stepped into witness box to establish the said fact. But he did not appear even in the court during entire trial. His conduct signifies that he also believes his SC No. 11/08 15 of 28 D.O.O. 06.07.2011 SC No: 11/08 FIR No: 413/06 PS: Najafgarh State Vs. Harish Chander etc. mother to be guilty as stated by Laxmi before SDM on 5.5.2006. It is an undisputed fact that at the relevant time, accused Harish Chander was not at home and only accused Geeta, the deceased and her husband Anil were there. Laxmi categorically affirmed in both her statements that she was treated well by her husband Anil and she did not have any grievance against him and he had in fact tried to save her and rushed her to hospital. This implies that only accused Geeta who is named by deceased in her subsequent statement to the SDM is the culprit.
14. Ld. Counsel for accused Geeta Devi had relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments:
1. Madan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, Rajasthan High Court, DB, Crl. Appeal no. 683 of 2001.
2. Samadhan Dhudaka Koli Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 1059.
3. Vallabhaneni Venkateshwara Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pardesh, (2009) 6 SCC 484.
4. Mehiboobsah Abbasabi Nadal Vs. State of Karnataka, 2007 (3) JCC 2355.
SC No. 11/08 16 of 28 D.O.O. 06.07.2011
SC No: 11/08
FIR No: 413/06
PS: Najafgarh
State Vs. Harish Chander etc.
I have gone through the entire case law. But I am afraid all the judgments are distinguishable on peculiar facts of present case.
15. In contrast, the facts of case reported as Hans Raj v. State, (Delhi) DB, 2006 (3) R. C. R. (Criminal) 364 are exactly similar to case in hand. In said case also there were two dying declarations made by the victim who died of burns, one before police and the other before Magistrate. In her first dying declaration, the deceased stated that she got fire while heating the food on the stove but in the second dying declaration, she stated that her husband used to beat her and had poured kerosene oil on her setting her on fire. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held the second dying declaration to be truthful for twofold reasons. Firstly, it was supported by circumstantial evidence and secondly, deceased had only named her husband in the declaration and had not tried to implicate other family members. The conviction of the husband U/s 302 IPC was upheld and maintained.
16. In another case reported as Sayarabano @ SC No. 11/08 17 of 28 D.O.O. 06.07.2011 SC No: 11/08 FIR No: 413/06 PS: Najafgarh State Vs. Harish Chander etc. Sultanabegum vs. State of Maharashtra, (SC), 2007 (1) R. C. R. (Criminal) 968, again there were two dying declarations made by the lady admitted in the hospital with severe burns. In her first dying declaration, the deceased stated that she had hit the burning kerosene oil lamp by accident and got fire. At the time of said declaration, she was surrounded by her in laws. She made another declaratory statement on the next day after her family members had come. In the second statement, she named her mother in law stating that she had poured kerosene oil and set her on fire. Hon'ble Apex Court believed the second dying declaration and upheld the conviction by Trial Court.
17. Accused Geeta was charged for offence punishable U/s 498A/201/304 B in the alternate 302 IPC, while accused Harish Chander was charged U/s 498A IPC. The parents and brother of deceased as PW3, 4 and 7 have in their examination in chief affirmed on oath that after marriage, Laxmi used to be beaten by both the accused persons with demand of Rs. 1 lacs for purchasing some land. But in crossexamination, they could not sustain their SC No. 11/08 18 of 28 D.O.O. 06.07.2011 SC No: 11/08 FIR No: 413/06 PS: Najafgarh State Vs. Harish Chander etc. averments raising a serious doubt as to veracity of their testimony. In his examination in chief, PW 3 testified that on 8.4.2006, he had come to Delhi to leave Laxmi at her matrimonial house and before departing for Gorakhpur on 11.4.2006, he had requested both the accused persons i.e. Geeta and Harish Chander not to harass Laxmi. In crossexamination, PW1, however, admitted that accused Harish Chander was not at Delhi between 9.4.2006 to 11.4.2006 when PW 3 had come here with deceased. Apparently, both the above statements of PW 3 cannot be true. Further PW3 testified that on 29.4.2006, at about 8.00 pm, Laxmi had telephoned her mother and told her that accused Geeta was very happy on that day and had asked her to go for an outing. He was controverted by both PW4 and PW7 who deposed that on that day, Laxmi had actually complained to her mother that accused Geeta was beating her and was not giving her food. Besides this, PW 3 affirmed that on 29.4.2006, after Laxmi had talked to her mother, he telephoned Anil and advised to keep Laxmi well because accused Geeta used to harass her. If Laxmi had SC No. 11/08 19 of 28 D.O.O. 06.07.2011 SC No: 11/08 FIR No: 413/06 PS: Najafgarh State Vs. Harish Chander etc. telephoned and told her mother that accused Geeta was happy on that day and had even allowed her to go out, there was no reason for PW 3 to have called Anil on that very day and to have asked him to keep Laxmi well nor there was any occasion for Anil to have assured PW3 that he would go home and look into the matter as claimed by PW 3 in his testimony. The allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty as levelled by PW3, 4 and 7 in their examination in chief are general, vague and omnibus. No date, month or time has been specified when the demand was really raised by the accused persons, or when Laxmi was subjected to cruelty in their presence.
18. PW7 Virender Nishat, the elder brother of Laxmi has fully demolished the case of prosecution so far as allegations of cruelty for demand of dowry against the accused persons are concerned. He affirmed that at the time of marriage, his parents had paid Rs. 1 lac cash to the accused persons whereas there is not even a whisper to that effect by PW3 or PW4. In fact, both PW3 and PW4 admitted that neither of the two accused persons had SC No. 11/08 20 of 28 D.O.O. 06.07.2011 SC No: 11/08 FIR No: 413/06 PS: Najafgarh State Vs. Harish Chander etc. come to Gorakhpur to attend the marriage ceremony of Anil with Laxmi. So there was no question of their having received any payment at that time in marriage. Further PW7 stated that Laxmi had visited her parental home, only once after marriage and at that time, she had told them about the cruelty meted out by the accused persons. This is again contrary to the statement given by PW3 and PW4. Further PW7 stated that on the day of incident at about 8.00 pm, Laxmi had talked to her father (and not mother) and told that both the accused persons (not accused Geeta alone) were beating her and were not giving food to her. In cross examination, PW7 replied that it was he who had taken Laxmi to Gorakhpur for the first time after about six months of marriage whereas PW3 and PW4 stated otherwise. As per PW3 and PW4, the mobile phone of Laxmi was snatched and broken by accused persons whereas PW7 stated that the phone used to be with Anil and Laxmi till her death. Most surprisingly PW7 in his examination in chief claimed that he was the first one to have reached matrimonial house of Laxmi after hearing about the SC No. 11/08 21 of 28 D.O.O. 06.07.2011 SC No: 11/08 FIR No: 413/06 PS: Najafgarh State Vs. Harish Chander etc. incident. Laxmi was still lying there in burnt condition but her in laws had run away. Then he telephoned his father who arrived at Delhi after two days and then Laxmi was shifted to hospital after two days. The records of the case, as placed before the court by prosecution itself, narrate a totally different story. The testimony of PW3, 4 and 7 is apparently infested by innumerable material contradictions and no reliance on the same can be placed to conclude that Laxmi was subjected to cruelty for dowry by any of the accused persons at any time after her marriage and till her death. Consequently, charge U/s 498 A IPC against both the accused persons and charge U/s 304 B IPC against accused Geeta Devi fails. However as discussed herein above there is sufficient circumstantial evidence coupled with dying declaration of Laxmi to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was accused Geeta who had poured kerosene oil over Laxmi and set her on fire there by causing her death. Though Laxmi breathed her last after about 10 days of the incident but her condition was critical throughout and she was admitted in the hospital with more than 90% burns SC No. 11/08 22 of 28 D.O.O. 06.07.2011 SC No: 11/08 FIR No: 413/06 PS: Najafgarh State Vs. Harish Chander etc. covering her entire body. It is also established with the aid of evidence as per law that after the incident, the scene of crime was tampered with i.e. was washed and the evidence was removed by accused Geeta Devi in order to screen herself from legal punishment.
19. Accused Geeta Devi is consequently hereby convicted U/s 302/201 IPC. She be taken in custody and be heard on the point of sentence. Accused Harish Chander is acquitted of the offence charged with. The bail bond and surety bond of both accused persons stand cancelled. Original documents, if any, of sureties be returned and endorsement, if any, on the documents be cancelled. Accused Harish Chander shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/ with one surety of like amount. Accused requests that he is not in a position to arrange for a surety and he may be released on his furnishing personal bond only and he undertakes to appear in the appellant court as and when directed. In the interest of justice, he is permitted to furnish only the personal bond as mandated U/s 437A Cr.P.C. Personal bond SC No. 11/08 23 of 28 D.O.O. 06.07.2011 SC No: 11/08 FIR No: 413/06 PS: Najafgarh State Vs. Harish Chander etc. presented and accepted. Case be listed for consideration on point of sentence.
Announced in the open (MAMTA TAYAL)
court on 6.7.2011 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
DWARKA COURTS: ND
SC No. 11/08 24 of 28 D.O.O. 06.07.2011
SC No: 11/08
FIR No: 413/06
PS: Najafgarh
State Vs. Harish Chander etc.
IN THE COURT OF MS. MAMTA TAYAL
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : DWARKA COURTS
NEW DELHI
SC No. 11/08
FIR No. 413/06
Police Station Najafgarh
U/Section 302/201/34 IPC
Judgment announced on 06.07.2011
Order on sentence 20.07.2011
State V/s Smt. Geeta Devi,
W/o Sh. Harish Chander Parsad,
Present Address: H. NO. 124,
Sainik Enclave, CRPF Camps,
Jharoda Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi.
Permanent Address: Village Kuda Ghat,
PS Cantt., Distt. Gorakhpur, UP.
Order on the point of sentence
1. I have heard the convict Geeta Devi in person, Ld. Defence counsel as well as Ld. Addl. P.P. at length as to quantum of sentence to SC No. 11/08 25 of 28 D.O.O. 06.07.2011 SC No: 11/08 FIR No: 413/06 PS: Najafgarh State Vs. Harish Chander etc. be awarded to the convict in the present case. It is urged by Ld. Defence counsel that the convict is a 48 years old woman having noone to take care of her. She has no criminal antecedents. Ld. Defence Counsel prayed that a lenient view may be taken and minimum sentence may be awarded to her.
2. In contrast Ld. Addl. PP for the State prayed for awarding capital punishment to the convict on the ground that she committed cold blooded and gruesome murder of her daughter in law, a young lady who was also six months pregnant at that time. Her act has shocked the conscience of Society as a whole.
3. While awarding sentence, a delicate balancing of various factors such as those which give an insight into the state of mind, motivation, attitude and propensities of the accused has to be done while at the same time, keeping in view the larger societal interests. The principle that in case of murder, life imprisonment is the normal rule and the death sentence should be handed down in rarest of rare cases should of course be uppermost in the mind of the Judge.
4. The nature of the crime, the circumstances of the criminal SC No. 11/08 26 of 28 D.O.O. 06.07.2011 SC No: 11/08 FIR No: 413/06 PS: Najafgarh State Vs. Harish Chander etc. and the impact of the crime on the community are broadly the considerations that ought to be kept in view by a Court called upon to choose between the death sentence and the life imprisonment.
5. Analysing facts of instant case in this light, apparently this is not a case where it can be said with certitude that the murder was preplanned or was committed in an utterly diabolical and cruel fashion. It can also not be said that "the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the offender reveal that the criminal is a menace to the society".
6. The present case in my opinion does not fall in the category of rarest of rare cases, the test as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court. In circumstances, the convict is hereby sentenced U/s 302 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay Rs.10,000/ as fine and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for three months. She is further sentenced U/s 201 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/ in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for one month. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The period already undergone by the convict in Judicial custody in this case shall be set off U/s 428 Cr. P. C. as per law. Copy of SC No. 11/08 27 of 28 D.O.O. 06.07.2011 SC No: 11/08 FIR No: 413/06 PS: Najafgarh State Vs. Harish Chander etc. the judgment and order on sentence are given to the convict, free of cost. She is further informed of her right to appeal against the judgment and sentence and also about availability of legal aid for the said purpose.
7. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (MAMTA TAYAL)
court on 20.7.2011 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
DWARKA COURTS: ND
SC No. 11/08 28 of 28 D.O.O. 06.07.2011