Delhi District Court
State vs Ravinder Kumar Chauhan on 9 August, 2011
IN THE COURT OF DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE01 (OUTER), ROHINI, DELHI.
Sessions Case No: 137/09
FIR No : 259/09
Police Station : Vijay Vihar
U/s : 302 IPC
State
Versus
Ravinder Kumar Chauhan,
S/o Shri Shyam,
R/o K115, Vijay Vihar,
PhaseII, Delhi.
... Accused
Date of Institution : 18.11.2009.
Date of Decision : 09.08.2011.
JUDGMENT
Ravinder Kumar Chauhan and Madhu got married with each other and were having two children. Ravinder Kumar Chauhan, Madhu along with their children were residing at the premises bearing no.A115, Vijay Vihar, PhaseII, Delhi as a tenant. Amarjeet Singh is the owner of State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 1 of 35 the said house. Ravinder Kumar Chauhan was suspecious about the character of his wife Madhu. Madhu on earlier occasion stayed with Manoj at house bearing no.C100, Vijay Vihar, Delhi owned by Mukesh Kumar.
2. Amarjeet Singh on 11.8.2009 was passing through his house bearing no.115, Vijay Vihar, PhaseII, Delhi where Ravinder Kumar Chauhan along with his family was residing as a tenant. Ravinder Kumar Chauhan met with Amarjeet Singh. Amarjeet Singh asked Ravinder Kumar Chauhan that where he was going at that time. Ravinder Kumar Chauhan was appearing to be perturbed. Ravinder Kumar Chauhan told Amarjeet Singh that he had killed his wife Madhu and was going to police station to report incident.
3. HC Kailash Chand was on duty as Duty Officer at PS Vijay Vihar w.e.f. 5 pm to 1 am. At about 6.05 pm, Ravinder Kumar Chauhan came to the police station and informed HC Kailash Chand that he had strangulated his wife to death as she was characterless. HC Kailash Chand reduced the information into writing vide DD no.42A which was assigned to SI Madan Lal.
4. SI Madan Lal after receipt of DD No.42A along with Ct. Satbir went to house bearing no.K115, Vijay Vihar, PhaseII. Amarjeet Singh State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 2 of 35 was also found present there. Inspector Sunil Kumar Sharma and Ct. Ravinder also reached there. Ravinder Kumar Chauhan led the Inspector Sunil Kumar Sharma and others to the second floor of the house and pointed out towards the dead body of his wife Madhu (hereafter referred to as "the deceased") lying in the room. Inspector Sunil Kumar Sharma prepared the rukka. Ct. Ravinder was sent to police station for registration of the case. FIR bearing no.259/09 u/s 302 IPC was got registered. Site plan was prepared. Crime team was called. Inspector Sunil Kumar Sharma seized the exhibits from the spot including the angocha (cloth) stated to be ligature material and one vegetable knife etc.
5. Ravinder Kumar Chauhan (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") was arrested. The accused made disclosure statement. After inquest proceedings, the Post Mortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted. Dr. Manoj Dhingra opined the cause of death as asphyxia subsequent upon ligature strangulation. Dr. Manoj Dhingra opined that the death with the injuries can be caused by the angocha (cloth) which was seized from the spot by Inspector Sunil Kumar Sharma. Inspector Virender Kumar completed the investigation. The accused after completion of investigation was charge sheeted for the offence punishable State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 3 of 35 u/s 302 IPC. The charge sheet was submitted to the court of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate. The accused was put to trial.
6. The accused was supplied with the copies of charge sheet along with annexed documents in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions vide committal order dated 11.11.2009 passed by the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and thereafter assigned to this court for trial in accordance with law.
7. The charge for the offence u/s 302 IPC was framed against the accused vide order dated 18.11.2009 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. The prosecution examined SI Manohar Lal as PW1; Ct. Kamal as PW2; HC Sukhbir Singh as PW3; HC Rajesh Kumar as PW4; Savita as PW5; Inspector Virender Kumar as PW6; HC Kailash Chand as PW7; Amarjeet Singh as PW8; W/ HC Sita Devi as PW9 ; Dr. Manoj Dhingra as PW10; Inspector Sunil Kumar Sharma as PW11; Ct. Neeraj Rana as PW12; Ct. Ravinder as PW13; Ct. Ramphal as PW14; SI Madan Lal as PW15 and Mukesh Kumar as PW16.
PW1 SI Manohar Lal prepared the scaled site plan of the spot at the instance of Inspector Virender Kumar. PW2 Ct. Kamal being the member of Crime Team took the photographs of the dead body and the State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 4 of 35 spot at the instance of Inspector Sunil Kumar Sharma. PW3 HC Sukhbir Singh handed over the exhibits to Ct. Neeraj for depositing at FSL, Rohini. PW4 HC Rajesh Kumar being the MHC (M) was entrusted with the case property/exhibits. PW5 Savita identified the dead body of the deceased. PW6 Inspector Virender Kumar being the subsequent Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet before the court of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate after completing the formalities of the investigation. PW7 HC Kailash Chand being the duty officer on 11.8.2009 recorded the DD no. 42A and also got registered the FIR bearing no.259/09 on the basis of rukka produced by Ct. Ravinder and thereafter made the endorsement on the rukka. PW8 Amarjeet Singh was the witness of extra judicial confession made by the accused to him. PW9 W/ HC Sita Devi recorded the DD no.11A regarding the return of special messenger. PW10 Dr. Manoj Dhingra along with Dr. Deepak conducted the Post Mortem on the dead body of the deceased and also gave subsequent opinion regarding the ligature material. PW11 Inspector Sunil Kumar Sharma being the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation. PW12 Ct. Neeraj Rana deposited the case property to FSL, Rohini. PW13 Ct. Ravinder being on patrolling duty on 11.8.09 reached at the spot and thereafter took the rukka to police station for State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 5 of 35 registration of FIR. PW14 Ct. Ramphal took the accused to BSA Hospital for medical examination. PW15 SI Madan Lal after being assigned with DD no.42A went to the spot and participated in the investigation. PW16 Mukesh Kumar had given one room to Manoj Kumar with whom the deceased was stated to be having illicit relations and she stayed along with Manoj Kumar in the said room forming part of property bearing no.C100, Vijay Vihar owned by PW16 Mukesh Kumar.
9. The prosecution proved scaled site plan as ExPW1/A;
photographs of the dead body and spot taken by PW2 Ct. Kamal as ExPW2/14 to ExPW2/26 and negatives as ExPW2/1 to ExPW2/13; photocopy of RC bearing no.83/21/09 as ExPW3/A; relevant entries made in register no.19 by PW4 HC Rajesh Kumar MHC (M) as ExPW4/A to ExPW4/C; DD no.42A as ExPW7/A; copy of FIR as ExPW7/C; endorsement made by PW7 HC Kailash Chand on rukka as ExPW7/B; seizure memo of bangles as ExPW8/A; seizure memo of angocha (stated to be ligature material) as ExPW8/B; seizure memo of knife as ExPW8/C; arrest memo of accused as ExPW8/D; disclosure statement of the accused as ExPW8/E; pointing out memo prepared at the instance of the accused as ExPW8/F; sketch of knife as ExPW8/G; photocopy of DD no.11A as ExPW9/A; Post Mortem Report as ExPW10/A; subsequent opinion given State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 6 of 35 by PW10 Dr. Manoj Dhingra regarding the ligature material as ExPW10/B; rukka as ExPW11/A; seizure memo of exhibits handed over by the concerned doctor after the post mortem of the deceased as ExPW11/F; seizure memo of blood sample of the accused as ExPW11/F; identification memos of the dead body of the deceased as ExPW11/G and ExPW11/H; receipt of dead body after post mortem as ExPW11/I; application moved by PW11 Inspector Sunil Kumar Sharma before PW10 Dr. Manoj Dhingra for seeking subsequent opinion as ExPW11/J. The defence counsel did not dispute the crime team report ExPX and forensic report ExPY. PWs also identified the exhibits i.e angocha as ExP1, bangles as ExP2, knife as ExP3 and clothes stated to be worn by the deceased at the time of post mortem as ExP4. The prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 13.7.2011.
10. The statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein accused stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case and denied the incriminating evidence. The accused stated that the deceased had developed relations with Manoj and started to live with him but on his persuasion the deceased came back and they started to live happily; he called the police after finding his wife dead; he was forced to sign blank State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 7 of 35 papers; PW8 Amarjeet Singh falsely deposed against him and he was not present at the time of death of his wife. The accused did not lead defence evidence.
11. Shri R.A. Yadav, APP for the State and Shri Kundan Kumar, Advocate/ Amicus Curie for accused heard. Record perused.
12. There was no eye witness to the crime. The entire prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. A fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. In very few cases direct evidence of facts is available as the criminals lay their plot in secret. The criminals silence victim altogether and do not leave any trail of evidence behind. In such cases, the events are required to be reconstructed before the court with the help of the surrounding circumstances. Circumstances sometimes speak as forcefully as does the direct evidence.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
13. The conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence. It should be tested by the principles relating to circumstantial evidence. Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 8 of 35 accused or the guilt of any other person. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. Where the case depends upon the conclusions drawn from circumstances, the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offender home beyond any reasonable doubt.
14. In Sharad Birdhichand Sards V State of Maharashtra, AIR1984SC1622 while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it was held that onus is on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity or lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. Before conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the following condition precedent must be established :
i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established;
ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 9 of 35
iii)the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
iv)they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
15. The question needs consideration is, what does the expression 'proved beyond reasonable doubt' in case rest on circumstantial evidence signify. It does not mean that the prosecution is required to prove its case with hundred percent certainty. The Evidence Act, 1872 does not insist upon absolute proof for the simple reason that perfect proof in this imperfect world is seldom to be found. As per Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872 a fact is said to be 'proved' when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. The definition of 'proved' does not draw any distinction between circumstantial and other evidence. Thus, circumstantial evidence in order to furnish a basis for conviction requires a high degree of probability, that is, so sufficiently State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 10 of 35 high that a prudent man considering all the facts, feels justified in holding that the accused has committed the crime.
16. APP argued that there was no eye witness of the crime and the prosecution is relying on the circumstantial evidence; the prosecution led the complete chain of evidence pointing towards the guilt of accused and is incompatible with the innocence of the accused. APP relied upon
i) motive of the accused in committing murder of his wife;
ii) DD no.42A ExPW7/A recorded by PW7 HC Kailash Chand wherein the accused informed that he has strangulated his wife to death as his wife i.e the deceased was characterless;
iii) Extra judical confession made by the accused to PW8 Amarjeet Singh on 11.8.2009;
iv) the recovery of ligature material i.e angocha ExP1 from the spot; and
v) the accused has failed to give proper explanation that how and under what circumstances the deceased was murdered when the accused and the deceased were residing together in the tenanted premises forming part of property bearing no.K115, Vijay Vihar, PhaseII, Delhi. The defence counsel/Amicus Curie for the accused argued that the prosecution has failed to proved its case as DD no.42A ExPW7/A cannot State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 11 of 35 be read into evidence as alleged to have been made by the accused in the police station; extra judicial confession made by the accused to PW8 Amarjeet Singh cannot be relied upon; the accused was not present when the deceased was murdered; and the accused had gone to police station to report the incident of the murder of his wife but he was falsely implicated in this case with the purpose to solve the case by the police. The defence counsel argued that the accused is liable to be acquitted.
MOTIVE
17. Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872 says that facts which show a motive for any facts in issue or relevant facts, are relevant. In a case resting on circumstantial evidences, motive bears important significance. Motive always locks up in the mind of the accused. Motive is the inducement for doing an act. People do not act wholly without motive. The evidence of motive becomes important once a crime is committed. The evidence of the existence of a motive is admissible. Motive is sometime difficult to unlock. The existence of motive assumes significance but the absence of motive does not necessarily discredit the prosecution case. The proof of motive is never an indispensable for conviction. The absence of proof of motive does not break the link in the State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 12 of 35 chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime, nor militates against the prosecution case.
18. It was observed in case State of U.P. V Babu Ram, 2000 (11) AD 285 as under : No doubt it is a sound principle to remember that every criminal act was done with a motive but its corollary is not that no criminal offence would have been committed if the prosecution has failed to prove the precise motive of the accused to commit it. When the prosecution succeeded in showing the possibility of some ire for the accused towards the victim, the inability to further put on record the manner in which such ire would have swelled up in the mind of the offender to such a degree as to impel him to commit the offence cannot be construed as a fatal weakness of the prosecution. It is almost an impossibility for the prosecution to unravel the full dimension of the mental imposition of an offender towards the person whom he offered.
19. APP argued that the accused was suspecting character of the deceased and due to this reason he committed murder of the deceased. APP referred and relied on DD no.42A ExPW7/A. The defence counsel argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive of the accused in committing the murder of the State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 13 of 35 deceased; and DD no.42A ExPW7/A recorded by PW7 HC Kailash Chand is not admissible and cannot be relied upon.
20. The accused and the deceased were married with each other. They were residing at house no.K115, Vijay Vihar, PhaseII, Delhi as tenant under PW8 Amarjeet Singh. As per the prosecution the accused was suspecting character of the deceased as she had developed relation with Manoj. As per the testimony of PW8 Amarjeet Singh, he was passing through his house no.K115, Vijay Vihar, PhaseII, Delhi on 11.8.2009 at about 6/6.30 pm then the accused met him and at that time, the accused was perturbed. PW8 Amarjeet Singh deposed that accused told him that he had killed his wife and was going to police station to inform about the incident. The prosecution has also examined PW7 HC Kailash Chand, Duty Officer who was on duty on 11.8.2009 w.e.f. 5 pm to 1 am in police station Vijay Vihar. As per the testimony of PW7 HC Kailash Chand, the accused came at the police station at about 6.05 pm and informed that he had strangulated his wife to death as his wife was characterless. The said information was reduced into writing vide DD no.42A ExPW7/A. DD no.42A ExPW7/A is perused. The contents of DD no.42A ExPW7/A attribute motive to the accused in committing the murder of the deceased. The question needs consideration is that whether the information given by State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 14 of 35 the accused himself to PW7 HC Kailash Chand vide DD no.42A ExPW7/A that his wife was characterless is admissible in evidence to attribute his motive.
21. In case Nisar Ali V State of UP, AIR 1957 SC 366 the Supreme Court considered whether a statement contained in an FIR lodged by an accused can be used against the coaccused. The Supreme Court answered the aforesaid question in negative. It was observed as under : An objection has been taken to the admissibility of this report as it was made by a person who was a co accused. A first information report is not a substantive piece of evidence and can only be used to corroborate the statement of the maker under Section 157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict it under Section 145 of that Act. It cannot be used as evidence against the maker at the trial if he himself becomes an accused, nor to corroborate or contradict other witnesses. In this case, therefore, it is not evidence.
22. In case Faddi V State of MP, AIR 1964 SC 1850 it was contended that the first information report lodged by the accused is an inadmissible piece of evidence. The Supreme Court repelled said contention and observed as under: The report is not a confession of the appellant. It is not a State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 15 of 35 statement made to a police officer during the course of investigation. Section 25 of the Evidence Act and Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not bar its admissibility. The report is an admission by the accused of certain facts which have a bearing on the question to be determined by the Courts. Admissions are admissible in evidence under Section 21 of the Act. Section 17 defines an admission to be a statement, oral or documentary, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, thereafter mentioned, in the Act. Section 21 provides that admissions are relevant and may be proved as against a person who makes them. Illustrations (c), (d) and (e) to Section 21 are of the circumstances in which an accused could prove his own admissions which go in his favour in view of the exceptions mentioned in Section 21 to the provision that admissions could not be proved by the person who makes them. It is therefore clear that admissions of an accused can be proved against him.
23. The legal principle emerges from Faddi case is that, where the accused himself lodges the first information report, the fact of his giving information of the crime to the police is admissible against him as evidence of his conduct under Section 8 of Evidence Act; and if the first information report is a nonconfessional statement, it can be used against State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 16 of 35 him as an admission under Section 21 of Evidence Act.
24. In case Aghnoo Nagesia V State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119, the accused who was charged with the offence(s) of having murdered four persons lodged an FIR with the police. The Supreme Court divided the FIR into 18 parts for the purposes of determining its admissibility. The Supreme Court held that save and except parts pertaining to the fact that the accused was the maker of the FIR and the parts which came within the purview of Section 27 of Evidence Act, the entire FIR amounts to confession and should be excluded from evidence.
25. In case Bheru Singh V State of Rajasthan, (1994) 2 SCC 467 , the Supreme Court held that the statements contained in the FIR pertaining to motive of the accused is nonconfessional in nature and can be used against him.
26. In case Mukesh V State, 2010 (2) Crimes 441 (Del.) the issue was whether recording of information attributing to the motive of accused in committing the crime in DD entry on the basis of information given by the accused can be used against the accused itself. After considering the above cited case law, it was held that the recording contained in the DD entry to the effect that the accused informed the police that the deceased State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 17 of 35 was having illicit relation with his brother in law is not admissible in evidence for the reason that the said recording is incriminating evidence against the accused and all the incriminating facts contained in confessional statement are inadmissible in evidence as laid down by the Supreme Court in Aghnoo's case. In view of above decision, the information given by the accused that his wife was characterless as recorded in DD no.42A ExPW7/A is not admissible in law.
27. The prosecution to prove motive also relied upon the testimony of PW16 Mukesh Kumar. PW16 Mukesh Kumar is the owner of house bearing no.C100, Vijay Vihar, Delhi which he let out to Manoj at a monthly rent of Rs.1300/ who resided there for about 1 ½ month. PW16 Mukesh Kumar deposed that one lady Madhu was also living with Manoj in the said room. PW16 Mukesh Kumar further deposed that after letting out the said room to Manoj, the accused came to him and stated that the lady Madhu who was living with Manoj was his wife and thereafter the accused met with the Madhu in the room. PW16 Mukesh Kumar further deposed that the accused was requesting Madhu to come with him and after about one or two days Madhu and Manoj had left from the said room. PW11 Inspector Sunil Kumar Sharma, Investigating Officer during cross State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 18 of 35 examination deposed that during investigation he came to know that the deceased had eloped with one Manoj Kumar. PW11 Inspector Sunil Kumar Sharma also admitted that he recorded the statement of Mukesh Kumar in whose house Manoj and Madhu i.e deceased stayed together. The defence counsel during the cross examination of PW8 Amarjeet Singh gave a suggestion that the accused had disclosed to him and the police that one Manoj with whom his wife was having illicit relation had committed the murder of his wife and the said suggestion was denied by PW8 Amarjeet Singh. The accused in statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. also admitted the relation of his wife with Manoj Kumar. The prosecution is not required to prove the motive reflecting the state of mind of a person with the perfect clarity and unambiguity. The prosecution has to prove possibility of some ire in the mind of the accused to a degree which impelled him to commit the offence. It is almost impossible for the prosecution to unreveal the full dimension of the mental imposition of the accused in committing the offence.
28. The testimony of PW16 Mukesh Kumar, cross examination of PW11 Inspector Sunil Kumar Sharma, suggestion given to PW8 Amarjeet Singh during cross examination and statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. combined together proved that accused was suspecting the State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 19 of 35 character of his wife and this was the motive for the accused in committing the murder of the deceased.
CONDUCT
29. In criminal trial unnatural, abnormal or unusual behaviour of accused after the offence may be relevant circumstance against him. Such conduct is inconsistent with his innocence. The conduct which destroys presumption of innocence can be considered as relevant and material. To prove the guilt of the accused, the conduct of the accused after the commission of offence must be inconsistent with his innocence. In Joydeep Neogi @ Bubai V State of West Bengal, (2009) 15 SCC 83, it was held as under : A criminal trial is not an enquiry into the conduct of an accused for any purpose other than to determine his guilt. It is not disputed that piece of conduct which is not connected with the guilt of the accused is not relevant. But at the same time, however, unnatural, abnormal or unusual behaviour of the accused after the offence may be relevant circumstance against him. Such conduct is inconsistent with his innocence. So the conduct which destroys the presumption of innocence can be considered as relevant and material.
30. APP argued that although in view of the settled preposition of law State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 20 of 35 as referred herein above the part of the DD no.42A ExPW7/A recorded by PW7 HC Kailash Chand to the effect that the wife of the accused was characterless as informed by the accused is not admissible but as per Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the information given by the accused that he has committed the murder of his wife is admissible to show the conduct of the accused immediately after commission of offence. The defence counsel argued that the entire DD no.42A ExPW7/A cannot be read into evidence.
31. The perusal of DD no.42A ExPW7/A reflects that the accused had informed two facts to the PW7 HC Kailash Chand which are (i) that his wife was characterless; and (ii) that he had strangulated his wife to death. As discussed herein above the portion of DD no.42A ExPW7/A to the effect that the wife of the accused i.e the deceased was characterless is not admissible. The question needs consideration is that whether the information given by the accused to PW7 HC Kailash Chander and recorded vide DD no.42A ExPW7/A that he had strangulated his wife to death is admissible or not.
32. In case of Mukesh, the accused came to the police station and informed Head Constable that he strangulated his wife with a string of State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 21 of 35 salwar and also cut her neck with a kitchen knife besides mentioning the other facts related to the commission of offence. It was observed that the information given by the accused about the crime of murder of the deceased to the police is admissible against the appellant as same is the evidence of his conduct u/s 8 of the Evidence Act. The defence counsel cited Mandesan V State of Kerala, 1995 Cri LJ 61 wherein it was observed by the Supreme Court that the fact the accused went to the police station on the date of occurrence and informed the police that he had committed the murder is inadmissible as per Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The said authority is not applicable under the given facts of the case. The incriminating part of DD no.42 ExPW7/A is not admissible but the part of DD no.42A showing the conduct of the accused is admissible. The information given by the accused that he had strangulated his wife to death as recorded by PW7 HC Kailash Chander vide DD no.42A ExPW7/A is admissible to show the conduct of the accused immediately after the commission of offence.
EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION
33. The term "confession" is not defined in the Evidence Act. The provisions relating to confessions occur under the heading of "admission". State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 22 of 35 The definition of "admission" as given in section 17 becomes applicable to confession also. Section 17 defines admission as "a statement oral or documentary, which suggest any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact." A confession is a statement made by a person charged with a crime suggesting an inference as to any facts in issue or as to relevant facts. The inference that the statement should suggest that he is guilty of the crime. The evidentiary value of a confession and its acceptability is to be assessed by the Court having due regard to the credibility of the witness. If the Court having regard to the attending circumstances believes the witness before whom the confession is made and is satisfied that the confession is voluntary and without any doubt an order of conviction can be founded on such evidence. Confessions may be divided into two classes i.e judicial and extra judicial. Judicial confessions are made before a Magistrate or a court in the course of judicial proceedings. Extra judicial confessions are made by the party elsewhere than before a Magistrate or court. Extra - judicial confessions are generally made by a party to or before a private individual. There is no rule that extra judicial confession cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by other evidence.
34. In case Chattar Singh V State of Haryana, 2008 (4) RCR (Cri) State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 23 of 35 674, it was held : An extrajudicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends on the reliability of the witness who gives the evidence. it is not open to any court to start with a presumption that extrajudicial confession is a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak to such a confession. Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused, the words spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it. After subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the extrajudicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 24 of 35 conviction if it passes the test of credibility.
35. Another piece of evidence relied upon by the prosecution is extra judicial confession made by the accused to PW8 Amarjeet Singh. PW8 Amarjeet Singh is the landlord of house bearing no.K115, PhaseII, Vijay Vihar where the accused along with the deceased and children was residing as tenant. PW8 Amarjeet Singh was running a DJ and was using portion of the house no.K115 for storage purposes. On 11.8.2009 at about 6/6.30 pm, PW8 Amarjeet Singh was passing through his house bearing no. K115, where the accused was residing as a tenant, to check his labour. The accused met with PW8 Amarjeet Singh. The accused as per the testimony of PW8 Amarjeet Singh was appeared to be perturbed and on being asked by PW8 the accused told that he has killed his wife and was going to police station to inform the incident. As per the prosecution, thereafter the accused went to police station and informed the police about the incident which was recorded vide DD no.42A ExPW7/A. The DD No.42A ExPW7/A was recorded at about 6.05 pm. The combined testimony of PW7 HC Kailash Chander and PW8 Amarjeet Singh proved that accused met with PW8 Amarjeet Singh before going to police station to inform about the incident.
State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 25 of 35
36. When the accused made extra judicial confession to PW8 Amarjeet Singh, he was not under the police custody either actual or constructive. The accused met with PW8 Amarjeet Singh immediately after the incident. PW8 Amarjeet Singh was cross examined at length by the defence counsel but PW8 Amarjeet Singh stood the test of the cross examination. PW8 Amarjeet Singh during cross examination deposed that accused himself disclosed about the incident to him. PW8 denied the suggestion that the accused did not met him or that the accused did not disclose him about the incident. PW8 denied the suggestion that he came to the spot i.e house no.K115 after being called by the police. PW8 Amarjeet Singh also deposed that his statement was recorded by the police on the same day reflecting that the statement of PW8 Amarjeet Singh was recorded by the police without any delay. PW8 Amarjeet Singh also deposed that he had disclosed all the facts to the police when his statement was recorded by the police. PW8 was an independent witness and only let out his part of the premises bearing no.K115 to the accused on rent. There is nothing in evidence suggesting that PW8 Amarjeet Singh was having any ill will even remotely towards the accused or his testimony was motivated by improper purposes. The accused in clear, unambiguous words made extra judicial confession to the PW8 Amarjeet Singh. The State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 26 of 35 extra judicial confession made by the accused to PW8 Amarjeet Singh conveyed that the accused was the perpetrator of the crime. The extra judicial confession made to PW8 Amarjeet Singh is not a weak type of evidence. The accused in statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. stated that PW8 Amarjeet Singh deposed against him as PW8 Amarjeet Singh wanted to save real culprit. The defence as taken by the accused does not inspire any confidence. No suggestion was given to PW8 Amarjeet Singh that he wanted to save real culprit Manoj. The testimony of PW8 Amarjeet Singh inspire confidence and can be safely relied upon to prove the extra judicial confession made by the accused to PW8 Amarjeet Singh. There is nothing in the testimony of PW8 Amarjeet Singh which can dilute the credibility of the testimony of PW8 Amarjeet Singh. The prosecution proved that the accused made extra judicial confession to PW8 Amarjeet Singh which can be safely relied upon.
Recovery of dead body and ligature material i.e angocha (Gamcha) ExP1 at the instance of the accused.
37. As per the prosecution, the accused led the police party to the second floor of the house bearing no.K115. The accused got recovered the dead body of the deceased and the angocha (gamcha) ExP1 stated to be used in the strangulation of the deceased by him. The prosecution State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 27 of 35 examined PW8 Amarjeet Singh, PW11 Inspector Sunil Kumar Sharma, the Investigating Officer and PW15 SI Madan Lal who after receipt of DD no.42A ExPW7/A reached at the spot. PW15 SI Madan Lal deposed that on 11.8.2009 after receipt of DD no.42A ExPW7/A, he along with accused and Ct. Satbir reached at house no.K115, PhaseII, Vijay Vihar where PW8 Amarjeet Singh was also present. PW15 SI Madan Lal also deposed that after some time PW11 Inspector Sunil Kumar Sharma also reached there. PW11 Inspector Sunil Kumar Sharma also seized one angocha ExP1 at the instance of accused which was seized vide seizure memo ExPW8/B. The seizure memo ExPW8/B is perused. The perusal of seizure memo ExPW8/B reflects that the accused got recovered the said angocha ExP1 stated to be the ligature material. The said angocha ExP1 was seized by PW11 Inspector Sunil Kumar Sharma in presence of PW15 SI Madan Lal and independent witness PW8 Amarjeet Singh. PW8 Amarjeet Singh also identified the angocha as ExP1.
38. PW11 Inspector Sunil Kumar Sharma also moved an application ExPW1/J to obtain the subsequent opinion before PW10 Dr. Manoj Dhingra. PW10 Dr. Manoj Dhingra conducted the Post Mortem on the dead body of the deceased and found three ligature marks as reported in the Post Mortem Report ExPW10/A. The cause of death was opined as State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 28 of 35 asphyxia consequent upon ligature strangulation. PW10 Dr. Manoj Dhingra on application ExPW11/J gave the subsequent opinion ExPW10/B and opined that the injury on the body of the deceased can be caused by the cloth i.e angocha ExP1. The combined reading of the testimonies of PWs as discussed herein above proved that the death of the deceased was caused by strangulation and angocha ExP1 was used in the strangulation; and said angocha ExP1 was recovered at the instance of the accused from the room where the dead body of the deceased was lying. The prosecution has proved the recovery of dead body at the instance of the accused and the ligature material ExP1 at the instance of accused from the room situated at the second floor of the house bearing no.K115, PhaseII, Vijay Vihar.
NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ACCUSED REGARDING THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED
39. The accused and the deceased were residing together on the second floor of the house bearing no.K115, PhaseII, Vijay Vihar. PW8 Amarjeet Singh is the landlord of the said premises. The accused and the deceased were having two children but at the time of incident what is appearing is that children were not present in the house as there is nothing to show the presence of children in the premises when the police officials State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 29 of 35 including Investigating Officer PW11 Inspector Sunil Kumar Sharma and PW8 Amarjeet Singh were taken by the accused at that place. PW8 Amarjeet Singh on 11.8.2009 was passing through the house bearing no.K115 to check his labour as the PW8 Amarjeet Singh was doing the business of DJ and using the portion of the house no K115 for storage purposes. The accused met with the PW8 Amarjeet Singh, owner of the house no.K115. The accused made extra judicial confession to PW8 Amarjeet Singh as to the incident. It reflects that at the relevant time, the accused was present in the company of the deceased and at that time there was no any other person was present with them.
40. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailant has all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of his choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence is insisted upon by the courts. The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Section 106 of the State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 30 of 35 Evidence Act provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
41. In case of Narender V State of Karnataka, AIR 2009 SC 1881, a married woman i.e deceased found dead in the bed room of matrimonial home and the parents of the deceased deposed that the deceased was very depressed and unhappy due to the improper treatment at hands of appellant i.e husband and the doctor gave opinion regarding the death was due to result of compression of neck and in these circumstances the accused was convicted.
42. In case Babu S/o Raveendran V Babu S/o Bahuleyan & Anr., 2003 SCC (Cri) 1569, the accused and the deceased were closed inside the room after dinner and there was no evidence of any intruder and the dead body with strangulation mark found in a nearby well. It was held that all the circumstances taken together points only towards the guilt of the accused.
43. In case Shri Kishan V State of Haryana, AIR 1994 SC 1597 the accused on the fateful night was present inside the house and the doctor who conducted the Post Mortem opined one continuous mark of ligature then the accused was held for guilty of murder. In case Prabhakar State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 31 of 35 Jasappa Kanguni V State of Maharashtra, AIR 1982 SC 1217, the relation of the accused with deceased were not happy and on the date of occurrence, the deceased stated to be attempted to commit suicide but the doctor on examination found the cause of death as asphyxia as a result of throttling. It was observed that in all human probability, the accused and none else had murdered the deceased by strangulating her to death. It was observed as under : The other circumstances listed above had also been finally established, once circumstance (1) is established, then, taken in conjunction with the other circumstances, particularly the undisputed fact that at or about the time of Malti's death, no third person excepting the accused and the deceased, was present in the house, it will inescapably lead to the conclusion that in all human probability, it was the accusedappellant and none else, who had murdered the deceased by strangulating her to death.
44. The testimony of PW8 Amarjeet Singh has proved that the accused was present along with the deceased in the tenanted premises at the time of incident. There is no evidence to reflect the presence of any other third person at the time of incident in the tenanted premises. The deceased was the wife of the accused. The accused was not happy with his State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 32 of 35 wife i.e the deceased due to her relation with Manoj Kumar. The deceased was found dead inside the house. There was no possibility of any external intruder. It is not explained by the accused under what circumstances the deceased has died. It is not explained how the three ligature marks came on the neck of the deceased. The cause of death is opined as strangulation by ligature excluding the possibility of any suicide. These facts are relevant under Section 106 of Evidence Act and are indicative of the fact that the accused has strangulated his wife.
45. In the adversarial system adopted by India, every person accused of an offence is always presumed to be innocent so that burden lies upon the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that all the ingredients of the offence with which the accused is charged are made out. The principle of proof beyond reasonable doubts should not be stretched morbidly as only reasonable doubts belong to the accused. It is duty of the courts, within permissible limit to find the truth. The criminals cannot be allowed to receive benefit of doubt under protective layers of cloud or dust over truth.
46. The present case is entirely based on the circumstantial evidence.
In a case based on the circumstantial evidence, the conclusion drawn must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Any State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 33 of 35 conclusion drawn on the basis of circumstantial evidence must exclude any other person except the accused being the author of the crime. It must be proved that in all human probability the offence must have been committed by the accused. The prosecution in the instant case has led the chain of circumstantial evidences leading to the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and excluding any other person being the preprator of the offence i.e the murder of the deceased. The prosecution has proved the following evidences beyond reasonable doubt : i. Motive ii. Conduct of the accused immediately after offence iii.Extra Judicial Confession iv.Recovery of dead body and ligature material i.e angocha ExP1 at the instance of the accused.
v. Failure of the accused to render any satisfactory explanation as to the death of the deceased.
47. The defence counsel also argued that if the case of the prosecution is admitted to be correct even then from the evidence led by the prosecution, the case falls u/s 304 (II) IPC. It is argued that there was no intention on the part of the accused to cause the death of the deceased or State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 34 of 35 knowledge that bodily injuries inflicted by the accused would have caused the death of the deceased.
48. The accused was not happy with the character of the deceased.
The deceased on earlier occasion stayed with Manoj Kumar. The accused with the motive committed the murder of the deceased. Three ligature marks were found on the neck of the deceased which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The accused has not committed the murder of the deceased in a spur of moment. The accused has acted in a cruel manner and not in the exercise of right of private defence. The deceased was a helpless lady and was not in a position to put her defence. After considering the totality of the evidence led by the prosecution, it cannot be said that the case fall u/s 304 IPC.
49. The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 11.8.2009 at about 5.40 pm, the accused has committed the murder of the deceased by strangulating her. Accordingly, the accused Ravinder Kumar Chauhan is convicted for the offence u/s 302 IPC.
Announced in open court (Dr.Sudhir Kumar Jain) on 09.08.2011 ASJ01 (Outer) Rohini, Delhi.
State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 35 of 35 IN THE COURT OF DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN , ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE01 (OUTER), ROHINI, DELHI. Sessions Case No: 137/09 FIR No : 259/09
Police Station : Vijay Vihar U/s : 302 IPC State Versus Ravinder Kumar Chauhan, S/o Shri Shyam, R/o K115, Vijay Vihar, PhaseII, Delhi. ... Convict ORDER ON SENTENCE Shri R.A. Yadav, APP for the State and Shri Kundan Kumar,
Advocate/ Amicus Curie for convict heard on quantum of sentence. Record perused.
2. The convict is stated to be aged about 32 years; the antecedents of the convict are stated to be clear; the convict is stated to be belonged to lower strata of society; the convict is not a previous convict; the convict is State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 36 of 35 stated to be in JC since 2009. Under these circumstances, the convict and his counsel prayed for lenient view.
APP stated that the convict has committed the murder of his wife by strangulation as the convict was not happy with the deceased and was suspecting her character; the convict not only committed the offence against the society but also against the humanity as the convict caused the murder of his wife i.e the deceased. APP stated that under given facts and circumstances of the case, the convict be awarded death penalty.
3. The nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts for awarding sentence. It is the duty of the court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc.
4. In case State of Punjab V Prem Sagar and Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 550 it was observed that the Indian Judicial System has not been able to develop legal principles as regards sentencing. It was further observed that whether the court while awarding sentence would take recourse to the principle of deterrence or reform or invoke the doctrine of proportionality State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 37 of 35 would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and while doing so nature of offence said to have been committed by the accused plays an important role. A wide discretion is conferred on the court but said discretion must exercise judicially while sentencing an accused. It would depend upon the circumstances in which the crime has been committed and the mental state and the age of the accused is also relevant.
5. Section 302 IPC prescribed death or life imprisonment as a penalty for murder. The Indian Penal Code has under gone multi dimensional changes for the last three decades which indicates that the Parliament has taken note of contemporary criminological thought and movement. The Indian Penal Code reflects a definite swing towards life imprisonment. Death sentence is ordinarily ruled out and can only be imposed for "special reasons", as provided in Section 354 (3) Cr.P.C. It indicates that reformation and rehabilitation of offenders and no deterrence, are now among the foremost objects of the administration of criminal justice in the country. Section 354(3) Cr.P.C. is a part of emerging picture of acceptance by the legislature of the new trends in criminology. The personality of a offender revealed by his age, character, antecedents and other circumstances and the tractability of the offender to reform must necessarily play the most prominent role in determining the State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 38 of 35 sentence to be awarded. A Judge has to balance the personality of the offender with the circumstances, situations and the reactions and choose the appropriate sentence to be imposed. The former rule that the normal punishment for murder is death is no longer operative and it is now within the discretion of the court to pass either of the sentence prescribed in the Section 302 IPC.
6. In case Machhi Singh V State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 957, the guidelines are laid down which are to be kept in view, considering the question whether the case belongs to the rarest of rare category. It was observed that the following questions may be asked and answered as a test to determine the 'rarest of the rare' case in which death sentence can be inflicted:--
a) Is there something uncommon about the crime which renders sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence?
b) Are the circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to impose death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances which speak in favour of the offender?
7. In case Bachan Singh V State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898 it was observed that a real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 39 of 35 postulates resistance to taking a life through law's instrumentality. That ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.
8. In case Machhi Singh, the guidelines were culled out which are to be applied to the facts of each individual case where the question of imposition of death sentence arises. The following preposition emerges from the Bachan Singh's case: i. The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability. ii. Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the 'offender' also required to be taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the 'crime'.
iii.Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. Death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided, and only provided, the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances.
iv.A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 40 of 35 the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised.
9. In case Bablu @ Mubarak Hussain V State of Rajasthan, AIR 2007 SC 697, the Supreme Court observed as under :-
In rarest of rare cases when collective conscience of the community is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial power center to inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty, death sentence can be awarded. The community may entertain such sentiment in the following circumstances:
i. When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community.
ii. When the murder is committed for a motive which evinces total depravity and meanness; e.g murder by hired assassin for money or reward or a cold blooded murder for gains of a person visavis whom the murderer is in a dominating position or in a position of trust, or murder is committed in the course for betrayal of the motherland. iii.When murder of a member of a Scheduled Caste or minority community etc., is committed not for State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 41 of 35 personal reasons but in circumstances which arouse social wrath, or in cases of 'bride burning' or 'dowry deaths' or when murder is committed in order to remarry for the sake of extracting dowry once again or to marry another woman on account of infatuation.
iv.When the crime is enormous in proportion. For instance when multiple murders, say of all or almost all the members of a family or a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality, are committed. v. When the victim of murder is an innocent child, or helpless woman or old or infirm person or a person visavis whom the murder is in a dominating position or a public figure generally loved and respected by the community.
10. The convict was suspecting the character of the deceased. The convict with a motive committed the murder of the deceased. The convict committed the murder of the deceased by strangulation by using angocha ExP1. The deceased at that time was a helpless lady and not in a position to save herself. Three ligature marks were also found on the neck of the deceased. The deceased was a young lady and having two children. If the convict was not happy with the deceased or suspecting her character then the other legal remedies were available to the convict to seek redresssal of his grievance qua the deceased and the convict choose to teach a lesson to State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 42 of 35 the deceased by unlawful means and accordingly committed the murder of the deceased by strangulation. The convict was not supposed to take the law in his own hands. The convict has also deprived two children from the love and affection of their mother.
11. The convict is aged about 32 years. The mother of the convict is aged about 55 years. The convict is father of two children. The convict belongs to the lower strata of the society and was doing a private job. The convict is not a habitual offender. The convict is the first offender.
12. A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the option to award death penalty is exercised. The questions to be asked and answered :
(a) Is there something uncommon about the crime which renders sentence of life inadequate and calls for the death sentence?
(b) Are the circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to impose death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances which speaks in favour of the offender?
13. After considering the totality of circumstances, the convict is State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 43 of 35 sentenced to life imprisonment with the fine of Rs.5000/ in default three months SI for the offence u/s 302 IPC. The case property is confiscated to the State. Benefit of Section 428 IPC be given to the convict. A copy of the judgment and order on sentence be supplied to the convict free of cost forthwith. Committal warrants be issued. The file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open court (Dr.Sudhir Kumar Jain) on 09.08.2011 ASJ01 (Outer) Rohini, Delhi. State V Ravinder Kumar Chauhan FIR no. 259/09 PS Vijay Vihar Page No. 44 of 35