Delhi District Court
State vs Suresh Kumar @ Kallu Etc on 3 March, 2012
Sessions Case No. 228/1/10 FIR No. 443/08 State Vs Suresh Kumar @ Kallu etc Police Station Uttam Nagar Under Section 307/ 34 IPC 03.03.2012 Pre: Ld. APP for the state. Ld. counsel Sh. Anil Kumar for accused persons. Vide separate order placed along side in the file, convict persons namely 1.Suresh Kumar @ Kallu and 2.Sheetal @ Lalita are sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs.3000/ each for the offence u/s 307/ 34 IPC in default further 6 months R.I. for nonpayment of fine and Convict 3.Shanti Devi, aged about 70 years old is released on probation of good conduct on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/ with one surety in the like amount for three years. Benefit of section 428 Cr. PC be given to the convict persons. Copy of this order and judgment be given to the convict at free of cost forthwith. Orders accordingly. (RAJ KAPOOR) ASJ2/ West Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 1 / IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KAPOOR, LD. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 2 : WEST/ TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI. Sessions Case No. 228/1/10 FIR No. 443/08 State Vs Suresh Kumar @ Kallu etc Police Station Uttam Nagar Under Section 307/ 34 IPC ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE 03.03.2012 Pre: Ld. APP for the state. Ld. counsel Sh. Anil Kumar for accused persons. ld. APP submits that offences of such types are increasing day by day. He again argues and submits that accused persons have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 307 / 34 IPC. Ld. APP further submits further submits that part second of section 307 IPC is punishable upto life imprisonment. On these grounds ld. APP submits that convict persons do not deserve for any leniency and maximum punishment be awarded. Contrary to it, ld. Counsel for convict persons submits that victim and her mother are present in the court today. Victim Meenakshi is the wife of accused Suresh Kumar @ Kallu. Ld. counsel again submits that 2 / now accused Suresh Kumar and his wife / victim are living with harmony and in peaceful manner. They have three children. Ld. counsel again submits that convict Smt. Shanti Devi is aged about 70 years old. Accused Smt. Sheetal @ Lalita has three small children to look after. She is house wife aged about 35 years old. Ld. counsel further submits that accused Suresh Kumar is aged about 30 years old and he is doing private business. Ld. counsel again submits that no previous criminal antecedents have borne on record in respect of convict persons. They are first offenders. If they are sentenced harsh punishment it will ruin their life. Accused persons namely Shanti Devi and Sheetal are in custody since 27.02.2012. Ld. counsel again submits that accused Suresh Kumar @ Kallu has already remained in custody for about 40 days. On these grounds ld. counsel prays for taking leniency at the time of awarding the sentence and request to release accused Smt. Shanti Devi on probation of good conduct on account of her oldness. I have heard the submissions of ld. counsel for the convict and ld. APP as well. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that if convict persons are sentenced for maximum period, 3 / accused persons again will develop enmity which may jeopardies their family ties. Therefore, to my view ends of justice will be met if convict Suresh Kumar @ Kallu and Sheetal @ Lalita are sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs.3000/ each in default further 6 months R.I. Further, ends of justice will be met if convict Shanti Devi, aged about 70 years old is released on probation of good conduct on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/ with one surety in the like amount for three years. Accordingly, convict persons namely 1.Suresh Kumar @ Kallu and 2.Sheetal @ Lalita are sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs.3000/ each for the offence u/s 307/ 34 IPC in default further 6 months R.I. for nonpayment of fine; and Convict 3.Shanti Devi, aged about 70 years old is released on probation of good conduct on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/ with one surety in the like amount for three years. Benefit of section 428 Cr. PC be given to the convict persons. Copy of this order and judgment be given to the convict at free of cost forthwith. Orders accordingly. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 03.03.2012 (RAJ KAPOOR) ASJ2/ West Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 4 / IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KAPOOR, LD. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 2 : WEST/ TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI. Sessions Case No. 228/1/10 Assigned to Sessions. 22.08.2010 Arguments heard on 07/01/12 Date of order. 27.02.2012 FIR No. 443/08 State Vs 1. Suresh Kumar @ Kallu s/o Ram Prashad, 2. Smt. Shanti Devi w/o Ram Prashad, 3. Smt Sheetal @ Lalita w/o Mukesh Kumar All are R/o D61, Near Som Bazar, Ranhola Road, Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. Police Station Uttam Nagar Under Section 307/ 34 IPC Decision 307/ 34 IPC JUDGEMENT
1. Briefly facts of the case are that on 19.12.2008 at about 01.30 p.m. at D61, Vikas Nagar, Uttamnagar, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of police station Uttam nagar, Delhi, accused persons in furtherance of their common intention did an act i.e. poured kerosene oil on the person of 5 / Minakshi and lit her on fire, with such intention and under such circumstances that if by that act all accused persons have caused the death of Manakshi, would have been guilty of murder and that all accused persons caused hurt to Manakshi by the said act.
2. In this regard a DD no.20A dated 19.12.08 vide Ex.PW7/I was recorded by Duty Officer. PW7 SI Om Parkash on receiving information from the Duty Officer to the effect that one lady has been admitted in burnt condition at Mata Chanan Devi Hospital, Janakpuri, he along with Ct. Moti Ram went at the hospital. He met with the concerned doctor who examined the lady namely Meenakshi. Patient was declared fit for statement by Dr. Sumit of Mata Chanan Devi Hospital, on the MLC itself. Thereafter, IO recorded statement of Smt. Meenakshi vide Ex. PW7/A, bears her foot thumb impression at point A, duly attested by IO at point B. Thereafter IO came back to PS and narrated all the facts before the SHO. Call was kept pending.
3. On 20.12.2008 IO came to know that injured Meenakshi has been 6 / shifted to Balaji Hospital. He went there to ascertain her condition, where he met with the parents of Meenakshi, who stated that IO has not recorded statement of Meenakshi properly. Thus, IO narrated all these facts to the SHO who directed him to contact the SDM and requested him to record statement of Meenakshi.
4. IO moved an application, SHO countersigned it and gave the application to SDM and narrated all the facts to him. SDM Patel Nagar, Sh. Parmod Kumar came at Balaji Hospital and recorded statement of Meenakshi and he gave the same to IO. IO went to PS and gave the same to SHO. SHO made his endorsement on Tehrir and directed duty officer to register the case.
5. On 19.12.2008, itself IO had gone at D61, Vikas Nagar, Delhi from where IO took into possession the burnt clothes, having Kerosene oil smell. He had also taken into possession one plastic cane of 5 liters and kerosene smell was coming from it. Burnt clothes and plastic cane were kept in separate parcel and sealed with the seal of OPT and took 7 / the same into possession through seizure memo vide Ex. PW7/C. IO called the crime team official at the spot itself on 19.12.2008, who inspected the place of occurrence.
6. On 20.12.2008, IO prepared the site plan vide Ex. PW7/D. IO recorded statement of witnesses. On 26.12.2008, IO went at the address of accused persons and arrested accused Suresh from there vide arrest memo and personal search memo Ex. PW1/A and B respectively. On the next day he was produced before the concerned court and from there he was sent to J/C. Later on accused Lalit and Shanti Devi were granted anticipatory bail. On 5.3.2009 IO formally arrested them vide their arrest memos Ex. PW7/F and G respectively. Later on they were released on bail. IO deposited the case property at the Malkhana and later on it was sent to FSL Rohini.
7. This case was committed to the Sessions Court and received on 22.08.2010 for trial as it pertains to the heinous crime committed under section 307 /34 IPC which is exclusively triable by court of Sessions. Ld. 8 / predecessor of this court framed a charge on 30.08.2010 for the offence punishable u/s 307/34 IPC against accused to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
8. To prove and substantiate its case the prosecution has examined witnesses namely PW1 Ct. Mukesh Kumar, PW2 Smt. Meenashi - victim, PW3 Santosh - mother of victim, PW4 Shakti - brother of victim, PW5 Dr. Shishir Aggarwal - Consultant Plastic Surgery Balaji Action Hospital, PW6 Parmod Kumar SDM, PW7 SI Om Parkash - IO of the case, PW8 HC Mehtab Singh - Duty officer and PW9 Ashwani Kumar Rai, Administrative Asstt. , Mata Chanan Devi Hospital. Formal witnesses
9. PW1 Ct. Mukesh Kumar is the witness to the effect of arrest of accused Suresh on 26.12.2008. He got exhibited the arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Suresh as Ex.PW1/A and PW1/B. This witness has been crossexamined. I have perused the same. No contrary evidence has come on record.
9 /
10.PW5 Dr. Shishir Agarwal came to the witness box and deposed that patient Meenakshi, 20 years was admitted in the hospital on 10.12.2008 and she was discharged on 03.01.2009. She remained admitted in plastic surgeon unit under his care. This witness got exhibited the discharge summery report as Ex.PW5/A.
11.PW6 Parmod Kumar, SDM Patel Nagar, Delhi came to the wintess box and deposed that on 20.12.2008 he received a report from ASI Om Parkash, P.S. Uttam Nagar, in which a request was made for recording the statement of Meenakshi who was undergoing treatment at Action Balaji Hospital. He reached the hospital and recorded the statement of Meenakshi as she was declared fit for statement at that time vide Ex. PW2/A which bears thumb impression of Meenakshi at point A , attested by him at point B. After recording the statement he made endorsed on the same vide Ex. PW6/A and handed over the document to ASI Om Parkash for further necessary action. SDM did not carry out any other proceeding. This witness has been crossexamined by defence 10 / counsel. In the crossexamination it has come on record that IO had given the report to him by hand for recording the statement of Meenakshi. That report is not in the judicial file. As far as he recollect in the said report of the IO it was mentioned that a lady called Meenakshi with burn injury was admitted in the hospital and her parents wanted that her statement should be recorded by the SDM. He had not seen even the MLC of the said patient before recording her statement. It was also not to brought to his knowledge that Meenakshi was earlier admitted in Mata Chanan Devi Hospital from where she was shifted to Balaji Action Hospital by her parents.
12.PW8 HC Mehtab Singh came to the witness box and deposed that on 20.12.2008 he was posted at P.S Uttam Nagar, as Duty Officer. On that day at about 5.25 pm he recorded aforesaid FIR on the basis of original Tehrir produced before him by the SHO. He brought FIR register containing the said FIR. He got exhibited the copy of the same as Ex. PW8/A. After recording the FIR, he gave copy of FIR and original Tehrir to ASI Om Parkash as the investigation was given to him. This witness 11 / has not been crossexamined.
13.PW9 Sh. Ashwani Kumar Rai, Administrative Assistant, Mata Chanan Devi Hospital, C1, Janak Puri, New Delhi came to the witness box and deposed that he has been deputed by medical superintendent of Mata Chanan Devi Hospital to depose on behalf of Dr. Deepak Kumar Dara, who prepared MLC NO.1542 of Meenakshi. On seeing the said MLC, he deposed that same is in the handwriting of Dr. Deepak and he identified his handwriting and signatures at point A on Ex.PW9/A, being familiar with as he had seen him writing and signing. This witness has been crossexamined by defence counsel. In the crossexamination it has come on record that whenever a patient is brought to hospital in a conscious state, doctor ask the history from the patient as well as from the person who brought the patient and mentioned the same on the MLC. It is mentioned in the MLC that patient was brought by her husband and at that time patient was conscious and the alleged history mentioned in the MLC is accidental burn injuries during cooking. Ld. Defence counsel produced one bill and two receipts and witness stated that the 12 / same are the bills and receipts of the same hospital in respect of the same patient. The bills and the receipts are collectively Ex.PW9/DX. MATERIAL WITNESSES
14.PW7 SI Om Parkash, is the IO of this case. For the sake of brevity and convenience his statement is being reproduced verbatim which is as under: "On 19.12.2008 I was posted at P.S. Uttam Nagar as ASI, I received information from the Duty Officer to the effect that one lady has been admitted in burnt condition at Mata Chanan Devi Hospital, Janakpuri, I along with Ct. Moti Ram went at the hospital, I met with the concerned doctor who examined the lady namely Meenakshi and I moved an application to obtain the fitness of patient Meenakshi to record her statement. Again said patient was declared fit for statement by Dr. Sumit or Mata Chanan Devi Hospital, on the MLC itself. Thereafter , I recorded statement of Smt. Meenakshi which is Ex. PW7/A, bears her foot thumb impression at point A, duly attested by me at point B. Thereafter I came back to PS and narrated all the facts before the SHO. Call was kept pending.
On 20.12.2008 I came to know that injured Meenakshi has been shifted to Balaji Hospital. I went there to ascertain her condition, where I met with the parents of Meenakshi, who stated that I have not recorded statement of Meenakshi properly, I narrated all these facts to the SHO who directed me to contact the SDM and request him to record statement of Meenakshi. I moved an application, SHO countersigned it and I gave the application to SDM and narrated all the facts to him. SDM Patel Nagar, Sh. Parmod Kumar came at Balaji Hospital and recorded statement of Meenakshi and he gave the same to me. I went to PS and gave the same 13 / to SHO. SHO made his endorsement on Tehrir and directed duty officer to register the case. I identify the handwriting and signatures of Insp. R.K. Tyagi, the then SHO of PS Uttam Nagar, who made his endorsement on Tehrir, I have seen the endorsement, the same is Ex. PW7/B, which bears signatures of SHO at point A. I identify his signatures being familiar with as I had worked under him. Tehrir was given to Duty Officer who recorded the FIR and after registration of the case, investigation of the case was assigned to me.
On 19.12.2008, itself I had gone at D61, Vikas Nagar, Delhi, from where I had taken into my possession the burnt cloths, having Kerosene oil smell. I had also taken into my possession one plastic cane if 5 liters and kerosene smell was coming from it. Burnt cloths and plastic cane were kept in separate parcel and sealed with the seal of OPT and I had the same into my possession through seizure memo Ex. PW7/C bears my signatures at point A. I had also called the crime team official at the spot itslelf on 19.12.2008, who inspected the place of occurrence.
On 20/12/2008, I had prepared the site plan Ex.
PW7/D which bears my signatures at point A. I recorded statement of witnesses. On 20.12.2008. My application address to CMO, Balaji Action Hospital is Ex. PW7/E, bears my signatures at point A. On 26.12.2008, I went at the address of accused persons and I arrested accused Suresh from where, I prepared his arrest memo and personal search memo Ex. PW1/A and B which bears my signatures at point B. On the next day he was produced before the concerned court and from there he was sent to J/C. Later on accused Lalit and Shanti Devi were granted anticipatory bail. On 5.3.2009 I formally arrested them vide their arrest memo Ex. PW7/F and G, which bears my signatures at point A. Later on they were released on bail. I had deposited the case property at the Malkhana and later on it was sent to FSL Rohini through one Ct. whose name I do not remember. I recorded statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation challan was prepared. FIR No. 443/2008 was got recorded through HC Mehtab Singh, I identify his signatures at point A at Ex. PW7/H, being familiar with. The copy of DD No. 20A dated 19.12.2008 is Ex. PW7/I. I had obtained the result from Balaji Hospital through my application Ex. PW7/J. I identify all the three accused persons present before the court. I 14 / can identify the case property if shown to me. I can identify the case property if shown to me.
At this stage MHC(M) produced one parcel sealed with seal of FSL. Parcel is got opened. It is found containing one white cloth in opened condition and this cloth is found containing the particulars of the case. One can of red colour on which Laal Ghoda, Diesel Engine Oil 20W40 is written, is taken out from this cloth. There is no liquid at present inside the can. I have seen the said can. This is the same can which I took into my possession from house No. D61, Vikas Nagar. Plastic can is Ex. P1.
At this stage, MHC(M) produced another sealed envelope, sealed with the seal of FSL and this envelope is being parcel No. 1. Envelope is got opened and it is found containing jumper slawar. I have seen these cloths, these are the same cloths which I took into my possession from the aforesaid house. Cloths are collectively Ex. P2.
I identify all the three accused persons namely Suresh, Lalit and Shanti Devi, present before the court. XXX by Sh. Anil Kumar, Counsel for all the three accused persons.
I have seen Ex. PW7/A, statement of Meenakshi which was given by her voluntarily and I recorded the same at her version. It is correct that at the version of Meenakshi, I recorded her statement to the effect that at about 2.30 pm she was cocking food on a stove, which stopped functioning and to get the stove functional, she applied a pin and due to the same flame arose and she got burnt or that her husband got her admitted and no one is responsible for the same and the said occurrence has taken place as an accident. It came into my knowledge that the doctor at Mata Chanan Devi Hospital referred patient Meenakshi to Safdarjung Hospital but parents of Meenakshi had taken her to Balaji Action Hospital, Paschim Vihar. It is correct that on 19.12.2008 , accused Suresh and his mother were present at Mata Chanan Devi Hospital. No quarrel has taken place in my presence between parents, relatives of Meenakshi and in laws of Meenakshi. On 19.12.2008, I had recorded statement of Meenakshi, inspected the site, took the cloths and the plastic can 15 / into possession through seizure memo. I did not make any enquiry from any of the neighbour about the incident on 19.12.2008. Occurrence has taken place in the first room while entering inside the premises, at the ground floor. This fact was told to me by Meenakshi after period of one month. I prepared site plan Ex.PW7/D on 20.12.2008, at my own, after inspecting the site. No other person was present at that time............." I have perused the testimony of IO of this case very carefully. This witness has conducted the investigation. He has arrested the accused persons. He has also lifted the exhibits from the spot. Ld. defence counsel has crossexamined him at length. Having gone through his crossexamination I found some contradictions which goes to the root of this case.
15.PW2 Smt. Meenakashi is the wife of accused Suresh, aged about 26 years old, R/o P460, Sultan Puri, Delhi, occupation house wife. She came to the witness box and deposed in the following words: "On 4.12.1999, I was married with Suresh. I have studied upto 9th standard. I have three brothers. I was having one sister namely, Renu. She was married to Rajesh, elder brother of my husband. Renu was also married on the same day i.e. 4.12.1999. She got burnt at our parental house, after 810 days from the date of marriage as there was some quarrel between my sister and her husband Rajesh. I am having 3 children i.e. one son and two daughters. On 18.12.2008, I asked my husband to go to my parental house as for the last 34 days quarrel was going on between me and my husband and that is why I thought to go to my 16 / parental home to pacify the matter. My husband did not allow me to go and in the meanwhile, my jethani namely, Lalita said that I should go alone and I should leave behind my children there itself. My jethani further stated that I did not allow to go and she uttered kill her. My mother in law namely, Shanti Devi was also present at that time and she also did not allow me to take my children and she stated that she would look after my children. My mother in law got hold of me and my jethani poured kerosine oil upon me and my husband lit with the machis stick. I got burnt. Thereafter, I became unconscious. My husband also used to favour my jethani as my husband was having illicit relations with his bhabhi. When I regained my consciousness, I found myself at Balajee Hospital. One official came there and he recorded my statement. The same is Ex. PW2/A, which bears my thumb impression at point A. I did not give my statement to anyone before any other person except the person who recorded my statement Ex. PW2/A. I had seen the ink impression below my foot thumb but I did not put my foot thumb on any document during that time when I was conscious. I identify my husband, my mother in law and my jethani present before the Court.
XXXXX by Sh. Anil Kumar, Ld. Defence counsel for all the accused. There was no quarrel between me and my husband for the first 78 years of marriage because upto that time my husband was not talking to his bhabhi and quarrel started only after my husband started talking to his bhabhi. Likewise, I did not have any quarrel with other family members of my husband. I have told in my statement on 18.12.2008 that there was some quarrel between me and my husband for the last 34 days. Confronted with Ex. PW2/A, where it is not so recorded. I had also stated in my statement that my jethani stated to burn me. Confronted with Ex. PW2/A, where it is not so recorded. On the date of quarrel between me and my husband, bhabhi of my husband was not present when the quarrel had started but had come later on. The quarrel with my husband started at about 8 a.m. and my jethani who lives separately had come to our house at about 11 a.m. It is wrong to suggest that quarrel between me and my husband took place as I wanted to go to my parental house. (Vol. said this quarrel took place due to illicit relations between my husband and my jethani). I had stated in my statement regarding relations between my husband and my jethani and the quarrel between us was due to this. Confronted with Ex. PW2/A, where it is not so recorded. We 17 / did not keep kerosine oil in our house normally. I do not know as to from where accused persons brought kerosine oil on that day. It is wrong to suggest that I gave my statement before the police officials ASI Om Prakash on 19.12.2008 in this case, to the effect that I got burnt accidentally while cooking or that I put my foot thumb impression at point A on my statement mark A. My father died due to illness. It is wrong to suggest that my father died due to burn injury or that he committed suicide. It is wrong to suggest that when I gave my statement mark A to the police, I was conscious or that I myself put my foot thumb impression or that I stated the same contents to the doctor in Mata Chanan Devi Hospital. I do not know, if I was taken to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital by my husband and 34 other persons namely, Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Kulwinder Singh, etc. who are our neighbours. After my discharge from the hospital, the police officer ASI Om Prakash, IO of the case did not meet me nor recorded my statement. Whenever quarrel used to take place between me and my husband, my cousin Manoj used to mediate between us and settled the quarrel. I did not telephone Manoj on 18.12.2008 when this incident took place and the quarrel started between me and my husband. I cannot say whether my husband telephoned Manoj or not. It is incorrect to suggest that my husband had left the house during the process of quarrel. It is incorrect to suggest that cause of quarrel with my husband was that I wanted to go to my parents house with children but my husband told me to go alone and leave the children at home as there studies was affected. It is incorrect to suggest that I was not burnt by my husband, jethani and mother in law. I had lodged a FIR against my jeth Mukesh and jethani Lalita at Police Station Uttam Nagar as I was beaten by them before two months from the date of present incident. I do not remember the FIR number. It is wrong to suggest that no such FIR was registered and I am deposing falsely. It is wrong to suggest that my husband, jethani and mother in law were not present in my house when I got burnt. It is wrong to suggest that my sister Renu committed suicide by burning at her parental house at Sultan Puri after 810 days of her marriage due to a reason that she did not want to marry Rajesh, brother of my husband and had an affair and wanted to marry some other person. It is correct that my mother had made efforts to get my jeth Rajesh Kumar married to his present wife. My mother knew the family of Anita, the present wife of my jeth Rajesh Kumar and hence, had mediated in 18 / getting Rajesh married to Anita. It is correct that Rajesh and Anita are having strained relations for the last about 45 years and Anita is presently living with her parents at Mangol Puri. My parental family, myself are having cordial relations with Anita and her parental family. When I got burnt, my three children were available in the other room of the house. The incident took place outside the kitchen in the gallery. It is incorrect to suggest that I told the doctors on duty at Mata Chanan Devi Hospital and later on at Balajee Hospital about the cause of my burning. It is incorrect to suggest that I have falsely implicated my husband, jethani and mother in law at the instance of my parental family and father of Anita." Having perused her testimony carefully it has come on record that on 18.12.2008, PW2 Smt. Meenakshi asked to go to her parental house for 34 days as the quarrel was going on between Smt. Meenakshi and accused Suresh. Accused Suresh did not allow her to go and accused Lalita stated that PW2 Meenakshi should go leaving behind her children and uttered to kill her. Accused Shanti Devi was also present at that time and did not allow PW2 Meenakshi to take her children and stated that she would look after children of Meenakshi. Accused Shanti Devi caught hold of PW2 Smt. Meenakshi and accused Lalita poured kerosene oil on Meenakshi and accused Suresh lit her on fire with a match stick and due to which PW2 Meenakshi got burnt. Accused Suresh Kumar used to favour his Bhabhi Lalita, as he was having illicit relations with his Bhabhi. This witness has been crossexamined at 19 / length. I have perused the same. I found some minor type of contradictions which are attributable due to the long duration of time and memory of a human being.
16.PW3 Smt. Santosh who happens to be the mother of victim PW2. She came to the witness box and deposed that she has 2 daughters and 3 sons. She got married her both daughters about 1011 years back. Her elder daughter namely, Renu was married to Rajesh and other daughter namely Meenakshi married to Suresh Kumar, brother of Rajesh. After 810 days from the marriage, daughter Renu died at their house. She further deposed that her daughter Meenakshi remained happily for the first 4/5 years but thereafter, there used to be quarrel between her daughter Meenakshi and her husband Suresh Kumar, on the ground that her husband was having illicit relation with his Bhabhi (Jethani of her daughter) and Suresh used to beat Meenakshi whenever, she used to make objections. Once upon a time, her daughter was beaten bitterly by her husband, she went there in the locality and at that time her daughter was unconscious. She deposed that at about 4 p.m., Suresh 20 / Kumar, her soninlaw informed through telephone to her son namely, Shakti that Meenakashi got burnt from the stove at about 11.30 p.m. and she had been taken to Chanan Devi Hospital, Janak Puri. Thereafter, she along with her relatives went to Chanan Devi Hospital. Firstly, they were not allowed to see her daughter Meenakashi by the police official who were present in the hospital and lastly, one of their relative had seen Meenakashi in the hospital in unconscious condition. Later on, her daughter was shifted to Balajee Hospital. She asked her daughter as to how she got burnt. Her daughter stated that she was beaten by her husband, caught hold by her mother in law, her jethani poured kerosine oil upon her and her husband lit her fire. She correctly identified all the three accused persons. She has been crossexamined at length. I have perused the same. She denied the suggestion that her daughter Renu committed suicide by burning. No police case was registered at that time. They did not make any complaint against Suresh and his family members whenever her daughter was beaten by her husband. She denied the suggestion that her daughter had given a false statement before the SDM at their asking as their relations with 21 / Suresh and his family had become strained after quarrel of Suresh with her daughter as well as the strained relations between Anita and her husband Rajesh for the last 45 years, who is elder brother of Suresh Kumar. She admitted that she had got married Rajesh, husband of her deceased daughter Renu, to Anita whose family was known to them. Rajesh was married to Anita after about 6 months of demise of her daughter.
17.PW4 Shakti, brother of victim PW2, came to the witness box and deposed that before 10 years back his sisters namely Renu and Meenakashi were married with Rajesh and Suresh @ Kallu respectively on one date. After 810 days from the date of marriage of Renu, she came at their house and she got burnt at the time of cooking the food and she died in the Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi. Meenakashi remained happily to the first 56 years and thereafter there used to be quarrel between Meenakashi and her husband Suresh and it was revealed that there was illicit relations between Suresh and his bhabhi namely, Lalita (jethani of my sister Meenakashi). Whenever they were informed about 22 / the quarrel, they used to go there and used to pacify both of them and Suresh Kumar used to assures that he would disconnect his illicit relations with Lalita and would look after their daughter. On one date, Suresh KUmar gave beatings to his sister Meenakashi. They took her to DDU Hospital. And even that time, Suersh KUmar assured not to beat Meenakashi in future. This witness further deposed that on 18.12.2009, he received a phone at about 5 p.m. from Suresh that Meenakashi got burnt and she is admitted in Mata Chanan Devi Hospital. He along with his mother and other relatives went to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital. Firstly, they were not allowed to meet Meenakashi but later on, they went near Meenakashi at that time she was lying in unconscious condition. Since it was a private hospital and doctor stated that a huge amount of money would be incurred in the treatment of Meenakashi, he shifted the Meenakshi to Balajee Hospital, Paschim Vihar. Meenakashi regained her consciousness after 23 days of the incident. They asked Meenakashi as to how she got burnt, she had stated that her husband, her mother in law and jethani quarreled with her. She further stated that she asked these persons to go to her parental house and on this, mother in law 23 / caught hold of her, jethani poured kerosine oil and husband lit the fire on her body. He shifted his sister to Balajee Hospital on the same day from Mata Chanan Devi Hospital. After 23 days from the date of occurrence, one official recorded statement of his sister Meenakashi. He correctly identified all the accused persons. This witness has been cross examined at length. I have perused the same. During the cross examination he admitted that after death of his sister Renu his mother proposed to get the marriage of Renu's husband with Poonam who is in relation as cousin sister. He denied the suggestion that marriage of Poonam with Rajesh could not be solemnized as the Poonam was ran away with some other person. Thereafter, marriage of Rajesh was solemnized with Anita D/o Badri Parsad by his mother. He also admitted that relation of Anita and Rajesh were strained as such they have been living separately for the last five years. In the cross examination it has also come on record that his father got treated at Sufdarjang Hospital in a burn ward. His father sustained the burn injury in a accident while he was preparing meal. His father sustained the burn injury prior to four five years of the marriage of Meenakshi. His father 24 / expired as he was sick after five six years of the marriage of Meenakshi. In the crossexamination it has come on record that this witness made some improvements that he stated in his statement to the IO that Suresh have illicit relationship with his Bhabhi Lalita. Confronted with statement Ex. PW4/DA where it is not so recorded. He has also stated in his statement that Suresh has given the assurance that he will finish the illicit relationship with his Bhabhi Lalita. Confronted with statement Ex. PW4/DA where it is not so recorded.
18.After recording prosecution evidence, statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.PC were recorded. Accused persons pleaded that that there was a quarrel between Meenakshi and Suresh on 19.12.2008 as she wanted to go to her parental house along with her children but husband Suresh was insisting that she should go alone, leaving behind the children due to their study and during the process of quarrel, Suresh left the house. Meenaskhi was conscious when her family members visited Mata Chanan Devi Hospital. Meenakshi has made statement under the pressure and at the instance of her parents and other family members. Accused persons produced DW1 Ashwani Sharma neighbour of 25 / accused, DW2 Anil shop keeper of fridge repair shop, DW3 Ms. Sushila Singh - another neighbour and DW4 Anant Kumar - shopkeeper of departmental store.
19.DW1 Sh. Ashwani Sharma S/o Sh. Late Sh. Kundan Lal Sharma, R/o B49, Vikas Nagar, near Som Bazar, Hastsal Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi, Occupation: Property dealer, he came to the witness box and deposed that accused Suresh Kumar is his neighbour who is residing at D61, Vikas Nagar, Delhi. On 19.12.2008, he had come to his house for lunch at about 2 PM from property dealing shop. On hearing noise, he went to the residence of accused Suresh Kumar where he saw Meenakshi in burnt condition. She was conscious at that time. Many other persons also collected there and when they inquired as to how she got burnt, it was stated by wife of Suresh herself that she got burnt at the time when she was cooking food. At that time, Shanti Devi and Lalita and Suresh were not there. However, Suresh had come immediately thereafter. This witness asked to take injured lady to the hospital and thereafter he along with one Sardarji namely Kulwinder and Kallu @ Suresh took the 26 / injured lady to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital in a car, where she was admitted. This witness has been crossexamined by ld. APP that he does not have any document to show that he is residing at D49, Vikas Nagar, Delhi. His statement was recorded by the police officials on 19.12.2008 but he could not tell the name of that police official who recorded his statement.
20.DW2 Sh. Anil S/o Sh. Madan Lal R/o B33, Vikas Nagar, near Som Bazar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi, age : 23 years. Occupation : Electrician. He came to the witness box and deposed that he has a shop at Vikas Puri. On 19.12.2008 at about 02:30 PM or so he was available at his house and was washing his bike. At that time, Shanti Devi who was residing at B37 very near to his house, called him to repair her fridge. Shanti Devi was residing at the said address along with her daughter in law whom he called Bhabhi. When he was preparing fridge, somebody came running and informed that somebody had got burnt at D61, Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar. He along with Shanti Devi went to D61 but by that time they had gone to hospital. It was informed that Kalu's wife had got 27 / burnt. This witness has been crossexamined by ld. APP. In the crossexamination it has come on record that he had no degree/diploma in refrigeration. He did not give his statement before any authority or did not report/complain to the effect that on 19.12.2008 at about 02:30 PM, Smt. Shanti Devi and Sheetal were present at B37.
21.DW3 Ms. Sushila Singh is the wife of Ramakant Singh, R/o D64, Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. Age : 39 years. Occupation :
Housewife. She came to the witness box and deposed that on 19.12.2008 at about 22:15 PM, she was present at her residence. On hearing some noises/uproar she came out from her house and saw that people were running. She came to know that one lady namely Meenakshi was burnt at D61. Meenakshi stated to her that she got burnt while cooking. No person was present at D61, except Meenakshi.
Then husband of Meenakshi was called. Husband of Meenakshi came at the spot and thereafter he along with one person Ashwani had taken Meenakshi to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital, C1 Janak Puri, Delhi. She had given the same statement to the police officials. This witness has 28 / also been crossexamined at length. I have perused the same. In the crossexamination it has come on record that She cannot tell the name of the police officials to whom she gave her statement. She is graduate. She did not give in writing before any authority to the effect that Meenakshi stated to her that she got burnt while cooking. Accused persons were arrested after 57 days from the date of occurrence. She did not give her statement or that she also did not make any report before any authority to the effect that accused persons have no role to play in the present case or that they have been falsely arrested/implicated in the present case.
22.DW4 Sh. Anant Kumar is the son of Yashpal, R/o B58, Budh Bazar, Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. Age : 38 years. Occupation : Running a departmental store. He came to the witness box and deposed that he runs a departmental store by the name of Ajay Departmental Store at the above mentioned address. During December, 2008, he was carrying out construction at a plot in CBlock near his residence. He hired Ballis from Dinesh Timber Store being run by a lady whose name he did not 29 / recollect but he identified her in the court as accused Lalita. She was running Dinesh Timber Store in Vikas Nagar but he did not know the correct address. This witness deposed that on 19.12.2008 at about 02:3003:00 PM, he had gone to the shop of Lalita for settling the accounts relating to the Ballis taken on rent from her. When the account was being settled some boy came running to the shop and informed that Chachi had got burnt. Lalita started weeping. He along with Lalita went to the place where some lady had got burnt but by that time she was already taken to hospital. This witness has also been crossexamined by ld.APP. During the course of crossexamination it has come on record that he does not have any proof to show that he had taken the Jali and Balli/bamboo on rent from the shop of Lalita or that he also does not have any proof to show regarding the rent/hire of Jalis/Ballis or that the settlement amount. He never came to know that Lalita was booked in the present case as an accused. He admitted that he did not make any report before any authority to the effect that Lalita was present at her shop and one boy informed regarding having burnt one lady or that he along with Lalita visited that spot.
30 /
23.Arguments were heard. Ld. counsel for the accused argued and submitted that accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case by the police in connivance with the police officials. He further argued and submitted that witnesses are interested witnesses. Ld. counsel further argued and submitted that this case is based only on the sole testimony of injured Meenakshi (PW2) and there is no corroborative piece of either oral or documentary or circumstantial evidence to support her version, which also has been found to be full of major contradictions and full of falsehood. On the onset, it has to be kept in mind that she gave two statements firstly to the IO ASI Om Prakash on 19.12.2008 and secondly to SDM on 20.12.2008. It has also been argued and submitted that second statement Ex.PW2/A containing incriminating but contradictory facts was made and recorded on 20.12.2008 by SDM at the instance of the parents etc of Meenakshi and possibility cannot be ruled out that it was an after thought and concocted to falsely implicate the accused persons. Ld. counsel again submitted that PW2 deposed in her crossexamination that there was no quarrel between her and her 31 / husband for the first 78 years of marriage. There was no quarrel with other family members of her husband. Ld. counsel again submitted that PW2 has deposed that quarrel took place due to illicit relations between her husband and her jethani but the said fact was not found recorded in her statement Ex.PW2/A recorded by SDM. Ld. defence counsel further argued and submitted that none of the articles sent to FSL for examination were found containing any Kerosene content, which fact further demolishes the case of the prosecution. Ld. defence counsel again submitted that injuries have not been established during trial. PW2, PW3 and PW4 are interested witnesses. In support of his contentions ld. counsel has relied upon the following citations : i. Samadhan Dhudka Koli Vs State of Maharashtra - 2009 I AD (Cr.) (SC) 410, in this case it has been observed that:
15. A judgment of conviction can be recorded on the basis of a dying declaration alone, but the court must have been satisfied that the same was true and voluntary. Indisputably, for ascertaining the truth as regards the voluntariness of making such a dying declaration, the court is entitled to look into the other circumstances but the converse may not be true. It is not a case where the deceased and appellant were living separately. It is also in dispute, and as would appear from the statements made by the deceased in her first dying declaration that, even on the night in question appellant was not in the house; she was brought to the hospital by her husband and his family. If the intention of the appellant was to cause death to her, the fire would not have been extinguished by his family members.
32 / ii. Vadivelu Thevar Vs The State of Madras (SCR 1957 981 = AIR 1957 SC 614), in this case it has been observed that: "It is here that the discretion of the presiding judge comes into play. The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution. Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for, proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely:
(1) Wholly reliable.
(2) Wholly unreliable.
(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either wayit may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court, equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The law reports contain many precedents where the court had to
33 / depend and act upon the testimony of a single witness in support of the prosecution. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But, where there are no such exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the court to convict,if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable. We have, therefore, no reasons to refuse to act upon the testimony of the first witness, which is the only reliable evidence in support of the prosecution.
Lastly, it was urged that assuming that the court was inclined to act upon the testimony of the first witness and to record a conviction for murder as against the first appellant, the court should not impose the extreme penalty of law and in the state of the record as it is, the lesser punishment provided by law should be deemed to meet the ends of justice. We cannot accede to this line of argument. The first question which the court has to consider in a case like this, is whether the accused has been proved, to the satisfaction of the court, to have committed the crime. If the court is convinced about the truth of the prosecution story, conviction has to follow. The question of sentence has to be determined, not with reference to the volume or character of the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of the prosecution case, but with reference to the fact whether there are any extenuating circumstances which can be said to mitigate the enormity of the crime. If the court is satisfied that there are such mitigating circumstances, only then, it would be justified in imposing the lesser of the two sentences provided by law. In other words, the nature of the proof has nothing to to with the character of the punishment. The nature of the proof can only bear upon the question of convictionwhether or not the accused has been proved to be guilty. If the court comes to the conclusion that the guilt has been brought home to the accused, and conviction follows, the process of proof is at an end. The question as to what punishment should be imposed is for the court to decide in all the circumstances of the case with particular reference to any extenuating circumstances. But the nature of proof, as we have indicated, has nothing to do with the question of punishment. In this case, there are no such extenuating circumstances which can be legitimately urged in support of the view that the lesser penalty under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, should meet the ends of justice. It was a cold blooded murder. The accused came for the second time, determined to see that their victim did not possibly escape the 34 / assassins' hands."
iii. Vijayee Singh and other Vs State of UP (AIR 1990 SC 1459), wherein it has been observed that: "The phrase "burden of proof" is not defined in the Act. In respect of criminal cases, it is an accepted principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden is always on the prosecution and never shifts. This flows from the cardinal principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty by the prosecution and the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt. Section 105 of the Evidence Act is in the following terms:
"When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code, or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances."
The Section to some extent places the onus of proving any exception in a penal statute on the accused. The burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the exceptions mentioned therein is upon him. The Section further lays down that the Court shall presume non existence of circumstances bringing the case within an exception." The words "the burden of proving the existence of circumstances" occuring in the Section are very signifi cant. It is wellsettled that "this burden" which rests on the accused does not absolve the prosecution from discharg ing its initial burden of establishing the case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is also wellsettled that the accused need not set up a specific plea of his offence and adduce evidence. That being so the question is: what is the nature of burden that lies on the accused under Section 105 if benefit of the general exception of private defence is claimed and how it can be discharged? In Woolmington v. The Director of Public Prosecutions, [1935] Appeal Cases 462, Viscount Sankey, L.C. observed:
"When evidence of death and malice has been given (this is a question for the jury), the prisoner is entitled to show by evidence or by examination of the circumstances adduced by the Crown that the act on his part which caused death was
35 / either unintentional or provoked. If the jury are either satisfied with his explanation or, upon a review of all, the evidence are left in reasonable doubt whether, even if his explanation be not accepted,' the act was unintentional or provoked, the prisoner is entitled to be acquitted." It is further observed:
"Just as there is evidence on behalf of the prosecution so there may be evidence on behalf of the prisoner which may cause a doubt as to his guilt. In either case, he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. But while the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner, there is no such burden laid on the prisoner to prove his innocence and it is sufficient for him to raise a doubt as to his guilt; he is not bound to satisfy the jury of his innocence ... Through out the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any stationary exception. If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is reasonable doubt created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner as to wheth er the prisoner killed the deceased with a malicious inten tion, the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecu tion must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained."
iv.Jaskaran Singh Vs State of Punjab (1997 SCC (Cri) 651, in this case it has been observed that: "When the evidence of first informant is found to be full of contradictions, exaggerations and improvements, he cannot be held to be a truthful witness".
v. State of Haryana Vs Ram Singh (2002 {1} JCC 385 SC ), in this case it has been observed that : "The issue of credibility and the trustworthiness ought also to be attributed to the defence witnesses at par with that of the prosecution. Rejection of the defence case on the basis of the evidence tendered by defence witness has been effected rather casually by the High Court. Suggestion was there to the prosecution's witnesses in particular PW10 Dholu Ram that his father Manphool was missing for about 2/3 days prior to the day 36 / of the occurrence itself what more is expected of the defence case : a doubt or a certainty jurisprudentially a doubt would be enough : when such a suggestion has been made prosecution has to bring on record the availability of the deceased during those 2/3 days with some independent evidence. Rejection of the defence case only by reason thereof is far too strict and rigid a requirement for the defence to meet it is prosecutor's duty to prove beyond all reasonable doubts and not the defence to prove its innocence this itself is a circumstance, which cannot but be termed to be suspicious in nature."
On the strength of the above citations ld. counsel for the accused persons argued and submitted that material contradictions, severe infirmities and inconsistencies borne out of the testimonies of the material witnesses, absence of scientific evidence collected at the spot and not placing on record the report of Crime Team or photographs of the spot for which adverse inference is to be drawn, establish that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and also point out towards the innocence of the accused persons and their false implication by Meenakshi at the instance of her parents and Badri Prasad, father of Anita.
24. Contrary to it , ld. APP argued and submitted that there are sufficient evidence on record to hold the accused guilty for the offences as leveled in the charge. All the material witnesses have correctly identified the 37 / accused as culprit. However, some minor type of contradictions have come on record. These contradictions do not affect the fate of the case since there is crystal clear evidence on record against the accused. on these grounds ld. APP prayed for convicting the accused.
25.Ld. APP further submitted that there is a well settled principle of law that conviction can be made on the sole testimony if it is corroborated with medical evidence as it has been held in Vahula Bhusan @ Vahuna Krishna Vs. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1989 SC 236 : "It is not right to say that an accused cannot be convicted on the sole testimony of a sole witness as the same was not corroborated by the evidence of any other witness. The contention is unsustainable as there is no role of law that the testimony of a single witness cannot be accepted and the conviction cannot be based on such evidence, if believed. The testimony of a single witness if it is straightforward, cogent and if believed is sufficient to prove the prosecution case, the conviction can be made on the testimony of such a single witness, more particularly where the evidence of such a witness is corroborated by the medical evidence."
26.Having gone through the case file very carefully and arguments of ld counsel for accused and ld. APP as well. It has borne out on record that accused persons appears to have found within the peripheral role of burning the victim after pouring kerosene oil. Interestingly, in the present case on perusal of depositions of all the prosecution witnesses 38 / and their crossexaminations I find minor type of contradictions and variations in their statements. On minor type of contradictions the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case State of UP Vs Bhagwan AIR 1997 SC 3292: (1997) 1 SCC 19 made the following observations which are very relevant crucial and dominant in deciding the fate of the present case: "minor discrepancies in the evidence of the eyewitnesses are immaterial unless they demolished the basic case of the prosecution". Observations made in the aforesaid case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are exfacie indicative of the fact that when contradictions are minor the truthfulness of the witness cannot be discredited in all. No major contradiction has come on record in the testimony.
27.Careful perusal of the depositions of witnesses it has come on record that as per MLC Ex.PW9/A of Victim, she was brought by her husband and at that time patient was conscious and alleged history has been mentioned in the MLC that it is accidental burn injuries during cooking. Besides, as per deposition of PW7 IO SI Om Prakash, at the version of Meenakshi, recorded her statement to the effect that at about 2.30 pm 39 / she was cocking food on a stove, which stopped functioning and to get the stove functional, she applied a pin and due to the same flame arose and she got burnt or that her husband got her admitted and no one is responsible for the same and the said occurrence has taken place as an accident. Simultaneously, during the course of trial PW2 victim in her deposition clearly stated that her mother in law caught hold of her and her jethani poured kerosine oil and her husband lit with the machis stick. She got burnt. Thereafter, she became unconscious. Her husband also used to favour her jethani as her husband was having illicit relations with his bhabhi. When she regained consciousness, she found herself at Balajee Hospital. One official came there and he recorded her statement vide Ex. PW2/A, which bears her thumb impression at point A. In this state of affairs it appears that it is difficult to determine whether the injuries were caused by the accused persons or by some other factor. A Witness can tell a lie but the circumstances contain the truth and natural outcome of the event happened. The precise answer of this question can only be found after applying the principles of circumstantial evidence. Time and again Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the principles and 40 / explaining the magnitude of conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence through catena of judgments reduced the above principles into the following three principles i.e. in case titled as 'Chandmal V State of Rajasthan AIR 1976 SC 917':
i) The circumstances from which evidence is drawn must be cogently and firmly established;
ii) Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; and
iii) The circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that with all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else.
The sum and substance of illustrations of the above bottom line principles is that as and when any conviction is recorded on the basis of the circumstantial evidence the court must take extra cautions to evaluate each and every aspect of the act of the accused and a chain of facts as well as artifacts which can give only one conclusion i.e. of inevitable finding and no scope of doubt remains in the chain of facts and artifacts. In this back drop it is interested to note that PW2 victim and her sister Renu were married to Suresh Kumar and Rajesh respectively who happens to be real brothers. PW2 has denied the suggestion that 41 / her sister Renu committed suicide by burning at her parental house at Sultan Puri after 810 days of her marriage due to the reason that she did not want to marry Rajesh.
28. Largely and precisely circumstantial evidence refers to the cases when no direct testimony comes on record, the court may examine circumstances under which the offence was committed and role of each and every accused connected with the incident and deduction on the basis of patches brought on record by the prosecution. These principles have been laid down by the Apex Court to apply with care, caution and circumspection and only when no conclusion other than that in all circumstances nothing is proved except with the probability of committal of offence by the accused persons and noneelse accused can be convicted. In light of the depositions of PW2 Smt. Meenakshi, PW5 Dr. Shishir Aggarwal, PW6 Parmod Kumar, SDM and PW7 SI Om Prakash which cogently and firmly establishes that accused persons definitely were in the tendency to cause mental harassment to the victim precisely for the reasons that on 18.12.2008, she asked her husband to go to her parental house as for the last 34 days a quarrel was going on 42 / between her and her husband i.e. accused Suresh and that is why she thought to go to her parental home to pacify the matter. Accused Suresh did not allow her to go and in the meanwhile, her jethani namely Lalita said that victim should go alone leaving behind children. Her jethani further stated that she did not allow to go and she uttered to kill her. At that time accused Shanti Devi was also present and she also did not allow her to take her children. Thereafter, she was got burnt by the accused persons after pouring kerosene oil upon her. Her foot thumb impression was taken by the IO on her statement vide Ex.PW2/A. PW7 IO had seized the burnt clothes, having kerosene oil smell and a 5 liter plastic cane having some kerosene smell vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/C. He has also got exhibited the site plan as Ex.PW7/D. Depositions of PW3 Santosh and PW4 Shakti, who happens to be the mother and brother of victim respectively also indicates that there were some strained relations between accused persons and victim over the issue of some illicit relations of accused Suresh with her bhabhi i.e. accused Lalita. All these circumstances cumulatively formed a chain that there is no escape from the conclusion that with all human probability the crime 43 / was committed by the accused persons and none else for the offence u/s 307/ 34 IPC. The citations as relied upon by the ld. counsel for accused persons are not applicable in the present case since facts of the present case and citations are entirely different. Therefore, in view of the above discussed facts and circumstances of the case and judgment Vahula Bhusan @ Vahuna Krishna Vs. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1989 SC 236 & 'Chandmal V State of Rajasthan AIR 1976 SC 917 (supra) I convict accused persons for the offence u/s 307/ 34 IPC.
Accordingly, accused persons namely 1.Suresh Kumar @ Kallu, 2.Shanti Devi and 3.Sheetal @ Lalita are convicted for the offence u/s 307 / 34 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 27.02.2012 (RAJ KAPOOR) ASJ2/ West Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 44 /