Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakesh Kohli @ Vicky vs State Of Haryana on 13 March, 2012
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Rajive Bhalla, Jora Singh
Crl. Appeal No.752-DB of 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.Appeal No.752-DB of 2007
Date of decision:13.3.2012
Rakesh Kohli @ Vicky
... Appellant
versus
State of Haryana
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH.
Present: Mr.S.K.Verma, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr.D.Khanna, Addl.AG, Haryana.
...
JORA SINGH, J.
Rakesh Kohli @ Vicky, appellant, has filed this appeal to impugn the judgment of conviction dated 4.6.2007 and order of sentence dated 5.6.2007 rendered by Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, in Sessions Case No. 17 of 2006 arising out of FIR No. 151 dated 1.4.2006 under Section 302 IPC, Police Station City Jagadhri, whereby he was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one year.
The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 1.4.2006, police party headed by Inspector Ram Kishan was present near Bus Stand Chowk, Jagadhri, where Parvinder Kumar, complainant, met the police party and reported that he is the resident of Roop Nagar Colony, Jagadhri and is practicing as an Advocate at District Courts, Yamuna Nagar. He, along with Crl. Appeal No.752-DB of 2007 2 his friend Satinder Pal Dhanda, Advocate, was sitting in the dinning hall on the first floor of Samrat Hotel, Jagadhri at about 8.30 PM, when they heard the shrieks of a female from the side of gallery. After that, they went to Room No.8 of the hotel and after entering the room, noticed Rakesh Kohli @ Vicky, strangulating a young girl lying on the floor of the room with a chunni (scarf). After giving a push to them, the accused fled from the spot. An effort was made to apprehend the accused, but he managed to escape. The complainant, along with his companion, came back to Room No.8 of the hotel and found the dead body of a young girl lying on the floor with face down to the floor, with the scarf noosed around the neck tightly. He recognised the dead body as of a distantly related girl, named Tarvinder Kaur daughter of Harbans Singh. Satinder Pal Dhanda was deputed to guard the dead body whereas Parvinder Kumar left to lodge a report when he met the police party near Bus Stand, Jagadhri. His statement (Ex.PG) was recorded by the police. Parvinder Kumar signed the same in token of its correctness. After making endorsement at 9.20 PM, statement was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, formal FIR was recorded.
Inspector Ram Kishan, Investigating Officer, along with the police party, went to the spot and after inspection, prepared rough site plan (Ex.PEE) with its correct marginal notes. The register maintained by the Incharge of Samrat Hotel (Ex.P36) was also taken into police possession vide memo (Ex.PQ). A photographer and a scientific expert were also summoned. Inquest report was prepared. The dead body was handed over to police officials for postmortem examination. After postmortem examination, the doctor handed over clothes worn by the deceased and the Crl. Appeal No.752-DB of 2007 3 same were made into a sealed parcel. The sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide memo (Ex.PF), attested by the witnesses.
On 2.4.2006, one pair of ladies chappal of black and white colour was taken into police possession after the same was made into a sealed parcel. Articles, viz, a purse, one book, identity card, three slips regarding payment of college fee, question paper and notes containing three pages were also taken into police possession vide memo (Ex.PZ) attested by the witnesses. Two cigarette stubs, along with ash, were also taken into police possession after the same were made into a sealed parcel. Two glass tumblers were also taken into police possession after the same were made into a sealed parcel duly sealed with seal bearing impression `RK'. Blood lying near the dead body was lifted and was made into a sealed parcel, with seal bearing impression `RK'. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide memo (Ex.PAA). Bed sheet was also taken into police possession after the same was made into a sealed parcel. On return to the police station, case property was deposited with the Malkhana Incharge.
On 4.4.2006, information was received that Rakesh Kohli @ Vicky, was admitted in PGI, Chandigarh, was discharged on the intervening night of 3/4.4.2006 and was to be produced before the Ilaqa Magistrate in FIR No.42 dated 2.4.2006 under Section 309 IPC. The accused was formally arrested in this case on 4.4.2006. He was got medico legally examined from Civil Hospital, Jagadhri. An application was moved to get the sample of saliva of the accused. The Doctor obtained sample of saliva of the accused and the same was made into a sealed parcel which was taken into police possession vide memo (Ex.PR). The accused was produced Crl. Appeal No.752-DB of 2007 4 before the Ilaqa Magistrate. An application was moved for obtaining his specimen handwriting but the accused refused to give his specimen handwriting. On 5.5.2006, ASI Multan Singh had handed over copy of suicide note (Ex.PL), which was taken into police possession vide memo (Ex.PT). Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court.
As per order dated 6.7.2006 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, case was committed to the Court of Session for trial.
After hearing learned PP for the State, learned counsel for the accused and from perusal of documents on the file, trial Court opined that prima facie a case is made out to frame charge against the accused under Section 302 IPC. Accordingly, charge was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined following witnesses.
PW1 ASI Radhu Nath stated that on receipt of ruqa, he had recorded formal FIR (Ex.PB). Special report was handed over to Constable Kamal Kumar for handing over the same to the Ilaqa Magistrate.
PW2 Constable Kamal Kumar stated that special report was handed over to Ilaqa Magistrate at 10.00 PM on 1.4.2006.
PW3 Constable Ram Niwas prepared scaled site plan (Ex.PC) with its correct marginal notes.
PW4 Constable Ashok Kumar and PW5 HC Devi Dayal tendered in evidence their affidavits, Ex.PD and Ex.PE, respectively. Crl. Appeal No.752-DB of 2007 5
PW6 HC Ram Kumar got conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Tarvinder Kaur.
PW7 Constable Satwinder Singh had taken photographs of the scene of crime. Photographs are Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 and their negatives are Ex.P15 to Ex.P28.
PW8 Parvinder Kumar is the complainant and he reiterated his earlier stand taken before the police as per his statement (Ex.PG).
PW9 Satinder Pal Dhanda was with the complainant and has supported the prosecution story.
PW10 Dr. Ramesh Kumar stated that on 2.4.2006, he was a Member of the Board of Doctors, which had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Tarvinder Kaur and observed as under:-
"There was a well defined ligature mark around neck in its upper part, surrounding neck completely and horizontally except 2 inches in its left part and 3 inches in its right part and brownish in colour. On dissection base of the mark was pale and its margins were ecchymosed. Length of the ligature mark was 30 cms and breadth was 1 cm. Face was puffy and cyanosed with clotted blood on the nostrils and mouth (right angle of mouth, eyes were closed). Rigor mortis was partially present in all four limbs and neck.
2.5 cms x 0.5 cm abrasion on posterior aspect of right upper forearm.
Thorax, larynx and trachea were congested and contained froth. Right and left lungs were congested. In heart left Crl. Appeal No.752-DB of 2007 6 chamber was empty and right contained blood.
In abdomen, stomach contained semi digested food particles. Liver, spleen and kidneys were congested. In organ of generation, external and internal, secondary sexual characters were well developed. No external mark of injury on private parts. No stain mark visible outside. Labia majora was intact and labia manora was intact. Vaginal introitus slightly opened. Hymen was ruptured but no fresh injury seen in hymen.
Vagina permits two fingers tight. No laceration fresh or old present in the vagina. Cervix firm, closed, uterus AV firm, normal size, fornices (lateral). No mass palpated on opening the abdomen. Uterus size 5 cms in length and 4 cms in breadth, reddish in colour, firm inconsistency. On opening the uterus no POL seen in the uterine cavity."
Cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation which was ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Probable time elapsed between injury and death was within few minutes and between death and postmortem was within 24 hours.
PW11 Chander Shekhar, Senior Scientific Assistant, stated that on 1.4.2006 as per request of the Investigating Officer, he had visited the scene of crime and submitted his crime scene report (Ex.PK).
PW12 Shiv Kumar, Additional Ahlmad to the Court of JMIC, brought summoned case file titled as State vs. Rakesh Kohli bearing FIR No.42 dated 2.4.2006 under Section 309 IPC of Police Station Buria. Crl. Appeal No.752-DB of 2007 7
PW13 Kewal Krishan, Reader to the Court of ACJM, stated that statement of Rakesh Kohli (Ex.PP) was recorded after obtaining the signatures of Rakesh Kohli.
PW14 ASI Bhavishan Singh stated that on 1.4.2006, he was with the Investigating Officer when statement of the complainant was recorded and register of Samrat Hotel (Ex.P34) was also taken into police possession vide memo (Ex.PQ) attested by him.
PW15 Dr.Jagir Mal stated that on 4.4.2006, he had handed over sample of saleva of Rakesh Kohli, in a sealed vial to the police, which was taken into possession vide memo (Ex.PR).
PW16 Baljit Singh is the brother of the deceased and stated that she was a student of BA Final and was studying in Hindu Girls College, Jagadhri. On 1.4.2006, Tarvinder Kaur had gone to the college but failed to return. An effort was made to trace her but she was not traceable. At about 9.30 PM, information was received that dead body of Tarvinder Kaur was lying in a room of Samrat Hotel. He, along with his father, had gone to the spot. Accused used to follow and tease her sister but she did not like the activities of the accused. Accused was advised not to follow his sister. On 30.3.2006, accused was seen in their street.
PW17 Multan Singh stated that on 2.4.2006, information was received from Police Station City, Jagadhri regarding admission of Rakesh Kohli in General Hospital, Yamuna Nagar. He had gone to General Hospital, Yamuna Nagar and moved an application requesting the doctor to opine as to whether patient was fit to make statement or not. Rakesh Kohli was declared unfit to make statement. Then statement of Nathi Ram was Crl. Appeal No.752-DB of 2007 8 recorded, on the basis of which, FIR No.42 dated 2.4.2006 under Section 309 IPC was registered against the accused. On search of the accused, one suicidal note, copy of which is (Ex.PL), was recovered. Accused was referred to PGI, Chandigarh and was discharged on 4.4.2006. An application was moved to get specimen handwriting and signatures.
PW18 Jagdish stated that he was employee of Samrat Hotel, Jagadhri. On 1.4.2006, accused along with the deceased was checked in on that day at 10.00 AM. Room No.8 was booked. On the request of accused, two glasses of water were supplied. Room was got booked with fictitious name of Amit Kumar.
PW19 SI Raj Pal was with the Investigating Officer on 1.4.2006 and 2.4.2006.
PW20 Inspector Ram Kishan is the Investigating Officer. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded his innocence.
Defence version of the accused was as under:-
"I am innocent. I have been implicated in a totally false case. I and Tarvinder Kaur had true love affair since long and we wanted to marry but the family members of Tarvinder Kaur opposed it highly and threatened to death as they are Sikh and I am Hindu.
One day earlier there was a lot of quarrel in her family as she told me. So we decided to meet in Samrat Hotel, Jagadhri on 1.4.2006 at 10.00 AM. We sat for hours but ultimately Crl. Appeal No.752-DB of 2007 9 finding no solution we decided to end our lives. I left the Hotel in utter dismay at about 2.00 PM to commit suicide by jumping in canal and left her but unfortunately I survived and later on I came to know that she also had committed suicide in the hotel itself. In fact family members of Tarvinder Kaur have abetted all this."
In defence, the accused examined number of following witnesses:-
DW1 Jai Bhagwan, DRK, Judicial Record Room, Jagadhri, brought record of FIR No.42 dated 2.4.2006 under Section 309 IPC decided on 4.1.2007. Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 are the statements of different prosecution witnesses. Ex.PX is on the file but original is not on the file. Only photocopy (Ex.PX) is on the file brought by him.
DW2 Amandeep Singh, is an employee of Airtel Limited Company, had brought record and stated that Mobile No.9896051011 and Mobile No. 9896510556 were issued in the names of Sanjay Jaswal and Kunal Sharma, respectively.
DW3 HC Gian Chand stated that the information received on telephone or mobile is not recorded in the record.
DW4 Kewal Kumar is the father of the appellant and stated that on 1.4.2006 at 5.30 PM, police came to his house and he was taken to the house of Tarvinder Kaur. The police enquired about the whereabouts of Rakesh Kohli. Father of Tarvinder Kaur was also called and was informed that dead body of Tarvinder Kaur is lying in Samrat Hotel, Jagadhri. After that, they were taken to Samrat Hotel. He was made to sit in the vehicle. Father and uncle of Tarvinder Kaur went inside the hotel. After that, he was Crl. Appeal No.752-DB of 2007 10 brought to the police station. Number of persons, gathered there, were saying that the girl has committed suicide.
DW5 Dharam Singh stated that the accused and his father are known to him. Harbans Singh, father of the girl, is also known to him. On 1.4.2006 at about 5.45/6.00 PM, on hearing raula, he came outside. The police brought Kewal Kumar in the police vehicle at the residence of Harbans Singh. Thereafter, Harbans Singh was also taken by the police in the said vehicle to Samrat Hotel, Jagadhri, where the dead body of Tarvinder Kaur was lying.
DW6 Navin Kumar brought record and stated that Mobile No. 9813072656 was issued in the name of Gulshan Kumar. Ex.D10 is the copy of the application.
After hearing learned PP for the State, learned defence counsel for the appellant and from the perusal of evidence on the file, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant and Tarvinder Kaur daughter of Harbans Singh were in love and wanted to get married. Tarvinder Kaur was Jat Sikh by caste, whereas the appellant is from a Hindu family. Being from different castes, Tarvinder Kaur's parents were not ready to marry her to the appellant. A day before the occurrence, there was a dispute in the family of Harbans Singh. Tarvinder Kaur informed the appellant that her parents are not ready to let her marry the appellant. Tarvinder Kaur and the appellant, therefore, decided to commit suicide. On 1.4.2006 at about 10.00 AM, they checked into Room No.8 in Samrat Hotel, Jagadhri. Tarvinder Kaur committed suicide in Room No.8, whereas the appellant left the room at about 2.00 PM to commit suicide and Crl. Appeal No.752-DB of 2007 11 accordingly jumped into a canal, but he was pulled out of the canal and admitted in hospital. The police came to know about the occurrence at about 4.00 PM and later on, concocted a story by introducing the complainant and his friend as witnesses by saying that they were in the Samrat Hotel at 8.30 PM, having dinner, when they heard shrieks of a female emanating from the side of Room No.8. After that, they went to Room No.8. The appellant was found strangulating the girl. On seeing them, the appellant fled from the spot. The complainant and his friend chased the appellant but they failed to apprehend him. They came back to Room No.8 and found the dead body of the girl. The story set up by the prosecution is improbable as the presence of Parvinder Kumar, complainant, and Satinder Pal Dhanda, an Advocate, in Samrat Hotel is doubtful. The appellant was arrested on 4.4.2006. In fact, as parents of Tarvinder Kaur refused to let her marry the appellant, Tarvinder Kaur and the appellant decided to commit suicide. Tarvinder Kaur committed suicide in Room No.8 of Samrat Hotel by tying one end of a chunni around her neck and the other end to a leg of the bed. The appellant attempted to commit suicide by jumping into the canal but he was saved. The original suicide note is not on the file. The defence version seems to be more probable than the prosecution story as the presence of Parvinder Kumar, complainant, and Satinder Pal Dhanda in Samrat Hotel at 8.30 PM on 1.4.2006 is doubtful.
Learned State counsel argues that evidence on the file shows that on 1.4.2006, the appellant and the deceased went to Samrat Hotel and booked Room No.8. The appellant was with the deceased in that room. According to the defence, the appellant and the deceased decided to commit suicide. The deceased committed suicide with the help of chunni in Room Crl. Appeal No.752-DB of 2007 12 No.8 of the hotel, whereas the appellant attempted to commit suicide by jumping into a canal. Except for the appellant, there was no other person in Room No.8 of the hotel. The story set up by the appellant that Tarvinder Kaur committed suicide by tying one end of the chunni to the leg of the bed and the other end of the chunni around her neck, before pulling the chunni, is improbable. The horizontal ligature marks on the neck, rules out any such like possibility. In case, one end of a chunni is tied to one leg of a bed and the other end is wrapped around the neck and pulled with force, the ligature marks would not be horizontal. If Tarvinder Kaur and the appellant were to commit suicide, the appellant would have committed suicide in the same manner in the same room, i.e., Room No.8, of the hotel. There was no reason for him to leave the room. The appellant was seen strangulating the deceased. On seeing the complainant and his friend, the appellant fled from the spot. An effort was made to apprehend the appellant but he managed to escape. When the complainant and Satinder Pal Dhanda came back to Room No.8, the girl was found dead. At about 8.30 PM, the complainant and Satinder Pal Dhanda were in the hotel. After the death of Tarvinder Kaur, an intimation was given to the police at 8.30 PM. Statement of Parvinder Kumar was recorded at 9.20 PM near Bus Stand, Jagadhri. No suggestion was given to PW18, Jagdish, the waiter of Samrat Hotel that Room No.8 was booked at 10.00 AM. In case, Room No.8 was booked at 10.00 AM, then the deceased and the appellant were expected to leave the room at 12.00 noon. As per defence version, the appellant left the room at 2.00 PM to commit suicide but later on, came to know that Tarvinder Kaur has committed suicide in Room No.8 of the hotel thereby establishing that the appellant left the hotel at 2.00 PM and Tarvinder Kaur committed Crl. Appeal No.752-DB of 2007 13 suicide after the appellant left Room No.8.
We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly, Tarvinder Kaur, deceased, is the daughter of Harbans Singh and she was a Jat Sikh, by caste. The appellant is a Hindu. The evidence on records shows that the appellant had a love affair with the deceased and they wanted to get married but the deceased's parents did not consent to the marriage. A day before the occurrence, there was a dispute in the family of Tarvinder Kaur over her marriage with the appellant. Tarvinder Kaur brought this fact to the notice of the appellant and apparently refused to marry the appellant. The prosecution alleges that on 1.4.2006, PW8 Parvinder Kumar and PW9 Satinder Pal Dhanda, Advocate, went to Samrat Hotel, Jagadhri, to have dinner. At about 8.30 PM, they were present in the dinning room when they heard shrieks of a female from Room No.8. On hearing the shrieks, they rushed to Room No.8 and noticed the appellant strangulating a girl. On seeing the complainant party, the appellant ran away from the spot. An effort was made to apprehend the appellant, but to no avail. On return to Room No.8, the girl was recognised as Tarvinder Kaur daughter of Harbans Singh. As per prosecution case Tarvinder Kaur was strangulated by the appellant with the help of chunni, whereas the defence version is that when the parents of Tarvinder Kaur did not agree to their marriage, they decided to commit suicide. Tarvinder Kaur committed suicide in Room No.8 of Samrat Hotel, whereas the appellant attempted to commit suicide and jumped into the canal. The question that arises is whether the prosecution story inspires confidence or the defence version.
PW8 Parvinder Kumar and PW9 Satinder Pal Dhanda have Crl. Appeal No.752-DB of 2007 14 deposed on oath that on 1.4.2006, at 8.30 PM, they went to Samrat Hotel, Jagadhri, to have dinner. When they were present in the dinning hall, they heard shrieks of a female from the side of Room No.8. On hearing the shrieks, they rushed to Room No.8 and saw the appellant strangulating a girl, with the help of a chunni. On seeing them, the appellant fled from the spot. An effort was made to apprehend the appellant, but he managed to escape. When they came back to Room No.8, then recognised the girl as Tarvinder Kaur d/o Harbans Singh. A suggestion was put to the complainant that the occurrence was at 4.00 PM, i.e., much earlier than 8.30 PM. A similar suggestion was put to Satinder Pal Dhanda that every body came to know about the occurrence at 4.00 PM and, therefore, they could not be expected to be in the dinning hall as dinner normally starts after 6.00-7.00 PM. Parvinder Kumar is related to the complainant party but he has no previous enmity with the appellant. Satinder Pal Dhanda, Advocate, is a friend of Parvinder Kumar but was also not inimical towards the appellant. As per the defence version, the appellant and Tarvinder Kaur went to Samrat Hotel at about 10.00 AM but the record maintained by the hotel shows the timings otherwise. As per defence, the appellant and the deceased had gone to Room No.8 at 10.00 AM and the appellant had left the room at 2.00 PM to commit suicide. As per defence, Tarvinder Kaur had committed the suicide after appellant left the room. If the appellant had left room at 2.00 PM and Tarvinder Kaur committed suicide after he left the room, he would not be able to describe the details of the manner in which she committed suicide, i.e., by tying the one end of the chunni with the leg of the bed and the other end around her neck. Had, Tarvinder Kaur committed suicide as suggested by the defence version, the ligature marks Crl. Appeal No.752-DB of 2007 15 would not be horizontal, in nature. If Tarvinder Kaur and the appellant had decided to commit suicide, they could have committed suicide in the same room either by hanging with a ceiling fan or by some other method. There was no need for the appellant to commit suicide by jumping into a canal In fact, at about 8.30 PM, the complainant and Satinder Pal Dhanda had gone to Samrat Hotal for dinner and after the order was placed, they heard shrieks of a female from Room No.8, whereupon they rushed to Room No.8 and saw the appellant strangulating a girl with chunni. The appellant on seeing them fled from the spot. When they came back to Room No.8, they recognised the girl as Tarvinder Kaur d/o Harbans Singh. Thereafter, Satinder Pal Dhanda was deputed to guard the dead body and Parvinder Kumar left to lodge a report. A police party met near Bus Stand, Jagadhri, where Parvinder Kumar's statement (Ex.PG) was recorded at 9.20 PM. If the story was to be concocted, it was very easy for Parvinder Kumar and Satinder Pal Dhanda to state that they went to Samrat Hotel at about 2.00 PM to take lunch and heard shrieks from the side of Room No.8, entered Room No.8 and witnessed the appellant strangulating Tarvinder Kaur (deceased). Parvinder Kumar and Satinder Pal Dhanda are practicing as Advocates in District Courts at Jagadhri. The presence of both of them in Samrat Hotel for having dinner at 8.30 PM on 1.4.2006, seems to be quite natural.
The appellant, when, examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., stated that he had a love affair with the deceased. He wanted to marry her but her parents did not agree. A day before the occurrence, there was a quarrel in the family of the deceased. The deceased told him that her parents were not ready to the marriage. They, therefore, decided to commit suicide and Crl. Appeal No.752-DB of 2007 16 checked in the Samrat Hotel at 10.00 AM on 1.4.2006. At 10.00 AM, they were in the hotel. At 2.00 PM, appellant left Tarvinder Kaur, in Room No.8, to commit suicide by jumping into a canal but was saved. Later on, he came to know that Tarvinder Kaur has committed suicide in Room No.8. But as discussed above, there is no record with the hotel to show that Room No.8 was booked at 10.00 AM. The record instead shows that the room was booked in the name of one Amit Kumar and not Rakesh Kohli, the appellant. In case, the appellant and the deceased were planning to commit suicide, the room would have been booked in the name of the appellant and not in the name of Amit Kumar. The appellant wanted to hide his identity and, therefore, booked the room under a false name. At about 2.00 PM, the appellant and Tarvinder Kaur were in side the room. If at 2.00 PM the appellant had left the room to commit suicide by jumping into the canal, it was very strange that Tarvinder Kaur could strangulate herself by tying one end of chunni to the leg of the bed and pulling the other side of the chunni with force. Tarvinder Kaur could have easily committed suicide by hanging herself from a ceiling fan if she had the intention to strangulate herself. If Tarvinder Kaur had committed suicide, as alleged by defence, the ligature marks could not be horizontal. The appellant is very much clear that Tarvinder Kaur committed suicide by tying one end of the chunni with the leg of the bed and by pulling the other end of the chunni with great force. The appellant could only say so if he was factually present at the time of committing suicide, by the deceased. A suicide note was recovered from the possession of appellant after he was arrested in FIR No.42 dated 2.4.2006 under Section 309 IPC, on 4.4.2006. We are convinced that Tarvinder Kaur was strangulated by the appellant in Room No.8 of Samrat Hotel. The Crl. Appeal No.752-DB of 2007 17 horizontal ligature marks on her neck point to this fact. In order to save himself, the appellant concocted a story that he also attempted to commit suicide by jumping in the canal. A suggestion was given to the IO that owner of the hotel informed him about the incident at 4.00 PM but the owner was not produced in defence to state as to how he came to know about the dead body lying in Room No.8 and consequently informed the police. Jagdish, one of the waiters working in Samrat Hotel, has in his examination-in-chief has stated that the appellant and the deceased came to the hotel at 10.00 AM on 1.4.2006 and at about 5.00 PM, a peon informed that a dead body is lying in Room No.8 and the police arrived at 8.30 PM. It is not material whether Room No.8 was booked either at 10.00 AM or 12.00 Noon as it is important to note down that on 1.4.2006, the appellant and the deceased were all alone inside Room No.8 of Samrat Hotel. The complainant and his friend saw the appellant, strangulating the deceased, but on seeing them, he (appellant) left the hotel and managed to escape. Before the occurrence, the appellant was known to the complainant party, therefore, there was no suspicion about the identity of the appellant. Consequently, we find no reason to disbelieve the complainant and the other witness Satinder Pal Dhanda. A false defence has been set up that the deceased had committed suicide.
No other submission has been put forward.
In view of all that is discussed above, we are of the firm opinion that evidence on the file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and the same is adjudged to be upheld.
Crl. Appeal No.752-DB of 2007 18
For the reasons recorded herein above, the appeal is without merit and is hereby dismissed.
( JORA SINGH )
JUDGE
13.3.2012 ( RAJIVE BHALLA )
pk JUDGE