Delhi District Court
State vs Laxman Gupta on 7 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY BANSAL:
SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) / ASJ / NORTH EAST:
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: SHAHDARA: DELHI.
Sessions Case No. 45056/2015
CNR No. DLNE01-000933-2015
STATE Versus LAXMAN GUPTA
S/o Om Prakash Gupta
R/o H.No. E-399, 1st Floor,
20 Foota Road, Near Prem Garden,
West Karawal Nagar, Delhi-94.
Permanent R/o Vill. Khair, PS Bari,
Distt. Aligarh, U.P.
FIR No. : 288/2015
PS. : Khajuri Khas
U/s. : 302/498-A IPC
Chargesheet Filed On : 16.06.2015
Date Of Allocation : 30.06.2015
Judgment Reserved On : 07.04.2018
Judgment Announced On : 07.04.2018
JUDGMENT:
1. Accused Laxman Gupta has been sent up for trial on the allegations that on 16.03.2015 at about 11:30 am, he murdered his wife Smt. Suman Devi at a room in H. No. E-399, 1 st Floor, 20 Foota Road, near Prem Garden, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi. This room was a rented room.
2. The offence came to light on 18.03.2015 when, allegedly, accused Laxman Gutpa himself went to PS Khajuri Khas and confessed to have killed his wife on 16.03.2015. The confession, in the form of information, was recorded vide DD No. 10A on dt. 18.03.2015. In the said statement/confession, accused SC No. 45056/15 State Vs. Laxman Gupta Page 1 of 29 stated inter alia that he was residing with his wife for the last 1 - 1 ½ month in the said room as tenant. He alleged that his wife used to quarrel with him and used to threaten to implicate him and his family members falsely in dowry case. He further stated that on 16.03.2015, in the morning of Monday, there was quarrel between him and his wife. She had abused him. At about 11:30 am, he strangulated her and killed her. He also informed that he had written about his deed on the wall of the tenanted room with pencil. Thereafter, he locked the room and went out. He roamed around for 2-3 days. Ultimately, he started feeling guilty and thus came to the police station. Accused signed this information as well.
3. The SHO was informed. SI Kuldeep Singh alongwith Ct. Thane Ram reached the spot alongwith the SHO. On looking through the ventilator of the room, dead body of a lady was found lying inside the room. Crime team was called at the spot. One private videographer was also called for. After arrival of the crime team, and private videographer, accused Laxman Gupta opened the room with a key which he was carrying. Inside the room, dead body of his wife was found lying on a mattress on the floor. Some writing on the wall was also noticed. Photography and videography was done. SHO Insp. Yogender Khokhar prepared rukka and got registered FIR u/s. 302 IPC.
4. After registration of FIR, accused was arrested. Dead body was sent for postmortem. Concerned SDM was also informed. Brother of deceased Suman namely Arvind Kumar was produced before the SDM and his statement SC No. 45056/15 State Vs. Laxman Gupta Page 2 of 29 was recorded by him. Arvind Kumar expressed suspicion upon brother of accused Laxman namely Pawan Kumar and Mohan Kumar as well as on his nephew Govinda and sister Munni. Arvind also alleged that Pawan had demanded Rs.5-7 lakhs from him. Sec. 304-B/498-A/34 IPC were also added. Specimen of handwriting of accused were taken and sent to FSL.
5. As per PM report, cause of death was, "asphyxia as a result of ante mortem manual strangulation". Other steps were taken. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed u/s 302/498-A IPC against accused Laxman Gupta. Names of accused Mohan Kumar, Smt. Urmila @ Munni, Govind Kumar and Pawan Kumar Gupta were placed in column no. 12 i.e. persons not chargesheeted.
6. Learned MM took cognizance of offences u/s 302/304-B/498-A IPC. After compliance of section 207 CrPC, learned MM committed the case to Court of Sessions as offences u/s 302/304-B IPC were exclusively triable by it.
7. Vide order dated 24.08.2015, my learned Predecessor framed charges for offences u/s 302/304-B/498-A IPC against the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined around 25 witnesses.
9. Statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC was recorded. Accused did not examine any witness in his defence.
SC No. 45056/15 State Vs. Laxman Gupta Page 3 of 29
10. Evidence led by the prosecution may now be focused upon. MATERIAL WITNESSES
11. PW-1 is Bhagat Singh. He deposed that he is the owner of house No. E-399, West Karawal Nagar. He deposed that he was running Kirana Store on the ground floor of the said house. He had let out one room on the first floor of his house to the accused Laxman Gupta about 20 days before 18.03.2015 at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per month. He stated that Laxman Gupta was residing in the rented room alongwith his wife namely Suman Devi. He deposed that accused and his wife used to quarrel frequently. PW-1 asked the accused and his wife to vacate the room.
12. He deposed that on 16.03.2015 between at about 11-12 noon, he was present in his shop. At that time, he had seen that accused Laxman Gupta came downstairs and was going somewhere swiftly. He deposed that he had asked him as to whether he had arranged a room. The accused stated that he would vacate the room that day. Thereafter, accused left from there. PW-1 deposed that on 18.03.2015, accused with the police team reached at his house. The accused took out a key from the right pocket of his trouser and opened the lock of his room. On opening the door of the room, the dead body of his wife namely Suman was found on the bed sheet spread on the floor of the room. The blood was flowing through nose and mouth of the dead body of Suman. There were scratch marks on her neck.
SC No. 45056/15 State Vs. Laxman Gupta Page 4 of 29
13. PW-1 deposed that accused had stated to police officials that he had killed his wife. On the wall of the room, the accused had written a message with a pencil addressed to the Commissioner that this woman (the deceased) and her family members had made his life miserable and her family members were asking him to give them Rs. 80,00,000/- otherwise they would implicate him in a dowry case and if the accused would go to her village with her, she would get him killed like a mango sapling in her village. PW-1 deposed that police officials conducted proceedings at the spot and shifted the dead body of the deceased. The police officials also locked the room. Several photographs were shown to PW-1 which are Ex.PW1/A to P. These were photographs of the spot.
14. In cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he was only doing business of Kirana Shop. He stated that other tenants namely Ramkesh, Pawan, Ramjeet and Chander Pal were also called by the police at the spot. It has come that he had heard both accused and deceased quarreling with each other but he never heard accused respond to his wife. It has come that blood on the face of the dead body had dried.
15. PW-2 Chander Pal is a tenant in a room on the first floor of house in question. He was tenant since one year. He deposed that accused was also residing in a room on the first floor as tenant alongwith his wife. PW-2 also stated that accused and deceased used to quarrel. PW-2 stated that the room of accused was locked from 16.03.2015 to 18.03.2015. PW-2 also deposed that accused had come alongwith police officials in the morning of 18.03.2015 and SC No. 45056/15 State Vs. Laxman Gupta Page 5 of 29 handed over key of the room to police officials who had opened the lock of the room. He stated that police made enquiries from him regarding dead body of wife of accused.
16. In cross-examination, PW-2 stated that wife of accused might be having some mental problem and that she used to quarrel with everyone. He also stated that in quarrels between accused and deceased, mostly deceased used to speak.
17. PW-3 Pawan Kumar is another tenant in the same building. He too deposed that accused used to quarrel with his wife. He also saw that room of accused was locked from 16.03.2015. PW-3 also deposed that accused came to his room alongwith police officials on 18.03.2015 in the morning and it was accused who had taken out key and opened the lock of his room. In the room dead body of Suman was lying on bed sheet on the floor.
18. In cross-examination, PW-3 also stated that wife of accused might be having some mental problem and that she used to quarrel with everyone. He also stated that in quarrels between accused and deceased, mostly deceased used to speak.
19. PW-4 Ramkesh and PW-6 Ramjeet are other tenants of the same house. Their evidences are similar to that of PW-3.
20. PW-10 is Arvind Kumar. He is brother of deceased. He deposed that Suman was his younger sister and she was married with accused on SC No. 45056/15 State Vs. Laxman Gupta Page 6 of 29 08.06.2011. He stated that after marriage, deceased was living happily in her matrimonial house. He deposed that after two years of marriage, elder brother of Laxman namely Pawan informed him on phone that Laxman had borrowed money for running shop. PW-10 deposed that the said brother Pawan demanded Rs. 7 - 8 Lakhs from him to pay back the said amount. He stated that about 2 - 3 months prior to the death of Suman, accused had visited their house alongwith Suman and had demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs from his father to repay the loan amount. PW-10 deposed that his father expressed his inability to pay this huge amount. Suman also informed him as well as their father that accused had beaten her for not bringing money. PW-5 deposed that relative of accused got the matter compromised and assured that accused would not harass Suman.
21. PW-10 deposed that on 17 / 18 of a month in 2015 (PW-10 could not tell the month), they had read newspaper report about death of Suman. After seeing the news, PW-10 alongwith his Fufa Sh. Narender (PW-17) came to Delhi and went to police station. Police confirmed the death of Suman and took them to mortuary of GTB Hospital where PW-10 had identified the dead body of Suman vide Ex.PW10/A. PW-10 stated that the concerned SDM also recorded his statement which is Ex.PW5/A. He stated that Pawan i.e. brother of accused had also threatened him not to come to Delhi or else he would kill him as well.
22. In cross-examination, it has come that he had not stated in his statement given to the SDM which is Ex.PW5/A that he had found mobile phone of accused as switched off. It has come that he had not made any complaint to SC No. 45056/15 State Vs. Laxman Gupta Page 7 of 29 the police regarding demand of money and harassment to his sister by the accused. He denied that his sister Suman was having any ailment. However, he admitted that he had seen his sister quarreling with accused but he did not know the reason for the same. He denied that his sister Suman was mentally retarded. He denied that his sister had consumed some medicines and due to overdose of the same, she died. He denied that someone else had killed his sister. He denied that deceased was living separately with another person at the time of her death. He denied that accused was at Aligarh at the time of death of Suman.
23. PW-17 Narender Kumar is relative (fufa) of PW-10. He deposed about going with him to GTB Hospital and identifying the dead body of Suman on 22.03.2015. His identification statement is Ex. PW17/A. INVESTIGATION WITNESSES
24. PW-9 is Ct. Anil Kumar. He was photographer in the Mobile Crime Team, North-East District. He deposed about visiting the spot on 18.03.2015 and he took photographs of the scene of crime which are Ex.PW1/A to P. He produced negatives of those photographs which are Ex.PW9/A1 to A16.
25. In cross-examination, he stated that door of the room was opened by accused. He also stated that blood on the face of the dead body had dried.
26. PW-13 is SI E. S. Yadav. He was In-Charge, Crime Team, North- East District. He deposed that on 18.03.2015 at about 9.00 a.m., he received a massage from the control room to reach the crime scene i.e. E-399, 1 st floor, 20 SC No. 45056/15 State Vs. Laxman Gupta Page 8 of 29 feet Road, near Prem Garden, West Karawal Nagar. He deposed that there he met IO Insp. Yogendra Khokhar and other police officials and public persons. The accused Laxman Gupta was standing there. The room was locked. He deposed that accused Laxman Gupta took out keys from right pocket of his trouser and opened the lock of the room. The proceedings were videographed by a private videographer. He deposed that they entered into the room and saw a dead body of a lady namely Suman wife of Laxman Gupta lying on the mattress on the floor. There was dry blood on the nose and mouth of the deceased. PW-13 inspected the crime scene. He deposed that the crime scene was photographed by Ct. Anil Kumar. Finger Proficient tried to lift chance prints from crime scene but no finger print was found. He prepared prepared Scene of Crime (SOC) Report Ex.PW13/A.
27. PW-15 is Insp. Mahesh Kumar. He had prepared scaled site plan which is Ex.PW15/A.
28. PW-25 Jitender Kaushik is a private photographer who was hired to videographed the scene of crime. He too has deposed that accused had opened the lock of the room in which body of his wife was found. He videographed the same. After preparing the DVD, he handed over the same to the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/F. DVD is Ex.P18.
29. In cross-examination, it has come that PW-25 had not issued certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. He denied the suggestion that the DVD was forged and fabricated.
SC No. 45056/15 State Vs. Laxman Gupta Page 9 of 29
30. PW-23 is SI Kuldeep Singh. He was present in the police station and Duty Officer called him and informed him about DD No. 10-A. He deposed that accused was sitting in the Duty Officer's room. SHO also came there. Thereafter he alongwith Ct. Thane Ram (PW-14) and SHO Inspector Yogender Khokhar (PW-24) reached the spot i.e. H. No. E-399, First Floor, 20 Foota Road, Near Prem Garden, West Karawal Nagar, Delhi. Accused Laxman Gupta was also with them. All these three witnesses have deposed that accused Laxman Gupta took them to first floor and pointed out towards one room opposite to the staircase as his room and in which he had murdered his wife. PW-24 saw through the ventilator that dead body of a lady was lying in the room. PW-24 called for crime team as well as private photographer. They have deposed that accused Laxman Gupta took out keys from his right pocket of his pant and opened the lock of the room. They saw that dead body of a lady was lying on mattress on the floor of the room. Dry blood was present near nose and mouth of the dead body. There were marks on the neck of the dead body. Accused identified the dead body as that of his wife Suman. Accused also showed them a message which accused stated he had written on the wall. The message read as under:-
'Commissioner Sahab is aurat ne aur iske pariwar walo ne mera jeena haraam kar rakha hai yeh aurat aur iska pariwar mere se kehte hai ki ya to tum hume 80 lakh rupay do nahi to hum tum par dahej ka aarop laga denge sir ji iske liye maine apne pariwar se alag raha fir bhi isne meri har jagah meri beijjati ki isko maine sub kuch diya jab bhi mujh se ladai karti thi jab bhi mujh se kehti thi ki tu mere gaon chal tuje to kalmi aam ki tarah katwa dungi'.
31. PW-24 prepared rukka Ex.PW24/A and got registered the case. He SC No. 45056/15 State Vs. Laxman Gupta Page 10 of 29 seized the body vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/A. The lock and key were also seized vide memo Ex.PW23/B after preparing its parcel with seal of YK. They have deposed that accused also got recovered one pencil with which he had written the message on the wall. The pencil was seized vide memo Ex.PW23/C. PW-24 prepared rough site plan Ex.PW24/B. PW-14 came back with copy of FIR after which PW-24 put FIR No. on the documents prepared so far. PW-24 sent the dead body to GTB Hospital for preservation. He arrested the accused vide memo Ex.PW23/D and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW23/E. IO also recorded the disclosure statement of accused which is Ex.PW23/F.
32. PW-24 submitted application Ex.PW24/C for conducting postmortem. He prepared inquest papers Ex.PW24/D. PW-24 took other steps during investigation. He seized DVD from the private photographer Jitender Kaushik vide memo Ex.PW24/F. He seized photocopy of some register showing tenancy vide memo Ex. PW24/G. PW-24 prepared transcript of the DVD which is Ex.PW24/H. Ex. P-15 is the lock; Ex. P-16 are the two keys and Ex. P-17 is the pencil.
33. PW-23 and PW-24 were cross-examined. Cross-examination of PW-14 was deferred on request of counsel for accused but he was never called again. As such, evidence of PW-14 cannot be considered.
34. Nothing substantial has come out in cross-examination of PW-23. He was cross-examined generally on the investigation conducted in his presence. The defence could not bring out any major contradiction. Similarly nothing SC No. 45056/15 State Vs. Laxman Gupta Page 11 of 29 substantial has come out in cross-examination of PW-24 either. He denied that lock, keys and pencil were planted upon the accused. MEDICAL/EXPERT WITNESSES
35. PW-16 Dr. V. J. Singh had conducted postmortem on the dead body of Suman. He conducted the postmortem on 22.03.2015 at about 11.45 a.m. and concluded the same at about 1.20 p.m. Postmortem report is Ex.PW- 16/A. He gave cause of death as "asphyxia as a result of ante mortem manual strangulation". He opined that all injuries were ante mortem and injury no. 1 to 6 as well as internal neck injuries were collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He also opined that the time since death was about one week.
36. PW-16 identified the clothes which were present on the body of deceased. Clothes i.e. one ladies shirt having brownish stains, one salwar having brownish stains and one underwear having few faint brownish stains are Ex. Art.1 (colly.), and white cloth of pulanda is Ex. Art. 2.
37. Nothing has come out in cross-examination.
38. PW-19 Sh. Ajit Singh is Handwriting Expert, FSL, Rohini, Delhi. He had examined questioned writing Q-1 (which was originally written on the wall and its photographs were taken) alongwith sample handwriting S-1 to S-6 of accused Laxman Gupta. After examination, PW-19 found that both the writings were written by the same person i.e. accused Laxman Gupta. His report is SC No. 45056/15 State Vs. Laxman Gupta Page 12 of 29 Ex.PW19/A.
39. In cross-examination, it was suggested that his report and opinion were incorrect which he denied.
40. PW-20 is Sh. Ajay Karar. He had examined viscera of the deceased is Ex.PW20/A. He did not detect any common poison in the viscera.
41. PW-21 is Sh. Aman Kumar Yadav. He had received one sealed envelope containing neck strapping of deceased for examination. He prepared report Ex.PW21/A and informed that there was no facility to trace out finger prints on the neck strapping.
42. PW-22 is Ms. Sunita Gupta. She had examined some exhibits for detection of blood. Her report is Ex.PW22/A. Blood was detected on Ex. C, F-1, F-2, F-3 and G. DNA profile of female was also generated from these exhibits. She identified the exhibits as well. Clothes of deceased are Ex. Art.1 (colly.); white cloth of pulanda as Ex. Art. 2; bed-sheet as Ex. Art. 3; white cloth of pulanda as Ex. Art. 4; dirty pillow with cover as Ex. Art. 5; white cloth of pulanda as Ex. Art. 6; pillow having brownish stains as Ex. Art.7; white cloth of pulanda as Ex. Art. 8; shawl as Ex. Art.9; white cloth of pulanda as Ex. Art. 10; nail clipping of deceased as Ex. Art.11; envelope as Ex. Art. 12; yellowish coloured gauze cloth piece having blood of deceased as Ex. Art.13 and white cloth of pulanda as Ex. Art. 14.
43. Nothing has come out in cross-examination.
SC No. 45056/15 State Vs. Laxman Gupta Page 13 of 29 FORMAL WITNESSES
44. PW-5 is Rakesh Sharma. He was posted as SDM on 18.03.2015. He had recorded statement of Arvind Kumar i.e. brother of deceased Suman on 23.03.2015. The statement is Ex.PW5/A. He directed the SHO concerned to take further action as per law.
45. Nothing has come out in cross-examination.
46. PW-7 HC Karanpal Singh was Duty Officer. He had recorded DD No. 10-A at about 8.05 a.m. of 18.03.2015 on the dictation of accused. He deposed that accused confessed that he had killed his wife. DD No. 10-A was assigned to SI Kuldeep Singh. PW-7 also informed the SHO about it.
47. At about 11.40 a.m., he received rukka from Ct. Thane Ram which was sent by Inspector Yogender Khokhar. PW-7 recorded FIR on the basis of rukka. He made endorsement on the rukka which is Ex.PW7/B. Copy of the FIR is Ex.PW7/C.
48. In cross-examination, it has come that PW-7 had not asked accused whether he was giving statement / confession voluntarily or not. He denied that accused had not made any such confession. He denied that accused was lifted from his native place i.e. Aligarh and brought to PS Khajuri Khas and falsely got recorded DD No. 10-A.
49. PW-8 is Ct. Anil. He had delivered copies of the FIR to Senior SC No. 45056/15 State Vs. Laxman Gupta Page 14 of 29 Officers.
50. PW-11 is Ct. Satender Singh. He had deposited exhibits in the FSL on 12.06.2015.
51. PW-12 HC Kanwar Singh was MHC(M). He produced record of deposit and movement of case property. The record is Ex.PW12/A to M.
52. PW-18 is Sh. Sharad Gupta, Ld. ACMM. He had dealt with application of IO for obtaining specimen handwriting of accused Laxman Gupta. The application is Ex.PW18/A. He passed an order allowing the application. Thereafter specimen of the handwriting of accused were taken. The specimen are Ex.PW18/A1 to A6.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
53. Incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against accused Laxman Gupta were put to him as required u/s 313 CrPC. Accused Laxman Gupta stated that he was innocent and was falsely implicated. He stated that police in collusion with brother of deceased had falsely implicated him. He took the plea that his deceased wife was suffering from mental illness. He alleged that his wife used to go out of house quite often without intimation to any family members. After some days, someone used to bring her back to home. He denied that he was tenant of PW-1 Bhagat Singh. He stated that he was not present at the spot. He denied that he had opened the door of the room. He alleged that he was lifted from Aligarh on 16.03.2015 and falsely implicated in this SC No. 45056/15 State Vs. Laxman Gupta Page 15 of 29 case. He placed on record some documents regarding mental illness which were marked as Ex. D-1 to D-5.
54. As noted in the beginning, accused did not examine any witness in his defence.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
55. I have heard Sh. D.K. Singh, learned Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Sandeep Srivastava, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the accused.
56. Learned Addl. PP submitted that prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was accused who had murdered his wife. He submitted that accused was the last person who was in company of deceased. He pointed out that accused was residing as tenant alongwith his wife Suman. He submitted that after committing the murder, accused had locked the room. After 2 days, he himself went to the PS and confessed to have killed his wife. He referred to the PM report and contended that deceased was murdered.
57. Learned counsel for the accused, on the other hand, made submissions to the contrary. He submitted that accused has been falsely implicated by the police in connivance of the brother of deceased namely Arvind Kumar. He contended that prosecution has failed to prove that accused was tenant of PW-1. He argued that prosecution had failed to show that accused was lastly seen with the deceased. Regarding confessional statement, learned counsel submitted that same cannot be considered at all. He also pointed out SC No. 45056/15 State Vs. Laxman Gupta Page 16 of 29 that there was no motive for the accused to commit the crime. He prayed for acquittal of the accused.
58. I have considered the submissions.
FINDINGS
59. From the submissions of the learned Counsels, the following points for determination arise in the present case:
a). Whether accused was tenant of PW-1 Bhagat Singh?
b). Whether accused was lastly seen with the deceased?
c). Whether accused made any confessional statement? If yes, what is the value of the said confessional statement?
60. All the points for determination are taken up together.
61. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. The law regarding cases based on circumstantial evidence is well settled. The famous case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 is the guiding judgment. The five golden principles reiterated in the said judgment may be noted as below:
a). the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established;
b). 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;SC No. 45056/15 State Vs. Laxman Gupta Page 17 of 29
c). the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
d). they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
e). 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.
62. There is no eyewitness of the murder. The case rests upon circumstantial evidence and primarily on the circumstance of last seen. In State of U.P. v. Satish, (2005) 3 SCC 114, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. This view was approved again in the case of Mohd. Azad alias Samin v. State of West Bengal, (2008) 15 SCC 449. Case of the prosecution is that accused was lastly with the deceased and he absconded after the murder.
63. PW-1 is the landlord. He has categorically deposed that accused was his tenant and was residing in the tenanted portion in his house. PW-2, PW- 3, PW-4 and PW-6 who are other tenants have also deposed that accused was tenant in the said room. These witnesses are independent witnesses. They have no reason to falsely depose against the accused. It appears that accused was tenant of PW-1.
SC No. 45056/15 State Vs. Laxman Gupta Page 18 of 29
64. Accused was husband of the deceased. He must in all probability have been with the deceased on 16.03.2015. Accused has to explain how the deceased had died.
65. Extract of DD No.10A is Ex.PW7/A. Same reads as under:
"Samay 08:05 AM baje darj hai ki majkoora khana no. 2 ne hazir thana aakar batlaya ki main gaon Khair, thana Badi Tehsil, Jila Aligarh, UP ka niwasi hoon aur pichle 1 - 1 ½ mahine se uprokt pate par kiraye par rehta hoon. Meri shadi karib 4 saal pehle Suman D/o Rambachan R/o Vill. Sikdi, Distt. Gazipur, UP ke sath huyi thi. Meri patni hamesha mere sath ladai jhagda karti rehti thi aur poore parivar ko dahej ke case main fasane ki dhamki deti rehti thi. Isi vajah se main apni patni ke sath pichle 1 - 1 ½ mahine se apne parivar ke logon se alag uprokt pate par kiraye par reh raha tha. Dinank 16.03.15, Somvar ke din subah subah mera meri patni ke sath jhagda ho gaya. Usne mujhe gaaliyan di. Jo samay karib 11:30 baje din maine use bistar par girakar, gala daba diya, thodi der main vah chatpatakar mar gayi tatha maine apni patni Suman va uske parivar dvara pareshan karne ke bare main pensil se divar par likha hai. Maine kamre ka tala band kiya aur ghar se bahar nikal gaya. Do din tak main idhar udhar ghoomta raha aur footpath vagerah par apna vakt gujara. Aaj mujhe apni galti ka ehsas hone par hazir thana aaya hoon. Kamre ke tale ki chabi mere paas hain, main apko apne sath le jakar kamra dikha sakta hoon, jahan maine apni patni ka katl kiya hai tatha apni patni Suman ki lash bhi dikha sakta hoon Sd/- Hindi Laxman Gupta. Hasb aamad ittla Laxman Gupta darj SC No. 45056/15 State Vs. Laxman Gupta Page 19 of 29 rojnamcha ki gayi. Ittla ki babat SHO Sahab ko batlaya gaya, jo maiy SI Kuldeep Singh D-4430, Ct. Fhaneram Meena 1569/NE, maiy sarkari gadi maiy Laxman Gupta ravana jaaye mauka ka huye, jo munasib karyavahi bad daryaft amal main layenge. Bakalam HC/DO."
66. DD register shows that accused had signed his statement. However, the said statement, having been made in the police station, and the accused being in custody of the police, is hit by Sec. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
67. But a part of this statement is certainly admissible, in accordance with Sec. 27 of Indian Evidence Act. It was only upon facts disclosed in this confessional statement that murder of Suman came to light and it was also revealed that her dead body was lying in the rented room. It was also revealed that key of the room was with the accused himself. These facts were discovered only from this statement. It also came to light that accused was having knowledge about dead body of Suman was lying in the rented room. This part of statement is certainly admissible.
68. In the case of Anter Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 10 SCC 657, the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the necessary requirements for application of Sec. 27, Indian Evidence Act. It observed:
"The various requirements of the Section can be summed up as SC No. 45056/15 State Vs. Laxman Gupta Page 20 of 29 follows:
a). The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue. It must be borne in mind that the provision has nothing to do with question of relevancy. The relevancy of the fact discovered must be established according to the prescriptions relating to relevancy of other evidence connecting it with the crime in order to make the fact discovered admissible.
b). The fact must have been discovered.
c). The discovery must have been in consequence of some information received from the accused and not by accused's own act.
d). The persons giving the information must be accused of any offence.
e). He must be in the custody of a police officer.
f). The discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from an accused in custody must be deposed to.
g). Thereupon only that portion of the information which relates distinctly or strictly to the fact discovered can be proved. The rest is inadmissible."
69. It is clear from perusal of the above noted judgment that the only fact which can be considered from the confessional statement is the fact of recovery of the dead body from the rented room; and knowledge of the accused about this fact.
70. All the PWs regarding recovery of dead body have deposed corroborating each other. The proceedings were videographed and photographed as well. Photographs are Ex.PW1/A to P. As far as videography is concerned, there is a procedural issue. The videographer/PW-25 had not issued any SC No. 45056/15 State Vs. Laxman Gupta Page 21 of 29 certificate u/s. 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. This requirement remained unfulfilled. And for this reason, the videography is to be ignored. But this exclusion does not affect prosecution case at all as there are sufficient photographs on record which were duly proved. Thus fact of recovery of dead body from the rented room at the instance of the accused is duly proved.
71. During postmortem following injuries were noticed on the dead body:
1. Reddish abrasion of size 0.5 x 0.5 cm present over left side neck, 1.5 cm from midline and 6 cm below chin;
2. Reddish abrasion of size 0.5 x 1.5 cm present over left side neck, 1.5 cm lateral to injury No. 1;
3. Reddish abrasion of size 0.5 cm x 1.4 cm present over left side neck, 0.2 cm lateral to injury No. 2;
4. Curvilinear reddish abrasion of size 1.2 x 0.1 cm present over left side neck, 6 cm from midline, 3 cm below angle of mandible and 1 cm lateral to injury No. 3;
5. Curvilinear reddish abrasion of size 0.8 cm x 0.1 cm present over left side neck, 6.5 cm from midline and 2 cm below angle of mandible;
6. Curvilinear reddish abrasion of size 1. 0 x 0.3 cm present over right side neck, 6 cm from midline and 3 cm below angle of mandible.SC No. 45056/15 State Vs. Laxman Gupta Page 22 of 29
72. Following Internal injuries were also noticed:
Neck: Bruising of bilateral carotid sheath and neck strap muscles present with extravasation of blood in surrounding tissues. Fracture of body of thyroid cartilage present with extravasation at fractured ends.
73. According to PW-16 Dr. V.J. Singh, the cause of death was "asphyxia as a result of ante mortem manual strangulation". It is thus apparent that deceased Suman had died homicidal death.
74. It was accused who had opened the lock of the room where the dead body of Suman was lying. He was residing with her in the said room. Accused claims that he was lifted from Aligarh but accused has miserably failed to prove the said fact. From evidence of PW-1/landlord, it has been proved that accused was seen going out from his room on 16.03.2015. From evidence of PW-1 i.e. landlord and PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6 i.e. all tenants, it has been further proved that accused had come with police officials in the morning of 18.03.2015. Accused had opened the lock of the room in which dead body was found. PW-2 has deposed slightly differently regarding opening of the lock by the accused. He rather stated that accused provided the key to the police and it was police official who opened the lock, whereas other tenants as well as PW-1 stated that accused had not only took out the key but also had opened the lock. This slight variation is of no benefit to the accused. Even from evidence of PW-2, it is appearing that accused was having key of the lock.
75. Inside the room, there was writing on the wall as well. The writing SC No. 45056/15 State Vs. Laxman Gupta Page 23 of 29 on the wall has matched with handwriting of accused, as per report of handwriting expert PW-19. The sample of the handwriting were taken with permission of learned ACMM (PW-18). All the compliances were made. The said report Ex.PW19/A could not be challenged in any manner by the defence.
76. The contents of the statement written on the wall are admissible as the same were made by the accused when he was not under custody of the police. He had written it just after committing the offence. This statement is not hit by Sec. 25 of Indian Evidence Act or any other provision of law.
77. There is gap of two days between the circumstance of lastly seeing accused coming out of the rented room and the recovery of the dead body of Suman from the said room. In the first instance, it would appear to be a long gap. But closer scrutiny shows that it was accused who had opened the lock of the rented room where the dead body was lying. Thus this long gap of two days does not affect theory of last seen.
78. Prosecution has proved that accused was lastly in the company of the deceased. Dead body was recovered at instance of accused. The circumstance of last seen has been proved beyond doubt.
79. As the case is based on circumstantial evidence, motive for committing the crime also assumes significance. In Rohtash Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported as (2013) 14 SCC 434, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
SC No. 45056/15 State Vs. Laxman Gupta Page 24 of 29
"28. The evidence regarding the existence of a motive which operates in the mind of the accused is very often very limited, and may not be within the reach of others. The motive driving the accused to commit an offence may be known only to him and to no other. In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive may be a very relevant factor. However, it is the perpetrator of the crime alone who is aware of the circumstances that prompted him to adopt a certain course of action, leading to the commission of the crime. Therefore, if the evidence on record suggests adequately, the existence of the necessary motive required to commit a crime, it may be conceived that the accused has in fact, committed the same.
(Vide: Subedar Tewari v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1989 SC 733; Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 2420; and Dr. Sunil Clifford Daniel v. State of Punjab, (2012) 11 SCC 205)."
80. As far as motive is concerned, same has also been established by the prosecution. Accused was feeling agitated due to conduct of deceased. Accused has alleged that his deceased wife had made his life a hell and she was threatening him to implicate him in a false dowry demand case and had demanded Rs. 80 Lakhs. It is thus apparent that accused wanted to get rid of his wife.
81. Learned Counsel for the accused tried to highlight that the deceased was suffering from some kind of mental problem. He referred to some medical documents in this regard which are Ex. D1 - D5. I have seen these documents. There is nothing in these documents which suggests that the deceased was having any mental problem. Even otherwise, if it is assumed that deceased was infact suffering from any such issue, that does not entitle accused to kill her. That does not provide him any justification for killing his wife. SC No. 45056/15 State Vs. Laxman Gupta Page 25 of 29
82. The following circumstances thus stand proved:
a). That accused is husband of the deceased;
b). That accused was residing as tenant with the deceased in the rented room under landlordship of PW-1;
c). That accused was seen going out of the rented accommodation on 16.03.2015 at about 11:00 am - 12:00 Noon;
d). That accused had gone to the police station Khajuri Khas on 18.03.2015 at about 8:05 am;
e). That accused made a confession recorded vide DD No. 10A, part of which is reliable u/s 27 Indian Evidence Act, and as per which dead body of deceased Suman was recovered from the rented room;
f). That accused led the police team to his rented room where dead body of his wife Suman was recovered;
g). That in the rented room, something was found written on the wall;
h). That it is the accused who had written the same, as confirmed by the handwriting expert; and SC No. 45056/15 State Vs. Laxman Gupta Page 26 of 29
i). That, as per the said writing/statement, accused was fed up of behaviour of his wife and wanted to get rid of her.
83. All the circumstances have been established. They form a complete chain showing only one conclusion that it was accused who had killed deceased Suman.
84. The next question is what offences are made out from these facts?
85. In the case of Chenda @ Chanda Ram vs. State of Chhatisgarh, reported as (2013) 12 SCC 110, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the difference between 'murder' and 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' and has once again thrown light on this issue. It observed as under:
"2. 'Homicide', as derived from Latin, literally means the act of killing a human being. Under Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), homicide becomes culpable when a human being terminates the life of another in a blameworthy manner. Culpability depends on the knowledge, motive and the manner of the act of the accused. The offence is punishable under either Section 302, or Section 304 which consists of two parts........"
86. Thereafter, it also took note of another landmark judgment in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Another , (1976) 4 SCC 382, and observed:
"12. In State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Another, it was held that culpable homicide without the special characteristics of murder is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, falling under Section 304 of the Code. It was further held that there are three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is murder under Section 300; second, culpable homicide not amounting to murder falling under the first part of Section 304; and third is culpable homicide not SC No. 45056/15 State Vs. Laxman Gupta Page 27 of 29 amounting to murder falling under the second part of Section
304. To quote: -
"12. In the scheme of the Penal Code, 'culpable homicide' is genus and 'murder' its specie. All 'murder' is 'culpable homicide' but not vice-versa. Speaking generally, 'culpable homicide' sans 'special characteristics of murder', is 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder'. For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of this generic offence, the Code practically recognises three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is, what may be called, 'culpable homicide of the first degree'. This is the greatest form of culpable homicide which is defined in Section 300 as 'murder'. The second may be termed as 'culpable homicide of the second degree'. This is punishable under the first part of Section
304. Then, there is 'culpable homicide of the third degree'. This is the lowest type of culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it is, also, the lowest among the punishments provided for the three grades. Culpable homicide of this degree is punishable under the second Part of Section 304."
87. In the present case, death of deceased Suman is due to manual strangulation. It has been established that accused had killed her. The act of strangulating the deceased shows that accused had intention to kill his wife. The injury no. 1 to 6 as well as internal neck injuries were held to be collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. As such, Clause Thirdly of Sec. 300 IPC will apply. No exception, as mentioned in Sec. 300 IPC is applicable. Therefore, accused is guilty of murder.
88. Charge u/s 304-B IPC was an alternative charge. In view of holding accused guilty u/s 302 IPC, the offence u/s 304-B IPC is held to be not made out. Charge u/s 498-A IPC is also not strictly proved. Accused is acquitted thereunder.
SC No. 45056/15 State Vs. Laxman Gupta Page 28 of 29
89. In view of the above, accused Laxman Gupta is held guilty and is convicted for murder of his wife Suman u/s 302 IPC.
90. Let he be heard on sentence.
Announced in Open Court on the 7th day of April, 2018 Digitally signed by SANJAY BANSAL SANJAY Location: BANSAL Karkardooma Court Date: 2018.04.07 16:18:35 +0530 (Sanjay Bansal) Special Judge (NDPS)/ASJ/ NE/KKD Courts/Delhi. SC No. 45056/15 State Vs. Laxman Gupta Page 29 of 29