Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(i) the accused was tenant in respect of a room on the third floor where he was imparting knowledge of embroidery to his children PW7 Arif and PW8 Raisuddin and deceased Mst. Rehana used to visit the place now and then;

(ii) secondly, the accused was a drunkard and was in the habit of beating his wife and he was keeping an evil eye on Shabana, the daughter of deceased from first marriage which was probably resented by the deceased and the complaint was lodged with Delhi Commission for Women and the accused was counselled to behave properly;

17. PW16 Mumtiyaz, is the brother of Rehana and has deposed about the harassment meted out to Rehana by the accused. He further deposed that accused Amruddin used to give her beatings and did not give her daily expenses. He used to keep an evil eye on his niece Shabana who was the daughter of Rehana from her first husband. Rehana had lodged a complaint against the accused at Delhi Commission for Women and copy was also submitted in National Commission for Women. He submitted the photocopy of the said complaint to the Investigating Officer who seized the same vide seizure memo, Ex.PW16/A.

(iv) Rehana used to visit abovementioned house No. 2077 off and on in order to meet her sons.

(v) Accused was a drunkard and there used to be quarrel between husband and wife. He was keeping an evil eye on Shabana, daughter of the deceased from her first marriage and a complaint was lodged by Rehana with Delhi Commission for Women where accused was counselled to behave properly.

45. The time gap between the deceased having last seen with the appellant and the death of Rehana is quite proximate as is evident from the post mortem report that time since death was about 18 hours. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the incriminating circumstance of last seen stands firmly established from the above referred evidence.

46. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to prove motive to commit the crime, inasmuch as, the complaint allegedly made by the deceased before DCW and NCW are not duly proved. The allegations as made in Mark PW16/X1and X2 do not match with the allegations as revealed from the order sheet. Furthermore, the complaint is signed by some Shamim which is distinct from Rehana and Atiq Rehman and Atiq Ahmad are different. On the other hand, it is submission of the learned Public Prosecutor for the State that it has come in the evidence of the child witnesses that their father used to consume liquor on daily basis and then he used to beat their mother. PW14, Om Prakash, who had let out the premises at Usmanpur to the appellant, has also deposed regarding frequent quarrels between the appellant and his wife. Moreover, much prior to this incident, complaint, Mark PW16/X1 and PW16/X2 was lodged by the deceased with Delhi Commission for Women wherein she alleged that her husband used to beat her and was having an evil eye on her daughter Shabana from the first marriage. The minor variance pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant are insignificant. Not only the children of the deceased deposed regarding frequent quarrels between the deceased and the appellant that after consuming liquor, appellant used to give beatings to the deceased, Om Prakash, landlord of the house, has also deposed about the quarrels. PW16 Mumtiaz, brother of the deceased has also deposed regarding giving of beatings by the accused to his wife and that he used to keep an evil eye on his niece Shabana, who was the daughter of Rehana from her first husband. He also deposed regarding giving of complaint by Rehana against the accused at Delhi Commission for Women with a copy to National Commission for Women which he handed over to the Investigating Officer of the case. Copies of the complaint supplied by this witness were verified by SI Parveen Kumar, PW20, who also obtained certified copy of the proceedings, Ex.PW11/B. A perusal of the complaint made by Rehana goes to show that she levelled allegations against her husband regarding ill treatment and that he used to give her beatings after making her naked. He used to keep an evil eye on her daughter and wanted her to indulge in immoral activities. Mumtiaz, PW16 had accompanied his mother and his sister Rehana to the office of Delhi Commission for Women. While his mother accompanied by Rehana went inside the office, he was standing outside the office. The complaint was written in the office of the Commission. Although it was suggested that the deceased never made any complaint to Delhi Commission for Women and National Commission for Women but no suggestion was given that the complaint, Mark PW16/X1 and PW16/X2 were not given by Rehana or that the same was not against the accused. The proceedings conducted at Delhi Commission for Women revealed that when the deceased appeared she stated that her husband threatened to kidnap her daughter and thereafter husband was ordered to be summoned through DCP. The reproduction of the complaint was not required to be recorded in the proceeding sheet. The gist of the complaint was recorded and thereafter, the husband was ordered to be summoned. The further order sheet dated 24 th November, 2009 goes to show that the deceased informed that she was residing with her husband and accused assured to look after her and her children and, therefore, the matter was adjourned for 4 th January, 2010. However, much prior to this date, the deceased was murdered on 22nd December, 2009, therefore, since none appeared for the parties, the matter was closed, presuming that they may be living happily. All this reflects that the relation between the deceased and the appellant were not cordial. There used to be frequent quarrels. Moreover, accused was keeping an evil eye on the daughter of the deceased Rehana from her first husband which resulted in filing of a complaint before Delhi Commission for Women where the accused was also called. As such, the prosecution succeeded in establishing the motive for commission of crime.