Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In cross examination he stated that on getting papers, he proceeded to the hospital for conducting inquest at 7 a.m. and reached there at 7.20 a.m. On Panchanama papers, name of Archana Tulsiyani was mentioned and the time of report was mentioned as 12.30 a.m. He also stated that on paper no.7 Ka/4, time mentioned as 2.30 a.m was crossed and in its place time 2.55 a.m. was mentioned. He also deposed that in the entire matter, his role was to conduct inquest and nothing else.

The next witness is P.W.7 Archana Tulsiyani widow of deceased Deepak Tulsiyani. She deposed that Jaya Mishra was her childhood friend. Both she and Deepak Tulsiyani were regular visitors to Mayo Hall Sports Complex and with the passage of time their relations ripened into marriage in the year 1994. After her marriage, Jaya Mishra also tied nuptial knots with Ajai Mishra appellant. She deposed that after her marriage, she introduced her husband to Jaya Mishra appellant. She also deposed that both she and Jaya Mishra used to visit each other's place. She also deposed that the deceased was fond of drinking in the company of Jaya Mishra and Ajai Mishra. She denied to have grasped anything uttered by the deceased in drunken state. It is also deposed that she saw Jaya Mishra grasping hand of Deepak and she was also seen kissing Deepak at times. She also deposed that she resented this conduct of Jaya but took it in her ride and did not doubt Jaya's fidelity. Subsequently, she grew suspicious of her conduct. She also deposed that both the appellants were meddling too much in the affairs of her family. She also deposed that on 2.4.2005 she had gone to Delhi alongwith her children and from where they rang up her husband also to Jaya and it transpired that she was present at the house of her husband on the pretext that she had brought dinner for her husband. On 6.4.2005, it is further deposed, she came back from Delhi and after her return both she and deceased had gone to the house of Ajai Mishra where both her husband, Ajai Mishra and Jaya Mishra drank. After a drinking binge, Deepak went inside the bed room and lay beside Ajai and Jaya Mishra on the same bed. When she saw them, she took her husband forcibly from there. By that time, the clock had struck 4-5 and thereafter, both she and her husband left for their house. She also deposed that the birth day of her son fell on 12th April and on 12.4.2005, both the appellants had joined the birth day party and in the said party, they went on a drinking binge and after drinking, she saw Jaya Mishra kissing Deepak. She also deposed that the birthday of her husband fell on 17th April, 2005 which they celebrated at 12 in the intervening night of 16th and 17th April, 2005. In the said function, the appellants were not invited but they arrived at 12 in the midnight and they came unbidden. She also deposed that she resented this and on this count, there was exchange of hot words with Jaya Mishra and she bade them leave immediately. This was resented by the appellant and they had threatened that they would not excuse her for being discourteous to them. After this incident, she deposed, she prevailed upon her husband not to keep any contact with the appellants and agreeing to her advice, he had also assured that he would have no contact with them. She also deposed that they had jointly lent Rs.5 lac to the appellant and when Deepak demanded back the money, the appellants prevaricated on the issue. On 24th April, 2005, Deepak asked her to accompany him to the house of the appellants on the pretext that both would demand back the money but she declined to accompany him. On her refusal, Deepak left for the house of the appellant all alone at about 9 or 10 p.m. in Santro car. She also deposed that Deepak had assured her to be back within 10 to 15 minutes. When he became late, she rang up at 11 p.m. upon which he informed her that the appellants were insisting for drink and that he would be back within five minutes. She also deposed that after about an hour, Ajai Mishra appellant rang up her asking her to rush immediately as something bad has happened. She also deposed that she rushed to the house of the appellant on the cycle of her daughter where the house was locked. When she rang up Ajai Mishra, he asked her to rush to Ojha Nursing Home. When she reached there she saw Deepak lying on stretcher and blood was oozing out from his head. When she enquired about the incident, the appellants informed that Deepak had sustained gun shot injury. From there, she also deposed, the appellant took Deepak initially to Preeti Hospital and from there he was taken to Raj Nursing Home. From Raj Nursing Home, Deepak was shifted to Medical College where Deepak succumbed to his injuries. After the death of Deepak, both the appellants were nowhere to be seen. She also deposed that Deepak had been murdered to avoid repaying the money and also that she had a quarrel with the appellants as stated supra.

In cross examination, she stated that at the time of death of her husband she was standing outside the room where her husband was being treated. She also stated that when she heard of death of her husband, she went inside. She could not remember as to who were with her in the hospital. She also stated that she rang up her relatives before the death of Deepak and that she had gone to police station at about 2.00 a.m. and thereafter she never visited the police station. On being questioned, she stated that from the hospital, she had gone to police station and thereafter, she again came back to Hospital and that she had gone to her house in the wee hours. She also stated that for cremation, the body was brought to her house situated at Alopibagh and that the police had come after two days of occurrence upon which it was conveyed to the police personnel that she being distraught was not in a position to say anything. She also stated that after the incident, she shifted to the house situated in Alopi Bagh and thereafter she shifted to her rented house at Allapur and now she had shifted to her house situated at Civil Lines. She also gave details about her sisters. She also stated that Rupa sister of Ajai Mishra was known to her. When a 14 years old photograph was shown to her she recognized herself and Jaya Mishra. She also recognized Rupa. She could not recognize the other persons in photographs. She also deposed that Jaya used to go to the house of Ajai Mishra for studies prior to her marriage and at times, she also accompanied Jaya Mishra in order to study together in the company of Rupa sister of Ajai Mishra. She also used to accompany Jaya whenever she happened to go to her friends. She also deposed that she had no intimate relation with Ajai Mishra and therefore, she did not go to deliver invitation card to his house. She also deposed that her father was employed in Dhanbad and earlier, the entire family lived at Dhanbad. She also stated that her father left employment at Dhanbad 20 years back and that after abandoning service at Dhanbad, her father came back to Allahabad and here he started his venture. After one or two years,her father left for Dehradun. She also stated that at the time of incident, she had reliance mobile but she could not recollect its number. On being asked whether Ajai had mobile number 9415216334, she denied knowledge stating that their mobile numbers were saved in her mobile. She gave out mobile number of her husband. She also stated that she had a land line connection. She could not say whether mobile numbers of appellants were saved in the mobile of the deceased. She also stated that she had gone to Delhi on 3rd April, 2005 and came back on 6.4.2005. In Delhi, she resided with her sister who was married to Jamshed Khan. She had also gone to the house of her sister-in-law. She also stated that name of the husband of her sister-in-law is Pramod Mishra, who was serving in Delhi as A.C.P.. She also stated that her marriage was inter caste marriage and her earlier name was Archana Singh. She was by caste Thakur. She also stated that she had done graduation. She also stated that she had gone to Delhi along with her two children and maid servant. She denied that she had gone to Delhi by Prayag Raj Express on 29.3.2005. On being confronted with reservation chart and reservation form which showed the date of journey as 29.3.2005, she stated that she could not recollect the correct date of journey. Again on being confronted whether Vatsalya her sister also performed journey with her. She stated that her sister Vatsalya had not come with her and the berth no.60 showing to be reserved in the name of Vatsalya must be in the name of person known as Vatsalya, who was different from her sister. On being again called for cross examination, she stated that she had mentioned in the written report whatever had occurred with her. On being called whether she could write the report again in court she stated that she could write the report again but not in the same words. She reiterated that she had mentioned in her report that initially she had gone to Ojha Nursing Home, then to Preeti Nursing Home and then to Raj Nursing Home. She also stated that she was not in a fit state of mind on account of shock and on account of this state of mind she may not have mentioned about lending of five lacs rupees to the appellants but she recollected that she certainly mentioned that her husband was killed for money. On being confronted with the contents of F.I.R. she explained that on account of sudden occurrence of the incident, she forgot to mention the fact of lending of money. She stated that when her husband left the house, he had told her that the appellants had talked to him about return of money. She also stated that in a confused state of mind, it did not strike her to mention that the deceased was murdered for money. She also stated that she had mentioned the fact of lending of Rs.5 lacs to appellant but it is difficult for her to explain the reason, why this fact was not mentioned in her statement by the Investigating Officer. She also stated that when the Investigating Officer was recording her statement, she had used foul words for appellants but those words were not taken down by the Investigating Officer. She also stated that she was not aware who was pursuing the case in the High Court and Supreme Court but it was known to her that Anil Tulsiyani had talked her about doing pairvi to oppose the prayer for bail of the appellants. She also stated that she had mentioned the fact of lending of money to appellants to Anil Tulsiyani and also other family members. She also stated that the fact about lending of money was disclosed to the family after the incident. She also stated that she had lent Rs.5 lac to Jaya Mishra in installments. She also stated that she had started lending money about 1,1/2 years prior to the incident i.e. from the year 2004. The fact about lending of money was not noted down by her anywhere. She also could not precise the dates when the money was delivered to the appellants. She also stated that the entire account was maintained by her. She also mentioned the fact that besides lending money in cash to the extent of Rs.4 lacs, hardware articles costing Rs.1 lac was also given to the appellants on credit. She also stated that whatever talks took place between her and Deepak Tulsiyani and Ajai Mishra were mentioned in para 14 of the affidavit paper no.93 kha. She also mentioned about the time when she talked to her husband on phone on the day of occurrence. On being called again for cross examination, she began with the statement that whatever statement was given by Vatsalya Singh and Anil Tulsiyani was not read over by her. She also stated that on the day of occurrence she and her husband had gone to see Film "Mumbai Express" in the show between 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. in the Chandralok Talkies. Since film was not to their liking and also that the children had started crying, they left the show half way. She denied the suggestion that she and her husband had gone to see the film in the show between 9 p.m. to 12 p.m. She also stated that they came back to their house at 8 p.m. She also denied the suggestion that on the day of occurrence her husband had asked her at about 4 p.m. to be ready for visit to the house of Ajai Mishra. She denied to have stated in her statement recorded by the Investigating Officer that her husband had asked her at 4 pm. to be ready to visit the house of Ajai Mishra. On being reminded, she stated that she could not recollect whether she had given the statement to the aforesaid effect. She also denied that her husband had asked her to accompany him to the house of appellant at 10 p.m. She also stated that her husband suddenly told her that he had received a call from appellant Ajai Mishra at 10 p.m. asking him to come to his house to collect the money and he left asking her that he would be back within 10 minutes. She also denied the suggestion that her husband had asked her to come over to the house of appellant where they would dine with Ajai and Jaya Mishra. She also denied the suggestion that her husband carried any bag containing cigarette, wine bottle or tumbler. She conceded the fact that her husband was fond of meat and he enjoyed chicken and mutton. She denied that he was also fond of pork. She stated that she could not tell when her husband had reached the house of the appellant. She also gave precise time when her husband made call to appellants at their line from his mobile. She also gave details of her talks with her husband and vice versa. She also stated that Ajai Mishra made call to her at 12.36 a.m. informing that her husband had been hurt by bullet further information that something has happened and no further details. She could not recollect whether she had mentioned 12.30 as the time when appellant had made call to her informing about the deceased being hit by bullet. She then stated that she was told on phone by appellant Ajai Mishra that she should rush to Ojha Nursing Home and something bad has happened. She denied that she was told that Deepak had been hit by a bullet. She also stated that on reaching Preeti Hospital, she enquired and was told that Deepak had been hit by the bullet. On further enquiry she was told that Deepak had shot himself by his revolver. On being confronted with the contents of the F.I.R. in which she had mentioned that she was told on phone by appellant that Deepak had been hit by bullet, she expressed ignorance stating that it might be the fault of the scribe of the F.I.R. She also stated that Investigating Officer has not correctly recorded her statement in which she is shown to have stated that on her enquiry, appellant told her that Deepak had shot himself by his pistol. On being confronted that the person who had informed the police at 1.55 p.m. had stated that his brother-in-law had been hit by bullet fired by unknown persons, she stated Rajeev Nayyar was brother-in-law of her husband and that aforesaid Rajeev Nayyar was present when her husband had been admitted in hospital. She also stated that all her relatives including Rajeev Nayyar were present in hospital. She also stated that Anil Tulsiyani was not present. She also told that she had made a call at the house of Anil Tulsiyani but he did not turn up. She denied that she had seen Anil Tulsiyani present with her husband during the course of period, her husband remained admitted in the hospital. She stated that her father-in-law had been murdered but she denied any knowledge about the person who committed the murder and also whether any person had been nominated as accused and further whether any final report has been filed in the said case. She also stated that when Deepak left the house, he had pistol with himself. She denied the suggestion that in a fit of anger, Deepak had fired which burnt a hole in the hind screen of the car. She explained that the hole was made due to car being hit by a pebble which was thrown by some mischievous children of the locality. She stated that on 6.4.2005, she had gone to the house of the appellants alongwith some gifts meant for the son of the appellants. On 12.4.2005, it is stated, appellants had attended the birth day ceremony of her son Deepu, Anil Tulsiyani had not attended the function. All other relatives including Raju Nayyar, Nirmal Tulsiyani etc. were present in the function. She also stated that seed of discord was sown on that very day as appellants had taken her husband to another room where they indulged in bout of drinking. She objected to it upon which verbal dual ensued between her and the appellants. She also stated that the news of discord between her and appellants had not trickled to any of the guests present in the function. She also stated that since it was birthday of her son, there was no prior arrangement for drinking but despite the fact it was the birth day of son, Deepak and appellants shifted to another room and indulged in drinking bout which she disliked much. She could not explain whether she had made any call from her mobile. However, she explained that her mobile number was also used by her husband. On being confronted with mobile number of Dr. Kartikey Sharma and Dr. S.P.S. Chauhan and Dr. D.R.Singh, she stated that she knew Dr. S.P.S.Chauhan and Dr. D.R.Singh as they had attended on her husband in hospital. She also stated that after the incident of 12.4.2005, she had developed aversion towards appellants and she had also conveyed to the appellants not to visit her house. She also stated that even thereafter, she had made call on few occasions to the appellant and their calls were also received by her on very few occasions. In regard to the event of 16/17th April, 2005, she stated that she had a quarrel with the appellants which continued for half an hour and after half an hour, the appellants left for their house. She also provided details of phone call on the basis of record. On being again called for cross examination on 2.4.2007, she stated that she had made call to her parents on 16.4.2005 at 8 p.m. in order to intimate her parents that she had bidden out Ajai Mishra and Jaya Mishra from her house. She denied that her husband had slit his wrist being pained by her conduct. She explained that her husband tripped over the iron Sariyas kept in the house and got injured in his left hand wrist. She denied that she also suffered injury on her face on account of quarrel between her and her husband. She also denied that both she and her husband were not on talking terms for the last several days or that on account bickering between the husband and wife, the children had been removed to her parental house. She also denied that she had gone to Delhi for 7 days and instead emphasized that she had gone on 2nd April, 2005 and had come back on 6th April, 2005. She also denied that she had left for Delhi on 29.3.2005. She also denied that during her stay at Delhi, she had once gone to the house of her brother-in-law (husband of sister-in-law) and she had stayed elsewhere which had generated doubt about her fidelity in the mind of her husband. She also stated that her husband was not doubting tom and that her husband always drank moderately. She denied that her husband after drink used to get nervous tic. She also stated that she got insurance amount to the extent of Rs.10 lac from insurance company after the death of her husband. She also stated that complete insurance amount has not yet been paid off to her. She could not explain any reason for the delay in the matter. She expressed ignorance whether her husband had got himself insured which fact she came to know after 2-4 months of the death of her husband. She denied that her husband committed suicide on being provoked by her. She also denied the suggestion that she set up the theory of murder in order to get claim of insured amount and in this bid, she had falsely nominated the appellants as accused.

In the instant case, the prosecution has let in evidence to prove that appellants was imbued with motive to commit the murder of the deceased. According to the prosecution evidence, appellants had borrowed Rs. 4 lacs from the deceased followed by articles of hardware costing Rs. 1 lac. On this count, P.W. 1 Anil Tulsyani deposed that deceased had told him that appellants had borrowed Rs. 4 lacs and hardware articles costing Rs. 1 lac but the appellants were averse to refund the money to the deceased. P.W. 1 further deposed that Deepak Tulsyani (deceased) upon being insisted as to why he was not taking any legal action, he had verbalized his apprehension that they could try to eliminate him and on account being connected with legal profession, he welshed upon his promise to repay the amount and he had also told him that he was employing persuasive measure to get back the money from the appellant. P.W.7 Archana Tulsyani also deposed that Rs. 4 lacs were given to the appellants besides hardware articles costing Rs. 1 lac on credit. She further deposed that her husband on the date of occurrence suddenly told her that he has received a call from Ajay Mishra asking him to come to his house to collect the money and he left asking her that he would be back within 10 minutes. The second motive attributed to the appellants for committing the crime is that there was proximity of deceased with appellant Jaya Mishra. She deposed that she and Jaya Mishra were childhood friend. After their marriage, she and Jaya Mishra used to visit each other house. The deceased was fond of drinking in the company of appellants. She saw Jaya Mishra grasping hands of the deceased and was also seen kissing him at times. She resented this conduct of Jaya Mishra but took it in her stride and did not doubt Jaya's fidelity. Subsequently, she grew suspicious of her conduct. She deposed that on 2.4.2005, she had gone to Delhi alongwith her children and from where they rang up her husband and also to Jaya and it transpired that she was present at the house of her husband on the pretext that she had brought dinner for her husband. After her return from Delhi, she alongwith her husband had gone to the house of appellants. After drinking session, deceased went inside the bedroom and lay beside Ajay Misra and Jaya Mishra on the bed. When she saw them, she took her husband forcibly from there. On 12.4.2005, both the appellants had attended the birthday party of her son and after drinking, she saw Jaya Mishra kissing Deepak. On 17.4.2005 in the birthday party of her husband, appellants were not invited but they arrived at 12 in the night. She resented this and there was exchange of hot words with Jaya Mishra. This was resented by the appellants and they had threatened them that they would not excuse her for showing this discourtesy. The Sessions Judge accepted the testimony of the witnesses and held that appellants had motive for commission of the crime.