Delhi High Court
Smt. Rajkumari vs The State, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 16 December, 2008
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl.M.B.No.1260/2008 in Crl. Appeal No.824/2008
% Date of Decision: 16.12.2008
Smt. Rajkumari .... Appellant
Through Mr.Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate
Versus
The State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi .... Respondent
Through Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
Crl.M.B.No.1260/2008
The applicant has sought suspension of sentence and her
release on bail on the ground that she has already undergone
imprisonment for more than seven years and no fruitful purpose shall
be served by keeping the appellant in custody.
The applicant has contended that she is a poor woman and she
was represented by amicus curiae during the trial and she was minor at
the time of offence and the question of her age had escaped
consideration. An application was filed in this regard before the learned
Sessions Judge but the same was rejected on 30th July, 2008. The
appellant/applicant has further contended that she is a permanent
resident of Delhi and there is no chance of her absconding, if she is
released on bail.
The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the only
evidence implicating her is that of the minor son of the deceased,
Master Sanjay, which cannot be relied on. It is contended that the child
witness, Sanjay, was accompanying the other witness Shri Parshuram
who had also deposed in the case and whose testimony is full of
contradictions and in these circumstances it is apparent that the child
witness is a tutored witness and his testimony cannot be believed. It is
further contended that the applicant never married the deceased, Ratan
Lal, nor gave birth to any of the three children of the deceased and that
Sanjay is not the son of the appellant, Raj Kumari. The learned counsel
for the applicant has also pointed out certain contradictions in the
testimony of PW5, Parshuram, and PW6, Churamani.
Parashuram, PW5, is stated to be the Jija of the deceased, Ratan
Lal, which fact was not denied by the applicant/appellant. The child
witness, PW4 - Sanjay, also stated that he had come to the Court for
his testimony with the Jija of the deceased. Merely because the child
witness came with the Jija of the deceased, it will not discredit his
testimony. The child witness answered various questions put to him by
the trial Judge who has observed that although the witness is young,
however, he is intelligent and thereafter the statement was recorded.
He graphically deposed as to how the appellant caught hold of the legs
of his father and another co-accused, Chhotu, caught hold of the hands
of his deceased father and the another co-accused, Prem, hit his father
with a brick on his head and forehead and on his face at his house. In
his cross-examination, he has deposed about his sisters and that he
has been studying in the school and he was living with his father. On
perusal of the testimony of the said witness, it is apparent that it
cannot be discredited as untrustworthy.
The applicant is also stated to have made an extra-judicial
confession before PW5, Parashuram, and PW6, Churamani, who are the
brothers-in-law of deceased and one Beeran, who was examined as
PW3. The deposition of these three witnesses were that the applicant
had come to their house and while weeping told them that she had
committed a blunder and that with Prem and Mukhram she has killed
her husband, Ratan Lal. Learned counsel for the applicant is unable to
point out any such discrepancies or pleas on the basis of which the
testimonies of PW5 and PW6 can be rejected or discredited.
In the circumstances, prima facie, the applicant does not have a
good case for suspension of her sentence and for her release on bail.
The applicant has also contended that she was minor at the time of
committing the offence. However, this fact has not been believed as her
application for determination of her age, which was filed almost at the
conclusion of the trial, was rejected.
The appeal of the applicant is also likely to be listed within a
measurable distance of time as regular matters are listed according to
the period of incarceration/imprisonment undergone by the convicts.
In the circumstances, therefore this Court is not inclined to
suspend the sentence of the applicant and release her on bail. The
application of the applicant/appellant for suspension of her sentence
and for her release on bail is, therefore, dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
December 16, 2008 V.K. SHALI, J.
'Dev'
