Delhi High Court

Jagjit Singh vs State on 16 July, 2009

Author: Pradeep Nandrajog

R-24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Date of Order: July 16, 2009

+                        CRL.A. 62/2001

         JAGJIT SINGH                       ..... Appellant
                    Through:   Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Advocate

                               versus

         STATE                                ..... Respondent
                    Through:   Ms. Richa Kapoor, Advocate

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
         HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
   to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?      Yes

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?             Yes

: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. The appeal had reached for hearing on 8.7.2009.

Since none appeared for the appellant, we appointed Ms.Ritu

Gauba, a lawyer on the panel of the Delhi High Court Legal

Services Committee, who was present in Court, to assist us

and formally appointed her as an Amicus on behalf of the

appellant. We had fixed her fee at Rs.3,500/-.

2. The appeal was retained on Board and paper book

was supplied to the learned counsel on 8.7.2009 itself.

3. Thereafter, though the appeal had reached for

hearing on 9th and 10th July 2009, we deferred hearing to

enable the learned counsel to prepare the brief.

4. The appeal reached for hearing on 13 th, 14th and

15th July 2009. On each date, when the matter was called out

to be heard, the learned counsel did not appear. We retained

the matter on Board.

5. Today, i.e. on 16.7.2009, the appeal has reached

for hearing. Ms.Ritu Gauba, learned Amicus appointed has not

appeared.

6. Noting that in a large number of appeals pending in

this Court, counsel for the appellant were not appearing, the

Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee has nominated a

counsel on the legal aid panel, to be attached with different

courts, exercising criminal jurisdiction. Mr.Bhupesh Narula, a

counsel on the panel of the Delhi High Court Legal Services

Committee has been nominated by the Committee as the legal

aid counsel to assist this Court in all such matters where

counsel for the appellant are not appearing.

7. Accordingly, we called upon Mr.Bhupesh Narula,

learned counsel nominated by the Delhi High Court Legal

Services Committee attached to this Court to assist us.

8. Noting that we had fixed the fee of Ms.Ritu Gauba,

Advocate at Rs.3,500/-, we fix the same amount i.e. Rs.3,500/-

as the fee to be paid to Mr.Bhupesh Narula, Advocate.

9. With the assistance of Mr.Bhupesh Narula,

Advocate and Ms.Richa Kapoor, Additional Public Prosecutor

we have gone through the impugned decision and the record

of the learned Trial Judge.

10. Vide impugned judgment and order dated

13.12.2000 the appellant has been convicted for the offence of

having murdered his wife.

11. On the basis of the evidence led before the learned

Trial Judge, finding returned is that the testimony of Rakesh

Nagpal PW-9, establishes the motive for the crime. Motive

being, that the appellant suspected the fidelity of his wife, a

fact told by the appellant to Rakesh Nagpal. It has been held

that the testimony of PW-9 establishes that the appellant

made an extra judicial confession to PW-9, soon after having

murdered his wife. The conduct of the appellant of being the

informant by ringing up the police and giving information that

his wife has been murdered by him has been held to be

incriminating evidence; limited to the fact that the appellant

was the informant which set into motion the police

investigation. The next piece of incriminating evidence

against the appellant held, is the reports of the serologist i.e.

Ex.PW-15/E and Ex.PW-15/F, as per which, human blood of the

same group as that of the deceased was detected on the vest

and the underwear which was seized by the investigating

officer when he apprehended the appellant in the precincts of

Patiala House Courts and which underwear and vest was worn

by the appellant, as also the fact that a blood stained knife

recovered at the instance of the appellant was detected with

the presence of human blood of the same group as that of the

wife of the appellant. The knife Ex.P-1 was opined by the

doctor who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased as the

possible weapon of offence.

12. Police investigation in the crime commenced when

Ex.PW-8/B was prepared by Const.Vandana PW-8, recording

information in the early hours of the morning of 10.12.1995, at

5:20 AM, over the telephone, that a man who disclosed his

name as Jagjit Singh (the name of the appellant) has rung up

and informed that he had murdered his wife in room No.18 i.e.

the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in the precincts of

Patiala House Courts Complex. The information was forwarded

to SI Banni Singh PW-5 who accompanied by Const.Rakesh PW-

7 left for the spot. Inspector Sahdev Singh PW-15 posted as

SHO PS Tilak Marg also reached the office of the SDM at

Patiala House Courts Complex and joined SI Banni Singh in

conduct of investigation.

13. The appellant was present near the room where the

offence i.e. murder of his wife was committed. The police

officers noted that the appellant was wearing a vest and an

underwear which were stained with blood. The vest Ex.P-5 and

the underwear Ex.P-6 were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-

5/9.

14. A saree Ex.P-7 and a pair of ladies sandal Ex.P-8,

ostensibly belonging to the deceased, were seized as recorded

in the memo Ex.PW-5/E. Two mats on the floor Ex.P-4/1-2,

which were stained with blood were also seized as recorded in

the memo Ex.PW-5/E.

15. The appellant made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-

5/K in which he stated that he can lead the police to the place

where he had thrown the knife with which he had stabbed his

wife. The appellant led the investigating officer to a toilet

adjacent to the place (room) where his wife was murdered and

from underneath a heap of papers produced the knife Ex.P-1,

which was stained with blood. It was seized as recorded in the

memo Ex.PW-5/A. Sketch thereof, Ex.PW-5/B, was drawn by

Inspector Sahdev Singh PW-15.

16. Const.Rakesh PW-4, a photographer, was

summoned and he took 4 photographs Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4.

17. The investigating officer i.e. PW-15 prepared the

rough site plan Ex.PW-15/A, recording therein the place where

the deceased was found dead and the place where the saree

and sandles as also the mats were noted and seized as

recorded in the memo Ex.PW-5/E.

18. The body was taken into possession and was sent

to R.M.L.Hospital, where at the casualty, Dr.M.P.S.Chawla PW-

6, declared her dead. The physical examination of the body

revealed multiple stab injuries which were noted by PW-6 on

the report Ex.PW-6/A. The body was thereafter sent to the

mortuary of Lady Harding Medical College, where

Dr.G.K.Sharma PW-1 conducted the post-mortem on

11.12.1995 and noted 10 injuries, some of which were incised

and some of which were stab wounds. He prepared the report

Ex.PW-1/A, noting there-in the 10 external injuries as also the

internal injuries. He opined that the stab injury No.3, 9 and 10

were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature;

collectively and individually. He opined that stab injuries No.2,

3, 8, 9 and 10 were caused by a sharp pointed object having

single sharp edge. With reference to the personal apparels of

the deceased and the cuts thereon, he opined that injury No.4,

5, 6, and 7 appeared to be defence wounds.

19. The knife Ex.P-1 was sent to him later on, for

opinion whether the injuries noted by him could be possibly

caused by Ex.P-1. He gave his report Ex.PW-1/C to the effect

that the injuries noted by him while conducting the post-

mortem of the deceased could be caused by use of the knife

Ex.P-1 or a similar weapon.

20. Soon after conducting the post-mortem, PW-1

handed over the blood sample of the deceased on a piece of

gauze as also the blouse and the bra which he had removed

from the dead body. All of which were taken into possession

by the investigating officer and duly sealed.

21. The knife, the two mats, the underwear and the

vest of the appellant which were seized soon after the

incident; the blouse and the bra of the deceased as also her

blood sample on the gauze were sent for serological

examination and vide reports Ex.PW-15/E and Ex.PW-15/F it

was opined that human blood of group „AB‟ was detected on

the knife, the blouse, the bra, the underwear and the vest.

Qua the two mats it was opined that human blood was

detected but on reaction the blood group could not be

ascertained. It was opined that the blood group of the

deceased was „AB‟.

22. At the trial Rakesh Nagpal PW-9, the Sub-Divisional

Magistrate having office at Room No.18, Patiala House Courts

deposed that the appellant was one out of the two chowkidars

deputed as caretakers of his office and that on 10.12.1995 at

around 5:15 AM he received a telephone call from the

appellant who informed him that he had murdered his wife

because he suspected her fidelity and that he immediately

passed on the said information to the SHO of police station

Tilak Marg and that the next day he gave said information in

writing i.e. vide Ex.PW-9/A.

23. On being cross examined he stated that there were

two chowkidars to perform night duty of acting as caretakers

of his office and that the two chowkidars, as per mutual

arrangement would act as caretakers in the night. He stated

that he was not maintaining any register pertaining to the duty

hours of the two chowkidars.

24. Relevant would it be to note that while cross

examining PW-9, not even a suggestion has been given to him

that he is falsely deposing of the appellant having made an

extra judicial confession to him over the telephone.

25. We only need to note that Insp.Sahdev Singh PW-15

as also SI Banni Singh PW-5, deposed and proved of having

seen the appellant in the precincts of Patiala House Courts

Complex. That the underwear and the vest worn by the

appellant were having blood stains thereon and that the same

were seized. They also deposed to and proved the information

given by the appellant pertaining to the knife Ex.P-1 and the

recovery thereof from beneath a heap of papers in the toilet

adjacent to the room where the wife of the appellant was

murdered.

26. Needless to state, Insp.Sahdev Singh deposed to

have sent the various seized article for serological opinion and

receipt of reports Ex.PW-15/E and Ex.PW-15/F. We note that

the appellant never desired for the serologist to be brought to

Court for purposes of cross-examination. We note that as per

the mandate of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

the reports of the serologist are admissible in evidence without

formal proof thereof, through the mouth of the serologist

concerned.

27. Apart from PW-9, we have on record the testimony

of Mani Ram PW-12, who deposed that he was the other

chowkidar attached to the Court of the SDM at Patiala House

and that in the early hours of the morning of 10.12.1995, the

appellant knocked at the door of his room i.e. the room of the

caretaker at Patiala House Courts and informed him that he

had killed his wife.

28. We note that having categorically deposed as

aforenoted in his examination-in-chief on 1.4.1998, Mani Ram

turned turtle, when during cross examination on 22.9.1998, he

stated that the appellant made no such extra judicial

confession to him.

29. Dr.G.K.Sharma PW-1, proved the post-mortem

report and his opinion Ex.PW-1/C, contents whereof have been

briefly noted by us while penning the chronology of the events

as they transpired contemporaneously during investigation.

30. Learned counsel for the appellant urges that the

telephonic information given by the appellant to the police,

being a confessional statement, is inadmissible in evidence

and hence said evidence has to be excluded while considering

the incriminating evidence against the appellant. Second

contention urged by learned counsel is that Mani Ram PW-12,

is not a truthful witness, and in any case has resiled from the

fact of the appellant having made any extra judicial confession

to him. Thus, counsel urges that the so-called extra judicial

confession to Mani Ram has not been proved. Pertaining to

the testimony of Rakesh Nagpal PW-9, counsel urges that it is

strange that Rakesh Nagpal, a Sub-Divisional Magistrate,

chose to give the writing Ex.PW-9/A on 11.12.1995 i.e. the day

next after the incident. Counsel urges that the same does not

inspire confidence on account of the delay in transmitting the

information. Pertaining to the testimony of Rakesh Nagpal

that he had transmitted said information over the telephone to

the SHO on 10.12.1995 itself, learned counsel urges that as

admitted by the witness during cross examination, said fact

i.e. of having informed the SHO over the telephone does not

find mention in Ex.PW-9/A. Thus, counsel urges that there is a

great doubt, whether at all the appellant made any extra

judicial confession to Rakesh Nagpal.

31. We note that the learned Trial Judge has not

referred to, as an incriminating evidence, the extra judicial

confession to which Mani Ram PW-12 deposed to in his

examination-in-chief. Thus, we eschew any reference to the

testimony of PW-12, save and except to note that having

categorically stood by the case of the prosecution while

deposing in examination-in-chief on 1.4.1998, he turned turtle

when cross examined on 22.9.1998. There is every possibility

of the witness being won over. After all, Mani Ram was a

friend of the appellant as both of them were chowkidars in the

office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned.

32. Pertaining to the fact that the deceased was killed

inside the chamber room of the SDM concerned, we find that

there is no scope for raising any issue on said fact. The

testimony of the police officers, as also the site plan,

categorically establishes the fact that the wife of the appellant

was brutally stabbed in the chamber attached to the court

room of the SDM i.e. PW-9.

33. The place where the murder has been committed

assumes significance, for the reason, how could the wife of the

appellant reach the said place, save and except her husband

taking her there.

34. The fact that human blood of the same group as

that of the deceased has been detected on the underwear and

the vest of the appellant which were seized by the

investigating officer soon after the crime and the fact that the

appellant has not explained as to how his underwear and vest

got stained with human blood of the same group as that of his

wife, is another very vital piece of incriminating evidence

against the appellant. That the knife Ex.P-1 was recovered

after the appellant made a disclosure statement and led the

investigation officer to a toilet and from underneath a heap of

papers took out the knife is admissible evidence under Section

8 of the Evidence Act of his conduct and additionally his

disclosure statement which has resulted in the recovery of a

blood stained knife admissible under Section 27 of the

Evidence Act.

35. In our opinion, the trinity of the circumstances i.e.

that the wife of the appellant was murdered in the chamber of

the court room of the SDM; the apprehension of the appellant

from near the said room coupled with his clothes being stained

with the blood of his wife as also the fact that the knife which

was also stained with the blood of his wife was got recovered

after the appellant led the police to the toilet, are enough

wherefrom it can safely be said that the chain of

circumstances is complete to hold qua the guilt of the

appellant.

36. But we go a little further. As held in the decisions

reported as AIR 1966 SC 119 Aghnoo Nagesia Vs. State of

Bihar and AIR 1972 SC 922 Khatri Hemraj Vs. State of Gujarat,

a confessional information report by the accused to the police

which forms the First Information Report is inadmissible in

evidence, save and except those statements in the report,

which identify the accused as the maker of the first

information report and the conduct of the accused as the

maker of the first information report, as held in para 10 and 20

of the decision in Aghnoo Nagesia‟s case (supra).

37. Thus, the DD Entry No.33-A, Ex.PW-8/B and the

testimony of PW-8 are admissible evidence to prove that the

appellant was the informant. The same are admissible

evidence to show the conduct of the appellant; conduct being

of informing the police about the death of his wife. Therefrom,

it can safely be held that the said evidence establishes the

knowledge of the appellant that his wife has been killed; the

knowledge of the appellant that he knew the place where his

wife was killed.

38. We further have the testimony of PW-9, which

establishes the extra judicial confession made by the appellant

to him.

39. The challenge to the credibility of the testimony of

PW-9 on the grounds noted hereinabove, while noting the

submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, are akin to

clutching to straw.

40. In the report Ex.PW-9/A, PW-9 has written as

under:-

"Shri Jagjit Singh s/o Shri Maman Singh was working as chowkidar looking after the work of chowkidari of both the rooms of SDM‟s of South and New Delhi. He was on duty in office on 9.12.95 which was Saturday. He informed at my residence on 10.12.95 at 5.25 AM that he has murdered his wife in the court chamber premises as he suspected his wife‟s fidelity. Immediately the said information was given to the SHO Tilak Marg about the incident."

41. It is apparent that PW-9 has categorically written

that when he received information from the appellant,

confessing to the murder of his wife, he immediately passed

on the information to the SHO PS Tilak Marg. The fact that he

did not write that he passed on the information over the

telephone is of not much significance. What is important is

that, in Ex.PW-9/A, PW-9 has written that he immediately

passed on the information to the SHO concerned.

42. The fact that he followed up the communication of

the oral information by penning down the same and

transmitting the writing on the next day to the police station,

cannot detract from the contemporaneous conduct of PW-9. It