Darshana vs State
2009 Latest Caselaw 811 Del

*                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

%                                 Judgment reserved on : 06.03.2009

                                  Judgment delivered on: 13.03.2009

+                                       CRL.A. No.931/2004

         DARSHANA                                   ...Appellant
                               Through : Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Advocate
                                      versus


         STATE                                         ...Respondent
                               Through :     Mr.Pawan Sharma, Advocate.


                                      CRL.A. No.944/2004

         RAJNI                                            ..... Appellant
                               Through :     Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Advocate

                                         versus


         STATE                                          ...Respondent
                               Through :     Mr.Pawan Sharma, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
   to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. At 4:18 PM on 17.4.2002 Const.Geeta PW-16 recorded DD

No.22, Ex.PW-4/A, at PS Uttam Nagar that a lady had been

murdered at House No.147, Bhagwati Vihar. SI Kashmiri

Lal PW-12 accompanied by Const. Rajesh Kumar PW-13,

left for the spot. At the house they met Ms.Rajni, the sister

of the deceased (Raj) and her mother Darshana. SI

Kashmiri Lal recorded the statement Ex.PW-12/A of Rajni

and made an endorsement Ex.PW-12/B thereon, and

dispatched the same, as recorded in the endorsement, at

6:45 PM for the registration of an FIR. At the police station,

the duty constable HC Ombir Singh PW-18, recorded the

FIR Ex.PW-18/A at 6:45 PM.

2. Needless to state, the FIR has been registered on the

statement Ex.PW-12/A made by Rajni. It becomes

important to note said statement in its totality. The

translated version thereof reads as under:-

"Statement of Rajni, D/o Roop Lal, R/o V Block, House No.147, Bhagwati Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi aged 18 years.

(1) I reside with my family at the afore- mentioned address and am pursuing B.A first year non-collegiate course from Maitreyi College. (2) On Sunday 14.4.2002, my father Roop Lal went to Punjab to attend a wedding and I along with my mother and my elder sister Raj stayed back at home. (3) My sister Raj used to sleep in the room adjoining the Gali; my mother and myself used to sleep in the inner room and my father used to sleep in the T.V. room. (4) Last night, my sister and myself watched television till 11.00 P.M, thereafter my sister slept in her room and I slept with my mother in the inner room. (5) My mother and myself got up around 8-8.15 A.M in the morning. (6) We had observed fast on Navratra and both of us took a bath. (7) My sister had also observed fast on Navratra and my mother told me to wake her up so that she could also take a bath. (8) First my mother knocked at the door. (9) There was no response when my mother knocked at the door. There was no

response even when I knocked the door thereafter. (10) Thereafter, we peeped from the mesh door but could not see my sister on the bed, my mother said that she might be sleeping on the sofa. (11) After sometime my mother said that Raj should get up. (12) When we peeped through the mesh door my mother found the room a little lighted. (13) I and my mother went outside the house and saw the room adjoining the Gali bolted from outside. (14) When we opened the door we saw my sister Raj lying in a pool of blood between the sofa and the table. (15) I and my mother went inside the room; we both got scared. (16) My mother bolted the door adjoining the Gali from inside. (17) Then both of us went out from the other door and bolted the said door from outside; the way it was earlier. (18) Thereafter I went to the PCO Booth to contact Seema a friend of my sister Raj and my maternal uncle but was unable to contact them. (19) Thereafter I went to Seema‟s house and informed her that Raj had done something to herself. (20) Seema came with me to my house and saw my sister Raj and she left after sometime saying that she had an exam. (21) Thereafter I waited for my maternal uncle whom I had already telephoned. (22) At around 1.30- 2.00 in the afternoon, Kaley Mama came to our house. (23) We could not think what to do. (24) Finally my maternal uncle decided to telephone the police and around 4.15 PM we dialed the number 100. (25) I have once again seen the dead body of my sister, which bears many stab wounds. (26) Someone has killed my sister, investigations should be conducted."

3. We have broken the statement of Rajni into different parts

for facility of subsequent reference, inasmuch as, the

decision in the instant case centers heavily on the conduct

of Rajni and her mother Darshana who are the accused

persons, charged with the offence of having murdered Raj.

4. Rameshwar Khatri PW-19, the SHO of the police station

reached the place of the occurrence at around 5:15 PM.

Ravinder Singh PW-21 a photographer was summoned who

took 8 photographs Ex.PW-21/1 to Ex.PW-21/8; negatives

whereof are Ex.PW-21/9 to Ex.PW-21/18. Const.Kabul

Singh PW-17 was summoned by the SHO to the spot. SI

Kashmiri Lal PW-12 prepared the rough site plan Ex.PW-

12/DA of the house and the place of occurrence. The

crime team were summoned but failed to lift any chance

finger prints from the spot. The dead body was seized and

sent for post-mortem to DDU Hospital where Dr.Manoj

Nagpal PW-1 conducted the post-mortem on 18.4.2002

and as per report Ex.PW-1/A noted the following injuries on

the body of Raj:-

"External Injuries

1. Seven stab wounds covering an area of 16 x 15 cm with uneven margins varying incise from 0.5 x 0.3 to 0.9 x 0.4 cms and all were muscle deep.

2. Rt. breast had 3 incised wounds skin deep (a) 7 cm below Rt. nipple measuring 1.7 x 1 cm (b) 6 cm medial to Rt. nipple 1.7 x 1 cm (c) 6 cm above Rt. nipple 1.7 x 1.3 cm.

3. Incised wound Lt. forearm 11.5 cm below Lt. elbow 1.7 cm x 0.5 cm skin deep.

4. 3.7 cm medial to injury No.3 is present with clear cut margins, incised wound 1.7 x 1 cm

5. 7 cm below posterior axillary fold on Lt. side is present incised wound of 2 x 1 cm

6. Incised wound 11.5 cm below Rt. elbow anterior aspect 1 x 0.8 cm

7. Incised wound 6 cm medial to injury no.(12) 3 x 1 cm skin deep

8. 1 cm above injury No.(1) is present a incised wound 1.75 x 0.7 cm on Rt. side

9. Incised wound Rt. hand dorsum in the 3rd web space 3 x 1 cm

10. Incised wound Rt. palm 3.5 x 1 cm with clear cut margin skin deep

11. Skin deep incised wound 1.5 x 5 cms Rt.

hypochondrium 1.5 x 1 cm

12. 6.6 cms lateral to injury No.(11) is present skin deep incised 2.5 x 1 cm

13. Incised skin deep wound on lateral aspect of left thigh 14 cms below anterior superior iliac spine 2.2 x 1.5 cm

14. 1 cm behind injury No.13 is present an incised wound 2 x 1 cm

15. Incised wound 6.5 cm above Lt. knee 1.4 x 0.6 cm

16. Incised wound above umbilicus 2 x 0.8 cm skin deep

17. Incised wound on symphysis pubics midline 1.5 x 1 cm

18. 4 cm left to injury No.17 1.8 x 0.6 cm incised wounds.

19. Incised wound 8 cm Rt. thigh 2 x 1 cm

20. 4 cm lateral to injury No.19 incised wound 2 x 1 cm.

21. 2 incised wounds on lateral aspect of Rt. thigh 14 cms above Rt. knee measuring 1.8 x 0.8 cms and 1.5 x 0.5 cm

22. Incised wound medial aspect of Rt. knee 1.5 x 1 cm

23. Incised wound 2 cm below Rt. knee 3 x 1.4 cm

24. Incised wound lateral aspect of Rt. leg 8.5 cm above lateral mallous 2.6 cm x 0.5 cms.

25. 4 cms above injury No.(24) 2 x 0.6 cm incised wound.

26. 4.5 cm lateral to injury no.(25) incised wound 1.5 x 1 cm

27. Rt. foot dorsum 3 cm from Rt. lateral mallous 2.5 x 0.5 cm incised wound.

28. Incised wound at IIIrd web space, right foot dorsum 3.5 x 0.5 cm muscle deep.

29. 8 penetrating wounds Lt. breast with clear cut margins covering an area of 16 x 10 cms all the injuries vary in size from 1.5 x 0.5 cm to 1.8 x 0.8 cms, cavity deep

30. Two penetrating wounds on Rt. breast obliquely vertical sharp edges, cavity deep 1.8 cm x 1 cm and 1.7 x 1 cm

31. Penetrating wound Lt. Hyphochoudrium 1 cm below Lt. inter coastal margin 8 cm from midline 1.7 x 1 cm cavity deep

32. 3 cm below injury No.31 is present a penetrating injury 1.5 x 0.8 cm cavity deep

33. Stab wound with clear cut margin Lt. thigh 6 cm above knee measuring 1.8 x 1 cm; muscle deep

34. Medial aspect of Lt. knee stab wound 1.7 x 1.2 cm muscle deep;

35.Penetrating wound on Rt. side of abdomen 7.5 cm below coastal margins and 6 cms from anterior midline. 1.8 x 1 cm cavity deep."

5. He recorded that the plural cavity was filled with blood.

Both lungs were penetrated at three places on the left side

and at one place on the right side. The abdominal cavity

was full of blood. The uterus showed product of

conception. He opined that the cause of death was

haemorrhagic shock.

6. The appellants were arrested from their house on

22.4.2002 by Rameshwar Khatri PW-19, the SHO of the

police station. Kashmiri Lal PW-12 was also present with

the SHO when the appellants were arrested. They were

interrogated and their statements Ex.PW-11/E (Darshana‟s

statement) and Ex.PW-11/F (Rajni‟s statement) were

recorded as per which both confessed having jointly

committed the crime using a knife by Darshana and a

screw driver by Rajni. Both disclosed that they could get

the same recovered. Thereafter, a knife Ex.P-1 was

recovered at the pointing out of Darshana and a screw

driver Ex.P-4 was recovered at the pointing out of Rajni.

The knife was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-11/H and

the screw driver was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-11/J.

The sketch Ex.PW-11/C of the knife was prepared. The

sketch Ex.PW-11/M of the screw driver was prepared.

7. We eschew reference to the recovery of the clothes got

recovered by Darshana and Rajni which they claimed they

were wearing when they murdered Raj because both of

them had disclosed that they had washed the clothes and

hence no blood group could be detected on the clothes as

per the report Ex.P-A.

8. We do not blame the police for interrogating Rajni and

Darshana after 6 days of the incident, because after all,

they were the sister and mother respectively of the

deceased and adopting a human approach, howsoever

suspicious their conduct was, the family was given time to

conduct not only the last rites but other religious

ceremonies. Unfortunately, the time lag resulted in some

vital evidence being lost. Had the recoveries been

effected on the day of the incident, relevant and

contemporaneous evidence would have been brought on

record.

9. On 27.4.2002, Tirath Raj Singh PW-7, a draftman went to

the site at the instance of Insp. Rameshwar Khatri PW-19

and prepared the site plan to scale Ex.PW-7/A. The scale

on the site plan is 1 inch equivalent to 5 feet.

10. Being relevant for the purposes of appreciation of evidence

it becomes important to state the pen profile of the site

plan Ex.PW-7/A. It shows the ground floor of House

No.147, Bhagwati Vihar, the residence of the appellants

and the deceased, where the deceased was murdered.

The house abuts a street on the northern boundary of the

plot. The plot can conveniently be divided into two

portions. The western and the eastern portion. The

entrance from the road is into the porch which is on the

western portion of the plot. Immediately on entering the

porch is the stair case leading to the first floor and above.

Next to the stair case, abutting the western boundary, is a

bath and adjoining thereto is the kitchen. The entire

remaining space of the western half portion of the plot till

the kitchen forms the porch. The rear half portion of the

said half portion of the plot has a room of dimension 9‟8" x

8‟4". The entrance to this room is from a door which

opens on to the porch. The other half of the plot towards

the eastern side has a room 11‟6" x 10‟6", followed by

another room at the rear having dimensions 11‟9" x 8‟2".

The first room on the eastern side of the plot has 3 doors.

The first door opens on to the street and is in the corner of

the room just adjacent to the partition wall which

separates the room from the porch. The second door is on

the same wall at the junction of the wall with the internal

wall partitioning the rooms on the eastern side of the plot.

It opens on to the porch. The third door forms the shape

„L‟, with the second door i.e. is the common door between

the two rooms on the eastern side of the plot. The second

room on the eastern half segment of the plot has a door

which opens on to the porch. It is immediately next to the

second door of the room in the front and forms an inverted

„L‟ with the third door of the front room.

11. It is apparent that the room at the rear on the eastern half

segment of the plot shares a common door with the room

in the front.

12. The site plan indicates position of a bed on the room

abutting the street on the eastern half segment of the plot.

The bed is opposite door No.2. It is a double bed,

evidenced by its dimensions which shows that a little in

excess of one quarter of the said room is occupied by the

bed. The bed is placed next to the wall opposite door No.2

i.e. the eastern wall of the room. A sofa is shown

perpendicular to door No.1 in the said room. Opposite to

the sofa and adjoining the bed, is a table placed at the

1/4th segment space of the room towards the eastern wall,

with the remaining 1/4th space i.e. the space between the

table and the wall having two setties placed thereon. The

place where the dead body of Raj was found is the space

between the sofa and the table aforenoted. The body is

shown lying at an angle with the head towards the table

and the legs towards the sofa.

13. The photographs Ex.PW-21/1 to Ex.PW-21/8 throw more

light of the room where the dead body of Raj was lying.

The dead body is lying with face upwards and both arms

stretched out till the elbow and thereafter bent. The right

arm above the elbow i.e. the right forearm, is forming a

right angle at the elbow with the hand pointing upward

towards the table. The left arm stretches outward nearly

perpendicular to the chest with the forearm portion at the

elbow pointing inwards towards the left side of the chest.

The out stretched right arm is at a distance of about 1½

feet from the wall. Thus, the out stretched left arm of the

deceased is about 4 feet away from the northern wall of

the room.

14. Each door in the house has a width of 2½ feet except the

door of the room opening on to the street where the dead

body of Raj was found which has a lesser width. We add a

clarificatory note, that the width of the doors has not been

mentioned in the site plan, but with reference to the

legend pertaining to the equivalent scale recorded in the

site plan, which shows that 1 inch represents 5 feet, the

width of the doors can be inferred.

15. We have troubled the reader with what might appear to be

a verbose description of the site plan of the house as also

the site plan of the room where the body of Raj was found

by the police. The reason thereof is, as would be evident

from the discussion of the rival contentions, something

turns on the site plan and the place where body of Raj was

lying.

16. From a description of the room and the place where the

body of Raj was found, it is but apparent that the out

stretched left arm of Raj is at least 4 feet away from the

northern wall of the room i.e. is at a distance of about 7

feet from the partition wall of the said room and the room

at the rear. (This can even otherwise be visualized on

seeing the photographs Ex.PW-21/1 to Ex.PW-21/8). Thus,

from the door No.2 of the room in which the dead body of

Raj was found, the position of the left forearm of Raj would

be at a distance of about 4½ feet away from the straight

line, if drawn, from the left side of the door. It has to be

noted, that with reference to door No.2, the body would be

lying somewhere at the midline (if drawn) of the room,

approximately bisecting the midline in the ratio 1:3.

17. As noted above, in her statement Ex.PW-12/A, Rajni had

told the police (refer statements 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of

Ex.PW-12/A noted in para 2 above) that when she and her

mother went outside the house and saw the room

adjoining the gali bolted from outside they opened the

door and went inside the room and her mother bolted the

door from inside and both went outside from the other

door and bolted the said door from outside the way it was

earlier. Thus, when the police arrived at the scene of the

crime, obviously there was no sign or evidence of a forced

entry into the house.

18. The post-mortem report of the deceased evidenced that

she was carrying a pregnancy. The deceased was

unmarried. The mother and the sister of the deceased

were suspects. The injuries as recorded in the post-

mortem report show that virtually on every part of the

body, blows have been inflicted with a sharp edged

weapon and a blunt piercing object. Some of the injuries

i.e. on the hand and the forearms are suggestive of the

resistance offered by the deceased. The injuries 16 and 17

indicate that the attack was on the womb. Injuries on the

thighs are also suggestive of the womb being the target. A

motive for the crime in the mind of the mother and the

sister of the deceased does emerge. The unwanted

pregnancy of an unmarried girl, in a conservative Indian

society is bound to affect the family honour. The taint is

brought on the family as a whole. The younger unmarried

sister of the deceased may possibly suffer social ostracism;

so may have thought the mother and the sister. Thus, it

became necessary to investigate whether such a motive

could be attributed to the mother and the sister of the

deceased i.e. whether they were aware that the deceased

was pregnant.

19. Dr.Sudesh Gupta PW-3 informed the police, as per his

statement recorded by the police under Section 161

Cr.P.C., that on 3.4.2002 a patient named Raj had

approached him with a complaint of pain in the abdomen.

He prescribed medicines and advised an ultrasound.

Dr.Rakesh Mahajan PW-2 a consultant with Mahajan

Charitable Hospital & Nursing Home informed the police

that on 5.4.2002 he had seen an ultrasound of the patient

whose name was Raj and as per his report Ex.PW-2/A,

given to Raj, he had recorded his opinion on perusing the

ultrasound report that Raj was pregnant by 19 weeks and

it was not possible to medically terminate the pregnancy.

The investigating officer seized the report Ex.PW-2/A.

20. Relevant would it be to note that when the appellants were

examined with respect to the incriminating evidence

against them i.e. when their statements were recorded

under Section 313 Cr.P.C. both admitted that they were

aware of the report Ex.PW-2/A and that they were aware of

the pregnancy of Raj but stated that it was incorrect that

the pregnancy could not be medically terminated.

21. At the trial, Dr.Sudesh Gupta PW-3 and Dr. Rakesh

Mahajan PW-2, deposed about the pregnancy of Raj. PW-2

proved his report Ex.PW-2/A which recorded that the

pregnancy being of 19 weeks and it was not possible to

medically terminate the pregnancy.

22. Seema, the girl referred to by Rajni in her statement

Ex.PW-12/A, a friend of the deceased Raj, was examined as

PW-5 and deposed that in the morning hours of 17.4.2002,

Rajni, her classmate, came to her and she accompanied

Rajni to her house because she was told that Raj had done

something to herself. That Raj was her classmate. When

she reached the house at 9:15 AM she saw Raj lying dead

in the room which was adjacent to the street and blood in

plenty was spilt in the room. That she became perturbed

on seeing the body. Darshana, mother of Rajni was

present in the house. She told them to inform the police.

They told her that they had informed their relations about

the incident. She came back to her house.

23. Relevant would it be to note that Seema was not cross

examined on any aspect of her testimony in examination

in chief save and except a suggestion given to her that she

was deposing falsely. In cross examination she was

questioned with reference to her brother Satish knowing

Raj. She was questioned whether her brother had an

account at the Uttam Nagar Branch of Canara Bank and

whether even Raj had an account in said branch for which

Raj had introduced Satish to facilitate the account to be

opened. She was questioned with reference to whether

Satish and Raj had friendly relationship.

24. Jaipal PW-24, a tenant on the first floor deposed that he

was a tenant in a room on the first floor in the house of

accused Darshana and Roop Lal. That Rajni was the

daughter of Darshana. Raj was the elder daughter of

Darshana and Roop Lal. That all three rooms on the

ground floor were occupied by the landlord. That he was

employed in a factory at Uttam Nagar. On 16.4.2002 he

returned at 10:30 PM and the main entrance was locked.

He knocked. Raj opened the door and he went upstairs

and after taking dinner at about 11:30 PM went to bed.

That he woke up at 5:30 AM in the morning and after

answering the call of nature, lifted a can, and went down

to fetch water. When he alighted only 2-3, steps he saw

Darshana coming out of her room. She handed over the

keys of the lock put on the main gate. He opened the lock

and gave the same to Darshana. He went to fetch water.

That he returned after 3/4 or 1 hour. He knocked the main

gate. Accused Darshana opened the gate. He went

upstairs. He took a bath followed by a breakfast and along

with his tiffin left for his factory at 8:45 AM. That when he

was leaving for duty, the main gate was open. That

around 12 or 12:15 PM, Rajni gave a call at his factory.

She was weeping on the phone. She requested him to

return home saying that she will let me know about the

facts when he returned home. She disconnected the line.

On account of her behaviour he got perturbed. His

employer came to the factory at around 1:00 or 1:15 PM.

He told the facts to his employer and left for home. On

reaching home he saw the main gate open. He saw

Darshana and Rajni sitting in the front room almost in

semi-unconscious state. He enquired from Darshana as to

what the matter was. She replied that Raj had not woke

up by then (these are the words of the witness). At his

instance, they accompanied him to the room of Raj and

when the door was opened he saw the dead body of Raj.

He became perplexed and Darshana caught him to support

him and brought him outside. Darshana gave him water to

drink. He enquired from Darshana as to how this has

happened. Darshana said that she was not aware. After

about 5-10 minutes the brother and sister-in-law of

Darshana reached there. He enquired whether they had

informed the police. Darshana told him that when Rajni‟s

father would come back he would take steps to inform the

police. A gentleman residing nearby reached. He

discussed with him that in case the police would not be

informed even they may get entangled in the matter.

Somebody informed the police.

25. Relevant would it be to note that while cross examining

the witness, no suggestions were put to him nor was he

cross examined with respect to his deposition about the

conduct of the accused persons and his having seen

Darshana in the morning at 5:00 AM and later on after

about an hour. He was cross examined on the point that

being a defaulter he was evicted from the tenanted

premises. A suggestion was given to him that Darshana

was sleeping on the terrace of the building, to which he

replied that he was not aware of said fact. He disclosed

during cross examination that when he interacted with

Darshana in the morning no dialogue took place between

them. He admitted that a boy named Mohan also lived as

a tenant in the said house. He denied that he had deposed

falsely.

26. Roop Lal PW-6, the father of the deceased deposed that he

had gone to Punjab for some work on 14.4.2002 and had

returned at about 6:30 PM on the day of the incident.

27. The police officers associated with the investigation were

examined. For the reasons noted hereinabove in para 7 of

our decision we do not refer to the recoveries effected nor

do we refer to the evidence pertaining to the recovery of

the knife and the screw driver, the alleged weapons of

offence for the reason the malkhana register Ex.PW-14/C

and the application Ex.PW-1/B made by Inspector Khatri to

the doctor whose opinion was sought whether the injuries

could be caused by the knife and the screw driver in

question and the report Ex.PW-1/E makes it clear that the

knife and the screw driver were obtained by Inspector

Khatri from the moharar malkhana on 27.4.2002 and were

placed in the hands of the doctor for his opinion on

24.5.2002. There is no evidence that for these 28 days,

the seal which was affixed on 22.4.2002 when the two

objects were seized by the police was intact.

28. We note that when the appellants were examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. both admitted that they were residing

on the ground floor of House No.D-147, Bhagwati Vihar and

that on 16.4.2002 Raj was hale and hearty and had gone

to bed in the night. Both admitted that on 3rd and 4th April

2002 Raj went to a doctor and that on 5.4.2002 she had

undergone an ultrasound test and that the report Ex.PW-

2/A was given in that regard. They also admitted that as

on 5.4.2002 Raj was pregnant by 19 weeks and that on

4.4.2002 Roop Lal had gone to Punjab and had returned

back at 6:45 PM on 17.4.2002. They admitted that in the

intervening night of 16th and 17th April 2002 they were

present in the house along with Raj. They admitted that

Jaipal PW-24 was a tenant in the same building. All other

incriminating circumstances put to them were denied by

them.

29. At this stage, we may note that pertaining to the testimony

of PW-24 of his having received a telephone call from Rajni

at around 12:00 noon and pertaining to his testimony of

the conduct of the appellants when he returned to the

house after 1:45 PM, no questions have been put to the

appellant. Indeed, as urged by Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, learned

counsel for the appellants, we would have to exclude

incriminating circumstance pertaining to the conduct of

the appellants relatable to the testimony of PW-24

regarding the facts deposed by him of having received a

telephone call from Rajni and how the accused persons

behaved when he visited their house.

30. To put it very briefly, the learned Trial Judge has held that

there was a motive for the appellants to kill the deceased.

That there is no evidence of a forced entry in the house.

That the appellants and the deceased were seen together

in the house, a fact admitted by the appellants, in the

intervening night of 16th and 17th April, 2002. That the

deceased was found dead in her house, which had no signs

of a forced entry, the next morning. That the conduct of

the appellants was suspicious. That the police was

informed at 4:15 PM deliberately to buy time to think of a

plausible story. That the post-mortem report evidenced

use of two weapons; one, with which the incised wounds

were inflicted, the other with which the seven stab wounds

noted at serial No.1 of the post-mortem report were

inflicted, which were blunt piercing injuries and were

obviously the result of repeated stabbing with a blunt

object capable of piercing. The knife and the screw driver

recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement of

appellant Darshana and appellant Rajni respectively could

be the weapons of offence. According to the learned Trial

Judge, the evidence formed a chain complete by itself

wherefrom an inference of guilt of the appellants could be

inferred and their innocence ruled out.

31. At the hearing of the appeals, Sh. Rajesh Mahajan, learned

counsel for the appellants, with his usual forensic

arguments impressed upon us, that a perusal of the

impugned decision dated 17.8.2004 shows that the

learned Trial Judge has evaluated the evidence with a

prejudiced mind and by first taking a decision that he has

to convict the appellants, has gone about appreciating the

evidence to tailor the discussion to meet the requirements

of a pre-determined destination. Learned counsel urged

that the second limb of the appreciation of circumstantial

evidence; namely, does the evidence rule out the

innocence of the accused has been ignored by the learned

Trial Judge. Conceding that the conduct of the appellants

was a little suspicious, learned counsel was at pains to

urge that at best, the suspicious conduct remained a

suspicious conduct and no more; and that howsoever

strong or grave a suspicion might be, the same can never

replace and substitute proof. Learned counsel urged that

the evidence at best suggested that the appellants may be

the assassins of Raj, but failed to achieve the standard to

prove that the appellants, must be and are, the assassins

of Raj.

32. There is no eye witness to the incident. That there was a

motive for the crime stands established from the testimony

of PW-2 and PW-3. The appellants have not denied that

they had knowledge that Raj was carrying a pregnancy of

19 weeks as of 5.4.2002. PW-2 has deposed that it was

not medically possible to terminate the pregnancy. The

family of Roop Lal is of a humble origin evidenced by their

place of residence, an unauthorized colony in Delhi. The

small plot of land on which Roop Lal has constructed his

house measures no larger than about 60 sq. yds. His

tenants are workers in a factory. Honour killings are not

unknown in India. As observed by the learned Trial Judge

the conservative Indian society disapproves sex beyond

nuptial bonds; pre-marital or extra-marital sex is perceived

to be immoral in India. Though law, neither suppresses nor

denounces sex by consent between an adult male and an

adult female, but social thinking in India does not approve

of it whenever it deviates marital ties. Liberated citizens

who deviate this social order invite social sanctions. It

may not be acceptable in a liberated civic society, but

unfortunately, the reality of life in the Indian society is this.

A socially deviant child stigmatized the entire family and

all family members are adversely effected by the social

behaviour of their fellow citizens who abjure social ties

with the family as a whole. That Rajni, aged just a little

over 18 years when her sister carried the unwed

pregnancy, would face a problem in seeking a suitable

match, if the baby was born to her unwed sister, would

obviously have loomed large on the minds of the

appellants. We concur with the learned Trial Judge that

one piece of incriminating circumstance is that the

appellants had a motive for committing the crime.

33. Now, motive to commit a crime being a circumstance

wherefrom guilt can be inferred, is based on a presumptive

logic i.e. it forms the basis to presume that the offender,

having a motive, would have committed the crime; and

hence, as any other presumptive evidence, is weak

evidence and by itself is insufficient to convict the

accused.

34. What would constitute a chain of circumstances

exclusively pointing to the guilt of an accused in a case

based on circumstantial evidence is a question which is not

free from a judicial debate as is apparent from a plethora

of authorities where the Court of Sessions has found the

chain of circumstances to be complete; in appeal the High

Court has held to the contrary and in further appeal the

Supreme Court has concurred with the view of the Court of

Sessions; and vice versa, where the Court of Sessions and

the High Court have held that the chain of circumstances is

complete but the Supreme Court has held: not so.

35. But, all the decisions have concurred that where the death

is of a wife and there is no evidence of a forced entry

inside the house, with further evidence that the husband

was present in the house when the wife died, unless the

husband explains when he parted company with his wife or

renders a satisfactory explanation of what had happened,

on motive being proved on the part of the husband to

murder the wife, without any further evidence, the chain of

circumstances is complete wherefrom an inference of guilt

must be drawn against the accused husband.

36. It is useless to multiply with authorities. The principle is

well-settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence

Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down

that when any fact is specially within the knowledge of a

person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus,

if an accused is last seen with the deceased and there is

no possibility of any stranger coming in contact with the

deceased, the accused must offer an explanation as to

how and when, he and the deceased, parted company.

The explanation must be such that to a rational mind it is

probable and satisfactory. If the accused does so, it must

be held that he has discharged his burden. If he fails to

offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special

knowledge; he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him

by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case relating to

circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a

reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed

on him, that itself provides the link in the chain of

circumstances proved against him. We may emphasize

that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not shift the

burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the

prosecution. It merely lays down the foundation for the

rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon

facts which are specially within his knowledge and which

could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible

with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure to

adduce any explanation as an additional link which

completes the chain. In the decision reported as 2006 (12)

SCC 254 State of Rajasthan Vs. Kashi Ram an inference of

guilt was drawn on the following incriminating

circumstances:-

(a) That he was not on cordial terms with his wife Kalawati.

(b) On the evening of 3-2-1998 he was seen in his house with his wife Kalawati (the deceased).

(c) The house of the respondent was found locked on 4-2-1998, 5-2-1998 and 6-2-1998.

(d) On 6-2-1998 when his house was opened the dead bodies of his wife and daughters were found, and the medical evidence established that they had been strangulated to death, the cause of death being asphyxia.

(e) Since the respondent was not traceable the mother of the deceased, PW-5 Jai Kauri became anxious to know about their whereabouts and requested PWs 1 and 6 to search for them.

(f) In the course of investigation the respondent never appeared at any stage, and for the first time he appeared in the scene when he was arrested on 17-2-1998.

(g) Even after his arrest he did not offer any explanation as to when he parted company with his wife nor did he offer any exculpatory explanation to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act."

37. An FIR is admissible evidence but of limited utility i.e. as a

corroborative piece of evidence. Thus, facts disclosed in

an FIR can be used as corroborative evidence. No doubt,

where the author of the FIR is an accused, as held in the

decision reported as AIR 1966 SC 119 Aghnoo Nagesia Vs.

State of Bihar a confessional first information report is hit

by the bar imposed by Sections 24 to 26 of the Evidence

Act and hence every confessional part thereof is

inadmissible in evidence save and except what falls within

the ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Even in

respect of confessional first information reports, the parts

relatable thereto which shows the conduct of the maker of

the report are admissible in evidence of conduct by virtue

of Section 8 of the Evidence Act. A perusal of the said

decision shows that the Supreme Court divided the

statement of the accused made to the police, which

constituted the FIR, into 18 parts. 15 parts whereof were

found to be incriminating to the maker of the statement

and hence were held to be inadmissible in evidence. Three

statements i.e. statement No.1, 15 and 18 were held

admissible in evidence as they related to the conduct.

38. Illustration „e‟ to Section 8 of the Evidence Act reads as

under:-

"e. A is accused of a crime.

The facts that, either before or at the time of, or after the alleged crime, A provided evidence which would tend to give to the facts of the case an appearance favourable to himself, or that he destroyed or concealed evidence, or prevented the presence or procured the absence of persons who might have been witnesses, or suborned persons to give false evidence respecting it, are relevant."

39. Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellants

does not dispute that there is an extreme delay in

informing the police that Raj had been murdered inside the

house. But, learned counsel urged, that in India, women

folk are weary of going to a police station and do await the

presence of a male companion, whom they trust; requiring

the male companion to disclose any information to the

police. Learned counsel urged that add thereon the fact,

that on seeing the dead body of Raj, her aged mother and

the inexperienced younger sister aged just about 18 years

would be expected to be perplexed and the mind would be

searching for solace and hence both of them would not be

expected to act as cool headed persons. To put it pithly,

learned counsel urged that the conduct of the appellants

cannot be measured divorced from the circumstance in

which they were placed. Thus, counsel urged that no

adverse inference can be drawn against the appellants on

account of the fact that they have informed the police of

Raj being found dead very late.

40. Thus, the question arises, whether the evidence on record

shows that the mind of the appellants was perplexed;

seeking solace elsewhere and hence not suspicious

enough, wherefrom an inference of a guilty mind can be

inferred?

41. But, before we begin our discussion, we may note that

Rajni‟s statement Ex.PW-12/A is completely exculpatory of

herself and her mother. No part is incriminating and hence

the statement would be admissible in evidence. In any

case, the statement would be admissible in evidence to

show the conduct of Rajni and her mother. We note that if

the entire statement is held inadmissible against Rajni and

her mother, we would have not a version favourable to

them, that the room in which Raj was found dead was not

locked from inside and was found locked from outside i.e.

an outsider making a friendly entry. Now, when the police

came to the house, the door of the room opening towards

the street was found locked from inside. There is no sign of

an entry by force inside the house. Thus, if said statement

is ignored Rajni and her mother have to explain more.

They have not done so as they have disclosed nothing of

that sort in their statement made which examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. It has to be noted that in the

statement Ex.PW-12/A Rajni has tried to explain how the

said door came to be locked from inside, when she stated

(refer her statement No.16 in para 2 above) that when they

entered the room her mother bolted the door from inside.

42. Indeed, it is a catch 22 situation for the appellants. But it

cannot be helped.

43. Let us analyze the evidence, ignoring the conduct of Rajni

and her mother as flows out of Rajni‟s statement Ex.PW-

12/A.

44. We shall thereafter discuss the conduct of the appellants

with reference to the said statement.

45. Seema PW-5 has deposed that in the morning hours of

17.4.2002, Rajni came to her house and told her that Raj

has done something to herself. She reached their house

accompanied by Rajni at 9:15 AM and saw Raj lying dead in

a room and that she told Darshana, who was present in the

house, to inform the police. That they told her that they

had informed their relations about the incident. As noted

above, this testimony of Seema was not challenged by the

appellants.

46. What is the conduct of Rajni and her mother which can be

reasonably inferred from the deposition of Seema? Does it

show the two ladies to be in a perplexed mind?

47. The house of Darshana and Rajni is House No.D-147,

Bhagwati Vihar. As disclosed by Seema in her deposition,

her house bears No.RZ-A-13, Uttam Nagar. It is obvious

that the two houses are in a different block. What is the

distance between the two houses is not known. But,

situate in two different blocks, it is apparent that to

transport oneself from one house to the other, one has to

walk some distance; more than a mere steps. Be it 50

yards, be it 100 yards or be it more; the distance certainly

would be more than a mere few steps. There is no

evidence that Rajni went crying in a hysterical state to the

house of Seema. The deposition of Seema shows that Rajni

was composed when she reached her house. Seema does

not say that Rajni was crying and was hysterical when she

asked her to come to her house. Thus, we have evidence

on record to show, that far from being perplexed, Rajni was

in a stable mind and was in complete senses. The

testimony of Seema shows that when she reached the

house where Raj was murdered, the time was 9:15 AM, and

that she told Darshana, mother of Raj to inform the police.

Seema has not deposed that she saw Darshana in a

perplexed state or that Darshana was hysterical.

Pertaining to Darshana, the testimony of Seema shows that

even Darshana was in a composed state of mind.

48. Learned counsel for the appellants had urged that it is

natural conduct for the appellants, both being ladies, one

old and the other young and immature, to await the

presence of some male member of the family or a known

and a trusted male before informing the police. Seema has

disclosed her age to be 22 years when she deposed on

6.1.2003 i.e. she was 21 years of age as of 17.4.2002. If

Rajni and her mother went about informing Seema of Raj

being murdered, the argument that they were awaiting the

presence of some male member in the family as a

justification of their conduct is simply not acceptable as it

runs contrary to their acts; the acts being of informing

Seema and bringing Seema to the house.

49. There emerges a possibility of a scheming mind of the

appellants being in full operative senses in calling Seema

to their house. This possibility emerges from the questions

put to Seema of Seema‟s brother Satish being friendly with

Raj and the extent of friendship; of Raj introducing Satish

for an account to be opened in the name of Satish; of

Satish being on visiting terms with Raj. We wonder as to

what other purpose would said line of cross examination

serve to achieve, other than to take a shot in the dark, and

depending upon the evidence finally brought on record, to

urge that Seema and her brother could be the assassins.

Seema who had innocently walked to the house of the

deceased in the company of Rajni but left the house on her

own could be possibly have been seen by somebody leave

the house at about 9:15 AM and if said witness was

produced in evidence by the defence, a possible line of

defence that Seema and her brother murdered Raj could be

projected. But, lest we be accused of revelling in surmises

and conjectures, we leave it at that. But noting the fact

that Seema‟s testimony rules out that Darshana and Rajni

were in a perplexed state of mind.

50. What does the testimony of Jaipal PW-24, reveal to us, qua

the conduct of Darshana and Rajni. His testimony shows

that he interacted with Darshana for the first time on 5:30

AM and Darshana handed over the keys of the lock on the

main gate to him. He unlocked the gate and handed over

the lock to Darshana. He returned after about 1 hour and

knocked at the main gate. Darshana opened the gate. He

has not deposed that he saw Darshana in a perplexed

state. Jaipal has deposed that when he came home at

10:30 PM on 16.4.2002, on finding the main entrance

locked he had knocked and Raj had opened the same. It is

apparent that Raj and Darshana were present in the house

at 10:30 PM on 16.4.2002. We note that the appellants

have not denied when their statements were recorded

under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that they were in the house

along with Raj in the night of 16.4.2002 and that they were

present in the house in the morning of 17.4.2002. We note

that there is no cross examination of Jaipal with respect to

the facts disclosed by him of interacting with Darshana in

the morning of 17.4.2002. The only question put to him

was whether he exchanged any words with Darshana to

which he replied that he had no dialogue with Darshana.

From the cross examination of the witness, we note that an

attempt was made to show that Jaipal had ceased to be a

tenant before the date of the incident as he was a defaulter

in payment of rent; a line which was ultimately abandoned,

evidenced by the fact that in their statements recorded

under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants admitted that

Jaipal was a tenant in their house.

51. The testimony of Jaipal shows that Darshana was showing

no signs of being perplexed. She was having a cool and a

stable mind at 5:00 AM as also at 6:00 AM. The evidence

of Jaipal shows that he left for his factory where he was

employed as a worker at around 8:45 AM and that he found

nothing abnormal till then. Seema has deposed that she

had reached the house by 9:15 AM when summoned by

Rajni who told her that something had happened to Raj. It

is obvious that Rajni knew as to what had happened to Raj

well before 9:15 AM. It remains a mystery as to why the

mother and the daughter, who claimed in their arguments,

that before informing the police they were awaiting the

presence of some male relative or some male in whom

they had a confidence, did not inform Jaipal of what they

had seen. It is not out of place to note here that the

testimony of Jaipal that Rajni rang him up at around 12:00

noon and requested him to come home has not been

challenged. This shows that Jaipal, the tenant in the house,

was a man in whom the mother and the daughter reposed

faith and confidence.

52. We note further that even if we eschew reference to the

drama enacted by the mother and the daughter in the late

afternoon when Jaipal came back to the house somewhere

after 1:45 PM, on being summoned by Rajni, as is evident

from his deposition, there is sufficient evidence in his

deposition that the mother and daughter were not

perplexed in the morning hours. We note that Jaipal has

deposed that when he came to the house, the mother and

daughter, pretending to be semi-unconscious, told him that

Raj had not woken up and as a result inducing him to push

the door where Raj was expected to be sleeping; he lost his

balance when he saw the body of Raj. Darshana stabilized

him by holding him i.e. giving him support and brought him

outside the said room and gave him water to drink. Is this

conduct the conduct of a perplexed and a grieving mother?

No rational mind would be persuaded to say yes.

53. But, for the reason said incriminating circumstance of

conduct has not been put to the appellants, we exclude the

subsequent conduct of the appellants while considering the

incriminating circumstances against the appellants.

54. The conduct of the appellants of their state of mind in the

morning of 17th April 2002 as is emerging from the

deposition of Seema PW-5 and Jaipal PW-24 shows that

both were in full control of their cognative faculties and

showed neither remorse nor a trouble nor a perplexed

mind. Their acts and deeds evidence a highly suspicious

conduct; least bit, a perplexed mind seeking solace

elsewhere.

55. What do we mean by the last sentence of the preceding

paragraph. We think we need to clarify a little. When a

mother sees her young daughter murdered and when a

young girl sees her elder sister murdered, it is but natural

that both minds would be disturbed; the thinking faculties

would be temporarily impaired; the disturbed mind without

the backing of the thinking faculty would yonder here and

there, searching within itself the answer to the question:

what should I do? Where do I go? Whom do I summon?

The thing to be done. The place to go or the person to

summon, is the solace we are referring to.

56. Rajni and her mother do not evidence having any such

state of mind, searching the questions, what to do; where

to go; whom to inform etc. etc. Seema‟s house was the

place they had chosen to go. Seema was the person whom

they summoned. Seema was the person they expected to

inform the police. Why they did so? We need not answer.

What is relevant is that the evidence establishes that the

mother and daughter were not in a disturbed and a

perturbed condition.

57. Thus, the only reason which surfaces for the delay in

informing the police is that the mother and daughter were

buying time to think of a strategy and inform the police

accordingly as to what had happened.

58. The time purchased by the appellants by lodging a belated

information with the police, being used to spin a cock and

bull story, is revealed from Rajni‟s statement Ex.PW-12/A

made to SI Kashmiri Lal PW-12 on basis whereof the FIR

has been registered. We have reproduced the statement in

para 2 above by breaking the same into different parts.

Statement 3 of Rajni is to the effect that Raj used to sleep

in the room adjoining the gali and she i.e. Rajni and her

mother used to sleep in the inner room and the father used

to sleep in the T.V. room. Statement 4 is to the effect that

she and her sister watched television till 11:00 PM in the

night and thereafter her sister slept in her room and she

went to her mother‟s room to sleep. Statement 5 is that

she and her mother got up at around 8-8:15 AM in the

morning and took a bath. Statement 7 is to the effect that

thereafter her mother told her to wake up Raj. Statement

8 and 9 are to the effect that first Darshana knocked at the

door where Raj was sleeping and there being no response,

she i.e. Rajni knocked at the door. Statement 10 is to the

effect that on getting no response they peeped from the

mesh door but could not see Raj on the bed.

59. That takes us to the site plan Ex.PW-7/A; pen profile

whereof has been stated by us in paras 10 to 12 of our

decision. Though there is no reference to a door with a

mesh in the site plan, but with reference to Rajni‟s

statement Ex.PW-12/A, learned counsel for the appellants

and the State conceded that the said door has to be door

mentioned by us as the second door in our pen profile

while profiling the site plan Ex.PW-7/A, for the reason, the

bed cannot be fully seen from door No.3 and obviously

Rajni and her mother had not gone outside to knock at door

No.1 which opens on to the gali. The bed can be partially

seen from door No.3; and if the person sleeping on the bed,

which is a double bed, is lying towards the partition wall on

which door No.3 is affixed, said person cannot be seen.

Now, Rajni is clear in her statement that she and her

mother could not see Raj on the bed. The site plan shows

that the dead body of Raj was lying on the floor on the

other side of the bed. The left arm stretching outwards; as

is revealed from the photographs Ex.PW-21/1 to Ex.PW-

21/8, is about 2 feet away from the bed. The body is facing

upwards. The torso uses further space about 14 inches

further away from the bed. The outwardly stretched right

arm further moves away at least a distance of about 1 foot.

Thus the out stretched arm is at least at a distance of 4

feet from the bed. It is just not conceivable that he/she

who saw inside the room from the door with the mesh

could not have seen the dead body of Rajni lying in a pool

of blood on the floor. The reader of the decision may

recreate the scene inside the room, with reference to the

site plan, pen profile whereof has been noted by us in

paragraphs 10 to 12 of our decision; with further

clarification with reference to the photographs and the

discussion thereon, in paras 13 and 14 of our decision. Any

reader who would do so, can visualize for himself what can

be seen and what cannot be seen inside the room. It is

important to note that the unfortunate date was 17.4.2002.

By mid April the sun is bright and shining in Delhi by 7:00

AM and even when the curtains are drawn, sufficient light

filters through to light a room to an extent, a blood stained

body becomes visible.

60. Statements No. 13 to 15 of Rajni informs that she and her

mother went outside the house and saw the room adjoining

the gali bolted from outside. They opened the door and

entered the room and were horrified to see Raj lying dead

in a pool of blood. As per statement No.16 Darshana

bolted the door adjoining the gali. Statement No.17 is to

the effect that thereafter both of them went out to the gali

from the other door and bolted the said door from outside

as it was before and thereafter, as per statement No.18,

Rajni went to a PCO Booth to contact Seema and her

maternal uncle but could contact none. Statement No.19 is

to the effect that thereafter she went to Seema‟s house

and called Seema to her house.

61. Far from showing a perplexed and a troubled mind, the

contemporaneous conduct of Rajni and her mother which

oozes from aforenoted statements of Rajni, show that

mother and daughter were in full control of themselves.

62. We had referred to illustration e to Section 8 of the

Evidence Act in para 38 above. It guides us that where an

accused tenders evidence of facts which are found false

and are a pretence to an appearance favourable to the

accused, the same are evidence of conduct and are

relevant.

63. The conduct of Seema and her mother as disclosed in the

statement Ex.PW-12/A of Seema show that both of them

have schemed to overcome the incriminating circumstance

of there being no forced entry inside the house. That the

door opening to the gali was found locked when the police

arrived has been sought to be explained away by stating

that actually the door was found unlocked from inside and

that when the mother and daughter entered the room from

the said door from the gali, the mother locked the same

from inside. This conduct is relevant and incriminating.

64. The delay in informing the police, we re-emphasize, is writ

large. The explanation that it is explainable because the

appellants were in a perplexed state of mind is not

acceptable. The only inference reasonable possible is that

the mother and the daughter kept on thinking as to what

would they tell the police and till the time they could not

think of a plausible story, they kept themselves on a

deliberate hold. The belated information being given to the

police is also a relevant piece of conduct, incriminating in

nature against the appellants.

65. That two people have assaulted Raj is apparent from the

injuries noted in the post-mortem report which shows that

the 7 stab injuries noted at serial No.1 are all inflicted by a

blunt piercing object and the other injuries are the result of

a sharp edged object being used. As noted above, the

purity of the seizure of the knife and the screw driver has

got tainted due to the callous attitude of the Investigation

Officer and thus we are handicapped to consider said

evidence. But, independent thereof, through the medium

of the post-mortem report, we have unimpeachable

evidence that two weapons of offence were used; one

being a blunt piercing weapon and the other a sharp edged

weapon. This shows that the assailants were two.

66. There is no evidence that the entry in the house was a

forced entry. The evidence, a fact admitted by the

appellants, shows that the appellants and Raj had slept in

the house in the night of 16th and 17th April 2002. The

evidence establishes that the appellants were present in

the house all throughout the night. They were present in

the house in the morning at 9:15 AM when Seema had

gone to the house on being summoned by Rajni. The

appellants have not offered any explanation as to when

they parted company with the deceased nor have they

offered any explanation to discharge the burden put on

their shoulders under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

There is evidence of motive for the appellants to kill the

deceased i.e. the family honour. Seeking guidance from

the decision in Kashi Ram‟s case (supra) we hold that the

chain of circumstances is complete; in both situations i.e.

by excluding Rajni‟s statement Ex.PW-12/A and the conduct

of the appellants emerging therefrom; and alternatively

even by including the same from the evidence to be

considered by us and the conduct of the appellants

emerging therefrom; to hold that the incriminating

circumstances form a complete chain and are consistent

with no other hypothesis except the guilt of the appellants.

67. We wish to add a foot note to our decision. The facts of the

instant case are a classic illustration of the oft repeated

statement by sociologist that the society creates the crime

and the individuals give effect to the crime. The appellants

are the unfortunate victims of the social thinking in India.

They acted thinking that by doing away with Raj they could

hide the social shame and stigma of Raj being an unwed

mother. Rajni, aged 18 years, would presumably be under

the influence of her mother, who in turn, was concerned

about the fate of Rajni because she thought that even

Rajni‟s future would be clouded if the reputation of the

family was sullied. The motive for the crime is to save the

family honour. If the society would not frown upon sex

outside marriage and would accept a single parent, there

would have been no motive and hence no murder. We feel

sorry for the mother and the daughter, more so for Rajni,

whose youth would be spent in the four corners of a prison.

Her life would be reduced to the sound of the alarm bell

ringing in the morning and the bell ringing in the evening

when activities in the prison come to an end. The only

thing she would wait for in life is the sound of the bell in the

morning and the sound of the bell in the evening, requiring

her to go back to her barrack. She appears to be a junior

partner with her mother; but the mandate of Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code brushes her with the same taint as

her mother. The minimum sentence prescribed by law for

the offence of murder has been inflicted upon the

appellants i.e. to undergo imprisonment for life. Our

sympathy cannot be a justification to bend the law. Our

hands are tied on the sentence. Before formally dismissing

the appeals, we can only hope that if an appeal is made to

the executive for mercy our decision would be well read

and a thought bestowed to the present para.

68. The appeals are dismissed.

69. Rajni is on bail. Her bail bond and surety bond are

cancelled. She is directed to surrender and undergo the

remaining sentence.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

ARUNA SURESH, J.

March 13, 2009 MM