Delhi High Court
Ravi Shankar vs State on 6 April, 2010
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 06thApril, 2010
+ Crl. A. No. 537/2008
RAVI SHANKAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Bhupesh Narula, Advocate
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Richa Kapoor, A.P.P.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?Yes
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated
20.11.2007, the appellant has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC pertaining to the death of
Dhan Devi, wife of Brij Mohan. The appellant has also been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC
pertaining to the injuries caused on Asha, Payal, Monu, Kuppai,
Meenu, Lala Ram @ Brij Mohan, Kushal and Baby. The
appellant has been acquitted for the offence punishable under
Section 323 IPC pertaining to simple injuries caused on the
person of Rahul.
2. Vide order on sentence dated 23.11.2007, the
appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life
pertaining to the offence of having murdered Dhan Devi. For
the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, the appellant
has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of
10 years. It has been directed that the appellant shall not be
released from jail before expiry of 20 years.
3. As per the prosecution, the appellant was the
younger brother of Brij Mohan @ Lala Ram. The two brothers
were having a dispute with respect to some property and to
seek vengeance against Lala Ram, on 16.08.2003 at about
10:00 P.M., the appellant went to the residential quarters of
Lala Ram and when his son Rahul prevented the appellant
from committing an offence, he pushed Rahul who sustained
simple injuries. Thereafter, the appellant indiscriminately
threw kerosene oil in the room where Lala Ram, his two wives
Dhan Devi and Kuppai as also the family members of Lala Ram
were present. The appellant threw a burning match stick and
bolted the door from outside. The door was broken open. The
injured were removed to the hospital where Dhan Devi died.
Others who had suffered burn injuries were given medical
treatment.
4. Let us pen profile the persons who sustained
injuries, in relation to the extent of burn injuries, as recorded
on their MLCs. The same is as under:-
Srl. Patient's MLC Particulars Nature of
No. Name and of injuries injuries
age
1. Asha d/o Brij Ex.PW-13/A C/o Approx. Simple
Mohan @ Lala 5% burn of
Ram aged 14 TBSA; when
years someone
threw
kerosene oil
and lighted
their house
today in JJ
Colony,
Wazirpur.
2. Payal d/o Raju Ex.PW-13/B C/o Approx. Simple
aged 06 10% burn;
months when
someone
threw
kerosene oil
on her in her
residence.
3. Monu s/o Brij Ex.PW-13/C C/o Alleged Simple
Mohan @ Lala history of
Ram aged 15 burns approx.
years 15% TBSA
when
someone
threw
kerosene and
tried to burn
him at his
residence.
4. Kuppai w/o Brij Ex.PW-13/D C/o Alleged Simple
Mohan @ Lala history of
Ram aged 50 someone
years throwing
kerosene and
trying to burn
her alive at
her residence
approx. 18%
burns TBSA.
5. Meenu d/o Brij Ex.PW-13/E C/o Approx. Simple
Mohan @ Lala 10% burn
Ram aged 12 TBSA; when
years someone
threw
kerosene and
tried to burn
her alive.
6. Rahul S/o Ravi Ex.PW-13/F Alleged Simple
aged 10 years history of
assault being
assaulted by
multiple
assailants at
wazirabad JJ
Colony as told
by patient
himself.
C/o (i) 1 cm
scalp CLW
occipital
region.
(ii) Multiple
abrasion (R)
anterior
superior iliac
supine.
7. Brij Mohan @ Ex.PW-13/G C/o Approx. Simple
Lala Ram S/o 9% burn;
Het Ram aged when some
50 years threw
kerosene on
him and tried
to burn him
alive at his
residence.
8. Kushal s/o Raju Ex.PW-13/H C/o Approx. Simple
aged 2 years 63% burns
TBSA; when
someone
threw
kerosene on
his house and
tried to burn
him alive at JJ
Colony
Wazirpur.
9. Baby w/o Raju Ex.PW-13/I C/o Approx. Dangerous
aged 21 years 71% burns;
when
someone
threw
kerosene oil
on her house
and tried to
burn her alive
at JJ Colony in
Wazirpur.
10. Dhan Devi w/o Ex.PW-13/J C/o Approx. Unfit for
Brij Mohan @ 81% TBSA statement
Lala Ram aged burn; when up till
37 years someone 18.08.2003
threw and later
kerosene and expired on
tried to burn 25.08.2003
their house.
5. Suffice would it be to record that Asha daughter of
Lala Ram has appeared as PW-10. Monu son of Lala Ram has
appeared as PW-14. Kuppai, the second wife of Lala Ram has
deposed as PW-7. Meenu daughter of Lala Ram has deposed
as PW-12. Lala [email protected] Brij Mohan has deposed as PW-4 and
Baby wife of Raju who is the son-in-law of Lala Ram has
deposed as PW-11.
6. All the prosecution witnesses have corroborated
each other as regards what transpired on the unfortunate day
and have deposed that in a fit of rage the appellant threw
kerosene oil inside the room where all were present and set
the room on fire resulting in Asha, Payal, Monu, Kuppai,
Meenu, Lala Ram, Kushal, Baby and Dhan Devi receiving burn
injuries. All have deposed that prior thereto the appellant
pushed his son Rahul who sustained simple injuries.
7. The presence at the spot of PW-4, PW-7, PW-10,
PW-11, PW-12 and PW-14 can hardly be disputed for the
reason each one of them has received burn injuries as
reflected in their respective MLCs.
8. The only question which we need to decide is
whether the version of the appellant that there used to be a
fight between the two wives of Lala Ram and during one such
fight Kuppai did the drastically act has to be believed.
9. The learned trial Judge has discussed this aspect of
the matter in paragraphs 27 to 30 of the impugned decision.
The learned trial Judge has found an inconsistency in the
defence raised. Whereas, to Lala Ram @ Brij Mohan
suggestion put was that there was a quarrel between him i.e.
Lala Ram and his two wives and that Dhan Devi herself poured
kerosene on her and lit the match stick herself, to Kuppai PW-7
suggestion put was that Lala Ram had set Dhan Devi on fire.
Suggestion put to PW-10 and PW-11 was that there was a
dispute going on between the deceased and Kuppai and that
the fire had been lit by Lala Ram. Suggestion put to PW-14
was that Lala Ram was under the influence of liquor and had
started the fire.
10. Having perused the testimony of the eye-witnesses
and having noted all and summary defence raised by the
appellant and the inconsistency in the defence raised from
time to time, we concur with the view taken by the learned
trial Judge that the prosecution has successfully established its
case save and except pertaining to the simple injuries caused
on Rahul.
11. We concur with the verdict of the guilt pronounced
by the learned trial Judge.
12. On the issue of sentence as noted above, the
learned trial Judge has held that the appellant should not be
released from Jail before expiry of 20 years.
13. In respect of the sentence, it may be noted that as
deposed to by Pinky, the brother of the appellant and Lala
Ram, there appears to be some dispute in respect of property
No.D-624/2, J.J. Colony, Wazirpur, Delhi. It also appears that
Lala Ram @ Brij Mohan was in occupation of an area in excess
of his entitlement and on said count, the offending act in
question was committed by the appellant.
14. From the testimony of Pinky, it is apparent that Lala
Ram @ Brij Mohan, the eldest brother had usurped a portion
far in excess of his share in the joint property belonging to the
three brothers.
15. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that
in respect of sentence, the direction issued by the learned trial
Judge that the appellant should not be considered for being
released before 20 years needs to be set-aside with a
clarification that the issue of premature release shall be
decided by the State as per its executive policy.
16. The appeal stands disposed of maintaining the
conviction of the appellant as also the imposition of the
sentence to undergo imprisonment for life as also sentence
imposed for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, but
we set-aside the direction of the learned trial Judge qua
premature release and substitute the same as per the
preceding para.
17. Since the appellant is in Jail, a copy of this order be
sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar for being
supplied to the appellant.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J
SURESH KAIT, J
APRIL 06, 2010
'nks'
