Raj Kumari vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 2151 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                Date of Decision : 23rd April, 2010

+                    CRL.APPEAL No.824/2008

        RAJ KUMARI                            ..... Appellant
                 Through:       Mr.Bhupesh Narula, Advocate

                                versus

        STATE                                  ..... Respondent
                     Through:   Mr.M.N.Dudeja, 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 the Reporter or not?

3.      Whether the judgment should be reported in the
        Digest?

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated

19.7.2008 the appellant has been convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.

2. Trial of two juvenile co-accused was referred to the

Juvenile Court as they were juvenile.

3. On 30.6.2001 at about 6:50 PM information was

received at PS Bawana through PCR that something lying in a

gunny bag near a Johad near Sharma Colony was attracting

dogs. SI Mukesh Kumar accompanied by HC Rajender and

Const.Anand reached the spot and from within the gunny bag

recovered the dead body of a male. The dead body was badly

mutilated being eaten by maggots. FIR for the offence of

murder was got registered.

4. It was a blind murder. Nobody could throw light on

even the identity of the person and hence on 5.7.2001 post-

mortem of the unidentified dead body was conducted. After 72

hours thereof the body was disposed of.

5. One Ratan Lal went missing. The circumstances of

his missing have been deposed to by his brother-in-law Paras

Ram PW-5 as per whom, on the day of Rakshabandhan, in the

year 2001, his wife Ram Pyari accompanied by her sister Uma

Devi went to the house of their brother Ratan Lal to tie a rakhi

and found the house locked. They made inquiries from the

people in the neighbourhood who told them that the wife of

Ratan Lal told them that her husband had gone to the native

village and they saw wife of Ratan Lal leave along with the

luggage with two persons namely Mukhram and Prem. As per

Paras Ram, he telephoned the mother of Ratan Lal at her

village in the State of Uttar Pradesh and learnt from her that

Ratan Lal had not visited his native village. Accordingly, on

8.8.2001 accompanied by Chooramani (PW-6), the other

brother-in-law of Ratan Lal, he went to police post Shahbad to

lodge a complaint of Ratan Lal being missing and as he gave

the description of Ratan Lal to the police he was told that a

body matching said description was recovered at PS Bawana.

He went to PS Bawana where Insp.Meena showed the clothes,

earrings and the photographs of the dead body which was

recovered on 30.6.2001 and he and Chooramani immediately

identified the dead body as that of Ratan Lal.

6. Thus, on 8.8.2001 for the first time it came to the

knowledge of the police that Ratan Lal had been killed.

7. It transpired that the appellant had left her children

in the house of her mother-in-law i.e. the mother of Ratan Lal.

8. It was obvious that the conduct of the appellant

was highly suspicious. As a wife she could not have gone all

over, leaving her children in the house of her mother-in-law

and not informing anyone about her husband being missing

unless she had an intrigue up her sleeve.

9. It appears that the appellant was somewhere

around and sensed something amiss for the reason as deposed

to by Chooramani PW-6 and Paras Ram PW-5 respectively, as

also the third brother-in-law of the deceased Ratan Lal namely

Biran PW-3, appellant reached the jhuggi of Paras Ram on

10.8.2001 and started weeping. She uttered that she had

committed a blunder by killing her husband with the active aid

of Prem and Mukhram.

10. At the trial Biran PW-3, Paras Ram PW-5 and

Chooramani PW-6 have deposed about the extra judicial

confession made by the appellant but have differed with

respect to the time when the appellant made the extra judicial

confession. In addition, Paras Ram PW-5 has deposed that on

the day of Rakshabandhan his wife accompanied by her sister

Uma Devi went to the house of Ratan Lal to tie a rakhi. They

found the house locked. From persons in the neighbourhood

they gathered that the appellant had spread a word that her

husband has gone to the native village and thereafter she left

in the company of two male persons. Paras Ram identified the

belongings of Ratan Lal being an earring Ex.PX as also a ring

Ex.PY and the photographs Ex.PW-5/A to Ex.PW-5/E as that of

the dead body of Ratan Lal.

11. Sanjay PW-4 the son of the appellant and Ratan Lal

deposed that the appellant was his mother and Prem and

Chhotu were residing in their house along with their father. He

saw his mother having caught the legs of his father. Chhotu

caught the hands of his father and Prem hit his father with a

brick on the head and forehead. His father started bleeding.

12. Dr.R.K.Punia PW-15 who conducted the post-

mortem of an unknown dead body (that of Ratan Lal) on

5.7.2001 proved the post-mortem report Ex.PW-15/A. He

deposed that the internal injury detected was extravasation of

blood over the frontal legion in the scalp. He deposed that

there was an extravasation of blood in the neck. He deposed

that the head and neck injury were ante mortem in nature and

were caused by a blunt object/force and that death was due to

the combined effect of the head injury and pressure over neck.

We find that the injuries were sufficient to cause death in

ordinary course.

13. This then, is the evidence which we need to note for

disposal of the instant appeal.

14. With reference to the extra judicial confessional

statement made by the appellant as claimed to be made by

the three brothers-in-law of the deceased; namely Biran PW-3,

Paras Ram PW-5 and Chooramani PW-6, it is urged that the

same does not inspire confidence for the reason there is no

reason why the appellant would make an extra judicial

confession and further from the fact that the three are giving

different times when stated confession was made.

15. With reference to the stated eye-witness account of

Sanjay, it is urged that as per Sanjay he was a student of

Class-I when he deposed on 21.10.2002. The crime was

committed somewhere towards the end of the month of June

2001. It is urged that unfortunately, age of Sanjay has not

been noted by the learned Trial Judge, but from the fact that

he was a student of Class-I when he deposed it can safely be

gathered that Sanjay would have been 6 or 7 years of age

when the crime was committed. Hence his conduct of not

telling his grandmother as to what had happened is highly

suspicious. It is urged that as per the prosecution, Raj Kumari

i.e. the appellant had left her children in the custody of her

mother-in-law. It is urged that it is most unnatural for Sanjay

not to have told his grandmother that his mother and two

other persons had killed his father. Our attention is drawn to

the statement of Sanjay who on cross-examination stated that

his mother left him on the day of the occurrence itself.

16. With reference to the testimony of Sanjay and the

criticism thereto as afore-noted, it would be important for us to

note that as per Paras Ram when his wife went to the house of

Ratan Lal on Rakshabandhan day the same was locked. It is

apparent that nobody was staying in the house. How did

Sanjay and his two siblings reached the house of their

grandmother? Sanjay has not been quizzed on the said issue.

Keeping in view the young age of Sanjay we treat it as a

blemish of the young child when he stated that after the

incident his mother left him in the house.

17. As regards the conduct of Sanjay in not telling

anybody about the incident, it is difficult for anyone to deal

and explain the conduct of the young child. As it is said,

nobody has ever been able to explain as to why a small child

cannot avoid a puddle of water. Seeing dirty water in a puddle

an adult instinctively avoids the same, but equally instinctively

a small child is attracted to the puddle and thumps the foot

into the puddle to enjoy the splash, unmindful of the dirt and

the filth splashing on to the child.

18. The fact of the matter remains that dead body of

Ratan Lal was recovered on 30.6.2001. Being his wife, the

appellant has to explain her conduct of her husband going

missing and she reporting the same to none.

19. Knowing fully well that she had to explain as to in

what circumstances she never reported her husband being

missing, the appellant chose the safer option of even denying

the fact that she was the wife of Ratan Lal. When responding

to question No.9 she said that she was not married.

20. If this be so, what about the claim of Sanjay PW-4

who deposed that the appellant was his mother and the

deceased was his father?

21. No suggestion has been given to Sanjay that he

was deposing falsely and that the appellant was not his

mother. Similarly, what about the claim of Biran PW-3, Paras

Ram PW-5 and Chooramani PW-6 that the appellant was the

wife of Ratan Lal. No suggestion has been given to them that

they were falsely stating that the appellant was the wife of

Ratan Lal.

22. The conduct of the appellant is sufficient wherefrom

the guilt of the appellant can be inferred. As regards the issue

of the extra judicial confession made by the appellant to the

three brothers-in-law of her husband, we note that the fact of

the matter is that the stated extra judicial confession is made

on 10.8.2001. There may be some confusion on the time, but

considering the fact that all the three witnesses resided in a

slum and are daily-wagers, said blemish has to be discounted

for, as a natural variation pertaining to time when three

humble men speak on the same issue.

23. The fact that the appellant was handed over to the

police by the three is proof enough of the fact that as claimed

by Paras Ram, the appellant went to his jhuggi.

24. It appears that the appellant had some knowledge

of what was going on and probably her moorings being lost;

overcome by fear or emotions she went to the jhuggi of Paras

Ram and blurted out the truth. It does happen that the

conscious of a person plays on and when the mind realises

that it can bear the conscious no more, truth is spoken. It

happens sometimes that when a person realises that the game

is up, confession is resorted to.

25. Why would Sanjay depose falsely against his

mother? We have found no answer to the question.

26. 3 sets of incriminating evidence have emerged

against the appellant. First is the stated eye-witness account

of Sanjay. The second is the stated extra-judicial confession

made to PW-3, PW-5 and PW-6 and lastly her conduct as afore-

noted.

27. We find credit in all the three and thus we conclude

against the guilt of the appellant and bring the curtains down

by dismissing the appeal after affirming the impugned decision

of conviction and order on sentence to undergo imprisonment

for life.

28. Since the appellant is in jail we direct that a copy of

this decision be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail Tihar

for being made available to the appellant.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(SURESH KAIT) JUDGE APRIL 23, 2010 dk