Chaman Lal & Anr. vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 627 Del

R-61
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                            Date of Decision:4th February, 2010

+                            CRL A 616/2005

        CHAMAN LAL & ANR.                ..... Appellants
                Through: Mr.Anish Dhingra, Advocate

                                    versus

        STATE                                       ..... Respondent
                         Through:   Mr.M.N.Dudeja, Advocate

        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?           Yes

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

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. At around 10:00 PM on 2.12.1994 information was

received at PS Nabi Karim which was recorded vide DD No.27-

A that Devki wife of Chaman Lal has not been seen throughout

the day and in all probability she has been murdered. SI

Surender PW-18 reached House No.6014, Gali Sat Narayan

Mandir, Nabi Karim and found the body of Devki bundled inside

a sack. It was apparent that Devki had died an unnatural

death. He made an endorsement Ex.PW-9/A beneath copy of

DD No.27-A and sent Const.Hari Ram for FIR to be registered.

He summoned Const.Babu Ram a photographer and took

photographs Ex.PW-13/12 to Ex.PW-13/19. SI Surender Singh

prepared the rough site plan Ex.PW-19/A showing the spots

wherefrom he had made the recoveries and filling up the form

Ex.PW-15/B for inquest proceedings sent the body for post-

mortem and recorded the seizure of the rope Ex.P-2 and the

gunny bag Ex.P-1 from the spot in the memo Ex.PW-17/A.

Another piece of rope Ex.P-3 and two pieces of sarees Ex.P-4

and Ex.P-5 were also taken into possession as entered in the

seizure memo Ex.PW-17/C. He also signed and sent the

application Ex.PW-18/A for body to be preserved, probably for

a proper identification of a body.

2. Appellant Chaman Lal, the husband of Devki was

found missing. In fact, as deposed to by SI Surender Singh

when he reached the house not a single male member of the

house was present. Female members including co-appellant

Munni Devi, the widowed sister-in-law of Chaman Lal, was

present in the house.

3. During course of investigation Joginder Singh PW-5

informed the investigating officer that on 2.12.1994 at about

9:00 PM in the night Sita Ram and Ramu, the father of Chaman

Lal and the brother of Chaman Lal had come to his house and

informed that the wife of Chaman had committed suicide by

hanging herself. He advised them to go to the police that after

about half an hour even Chaman Lal came to his house and

disclosed that his wife had committed suicide by hanging and

he told Chaman Lal to report the matter to the police.

4. On 5.12.1994 Dr.Dasari Harish PW-21 conducted

post mortem on the body of the deceased. He noted signs of

putrification and maggots in the body. He noted strangulation

marks on the neck which due to the body being putrified had

lost distinctive characteristics. Internal examination showed

that the hyoid bone had no fracture. The thyroid cartilage had

a fracture due to inward compression. He opined that cause of

death was asphyxia as a result of strangulation.

5. Apart from aforenoted injuries around the neck he

noted some other injuries being the result of application of

blunt force.

6. Deposing in Court Dr.Dasari Harish stated that from

the fact that the hyoid bone was unaffected and the thyroid

cartilage was fractured, unless suicide was the result of slip

not hanging, it was a case of homicide.

7. The likely time of death opined by him was 3 to 4

days prior to the date when he conducted the post mortem.

He admitted the fact that in view of the fact that the body was

putrified there was a possibility of the actual date of death

being plus or minus one day. It is unfortunate that the dead

body was treated with utmost disrespect and probably kept in

some corridor of the mortuary and not in the chilled room.

8. It is apparent that on account of what was told to

the investigating officer by Joginder PW-5 the conduct of the

male members of the family was suspect.

9. Further investigation revealed information to the

investigating officer that Chaman Lal was having an affair with

Munni Devi, the widow of his brother Prem Singh and the

deceased was against the same and to carry on the illicit

affairs with Munni Devi, Chaman Lal and Munni Devi conspired

to kill the deceased.

10. Though no motive surfaced during investigation

against Sita Ram and Ramu, even they were sent for trial on

account of their suspicious conduct.

11. Munni Devi who was seen in the house by SI

Surender Singh PW-18 when he went to the house in the late

night of 2nd December 1994 later on absconded. Chaman Lal,

the husband of the deceased was not seen in the house by SI

Surender Singh and even he absconded.

12. Accordingly, when the challan was filed the names

of Chaman Lal and Munni Devi were listed in column 2. Sita

Ram and his son Ramu were sent for trial.

13. At the trial against Sita Ram and Ramu the only

incriminating evidence which surfaced was the two not being

in their house when SI Surender Singh reached the house at

late night of 2.12.1994 and that Jogender PW-5 had stated that

both had come to his house at around 9:00 PM to inform that

wife of Chaman Lal had committed suicide. But, the admission

of SI Surender Singh that his investigation revealed that the

two were not present in the house around the likely time when

the deceased died, led the learned Trial Judge to acquit them

vide judgment and order dated 3.11.2001.

14. Chaman Lal and Munni Devi remained absconders

till the year 2002. On 9.9.2002 they surrendered in Court and

accordingly were charged for the offence of having murdered

Devki.

15. Vide impugned judgment and order dated

16.07.2005 the appellants have been convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC as also for the

offence punishable under Section 201/34 IPC.

16. For the offence of murder the appellants have been

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and for the offence

punishable under Section 201 IPC they have been sentenced

to undergo RI for 7 years each.

17. With respect to the incriminating evidence held

established against the appellants the learned trial Judge has

held that the post mortem of the deceased clearly established

that she was murdered. Holding that the prosecution had

failed to bring direct evidence of illicit relationship, there was

evidence that relationship of the deceased with her husband

Chaman Lal were far from cordial and that both accused

absconded has been used as further incriminating evidence.

The testimony of Joginder Singh PW-5 has been held as

establishing a suspicious conduct of appellant Chaman Lal who

has acted most unnaturally with respect to the death of his

wife.

18. Noting that Sita Ram and Ramu were acquitted on

account of the fact that as per the Investigating Officer their

presence in the house at that time when the deceased was

murdered was doubtful, learned trial Judge has held that the

acquittal of Sita Ram and Ramu would have no bearing vis-à-

vis the evidence against the appellants.

19. With respect to appellant Munni Devi, we note that

the learned trial Judge has ignored the testimony of SI

Surender PW-18 who has clearly stated that when he reached

the house, all male members were absconding; family

members including Munni Devi were present in the house.

20. That Munni Devi subsequently absconded is

possibly due to her being scared. We note that Munni Devi is a

widow and is an illiterate person evidenced by the fact when

examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. she could not even sign

and affix her right thumb impression.

21. Since motive for the crime i.e. illicit relationship

between Chaman Lal and Munni Devi have not been

established, the only circumstance that Munni Devi was in the

house when the deceased was murdered and subsequently

absconded after the few days of the crime are insufficient

evidence wherefrom guilt of Munni Devi can be inferred. We

highlight the fact that there were other ladies present in the

house when the crime was committed.

22. Pertaining to appellant Chaman Lal the

incriminating evidence is the proof that, whatever be the

reason, relations between him and the deceased were not

cordial i.e. there exists the motive for the crime; his act of

absconding; his suspicious conduct proved by Joginder Singh

PW-5; the place of crime being the matrimonial home of the

deceased and Chaman Lal they are sufficient evidence

wherefrom the guilt of Chaman Lal can be inferred.

23. We may note that when examined under Section

313 Cr.P.C. the signature tune of the song sung by Chaman Lal

was: (a) I do not know; (b) it is wrong; and (c) it is false. He

gave no explanation how his wife died.

24. We note that Chaman Lal has led defence evidence.

DW-1 Kaushalya has hardly deposed anything worthy of being

noted. She has only deposed that the wife of Chaman Lal was

sad on account of bearing no child. If the intention was to

prove that the deceased committed suicide, the same has

miserably failed in view of the post mortem report of the

deceased.

25. The second witness is Irshad DW-2 who has

deposed that the deceased committed suicide. The said

deposition is obviously false being contrary to the post mortem

report of the deceased.

26. The above captioned appeal stands disposed of as

under:

a) Pertaining to co-appellant Munni Devi the appeal is

allowed. Her conviction for the offence of having

murdered Devki and the offence punishable under

Section 210 IPC is set aside. Since Munni Devi is on

bail, her bail bond and surety bonds are discharged.

b) In so far as appellant Chaman Lal is concerned, the

appeal is dismissed. Since Chaman Lal is still in jail,

we direct that a copy of the present decision be sent

to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar to be made

available to Chaman Lal.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

SURESH KAIT, J.

FEBRUARY 04, 2010 'mm/nks'