Ramesh Kumar vs The State (Govt. Of Nct) Delhi
2013 Latest Caselaw 1865 Del

*                IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                     CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 787/2012

                                 Reserved on:      7th January, 2013
%                              Date of Decision:      25th April, 2013

RAMESH KUMAR                                ....Appellant
            Through Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Advocate.


                      Versus


THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI                ...Respondent

Through Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP for the State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

SANJIV KHANNA, J.:

The appellant Ramesh Kumar impugns his conviction under

Section 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) vide judgment

dated 23rd November, 2011, for burning deceased Renu to death and

causing injuries to her mother Geeta on 31st March 2006. By order of

sentence, on the same day, he has been sentenced under Section 302

IPC for life imprisonment and fine of Rs 5,000/-, in default of which,

he shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months. For the offence

under Section 307 IPC, he has been awarded rigorous imprisonment

for ten years and fine of Rs 2,000/-, in default of payment of which, he

shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. He has, however,

been acquitted of the charge under Section 376 IPC by the Trial Court.

2. The prosecution case goes as under: that on 31st March, 2006 at

1.15 A.M. it was reported to the PCR (vide DD No. 48A) that Jhuggi

No. W-65/3 in F Block, Indira camp No.3, Vikas Puri had caught fire.

ASI Nand Ram (PW- 23) and Ct. Ashok Kumar (PW-25) reached the

spot and learnt that the injured had been taken to the DDU Hospital by

PCR van. The rear portion of the first floor of the jhuggi was visibly

burnt and there was smell of petrol. In the hospital, peculiar facts

emerged as Geeta Devi (PW-1) made a complaint (Ex.PW-1/A) against

her son-in-law, husband of her elder daughter Kiran and the appellant

herein. She had alleged that the appellant had maintained illicit

relations with PW-1's younger daughter Renu. The appellant and Renu

had a son. Recently, Renu's marriage was fixed with a third person

and the appellant was discontent with the said fact. She believed that it

was the appellant who had committed this crime as he was seen in the

locality before the incident. From the spot, burnt mattress, clothes,

bamboo stick, a plastic bottle containing petrol were seized. The

appellant was ultimately arrested along with three wheeler scooter No.

DL-IRH-1966 and a match box were found in his possession. On 11th

April, 2006 injured Renu expired and Section 302 IPC was added.

3. Two inter-connected issues arise for consideration. Firstly,

whether the deceased Renu and Geeta (PW-1) had suffered accidental

burn injuries or it is a case of homicidal death and burn injuries were

inflicted on them. The second question is whether the appellant is the

perpetrator and had caused the said burn injuries.

4. The burn injuries suffered by Renu were proved by Dr. Yogesh

Gupta (PW-14), who had examined her when she was taken to Deen

Dayal Upadhaya Hospital. She had superficial to deep burns over

abdomen, bilateral upper limbs, lower face, neck region, bilateral lower

limbs, whole back including gluteal and perineal region and lower

chest. Her MLC was prepared by PW-14 was marked Exhibit PW-

14/A. The said MLC records that Renu had 85-90% burns which were

allegedly caused when the house/jhuggi caught fire.

5. PW-14 has further deposed that she was seen by the DOD,

Plastic Surgery and then referred to Safdarjung Hospital for further

management. Renu succumbed to her injuries and expired in

Safdarjung Hospital on 11th April, 2006 at 12.15 P.M. Her post-

mortem was conducted on 12th April, 2006 by Dr. Komal Singh, Chief

Medical Officer, Safdarjung Hospital (PW-24). As per the post-

mortem report, there were deep thermal burns involving chest, face,

back, both upper limbs, both lower limbs, sparing neck and chin and

the lower area of legs. The burn areas were covered with granulation

tissue and purulent infection. Cause of death was septicemia due to

95% ante mortem burns. Smell of kerosene was stated to be absent.

The post-mortem report was marked Exhibit PW-24/A in the

deposition of Dr. Komal Singh (PW-24).

6. Dr. Yogesh Gupta again deposed as PW-19 and proved MLC of

Geeta Devi (PW-1), which was marked Exhibit PW-19/A. Geeta was

examined by Dr. Swati Aggarwal, who had however left the services.

Dr. Yogesh Gupta identified and recognized the signature and

handwriting of Dr. Swati Aggarwal as he had seen her writing and

signing. The MLC (Exhibit PW-19/A) delineates that there were 30%

to 50% burns on the body of Geeta, who was brought at 2.25 A.M. in a

PCR van. The MLC records that Geeta had allegedly suffered the

burns when the house/jhuggi caught fire. Geeta was subsequently

referred to Safdarjung Hospital and was treated there, as per the

admission and discharge records Exhibit PW-27/A. The said discharge

record mentions that Geeta had suffered 40% thermal burns and was

discharged on 9th April, 2006. The record was proved by Dr. Prerna

Nembang (PW-27), who identified the signatures and handwriting of

Dr. Harish Gundiyal.

7. Two other family members Inderjeet (PW-9), aged 8 years who

is also the son of the appellant and Rupesh (PW-5), brother of Renu

and son of Geeta, aged 14 years had also suffered injuries. In their

cases, the MLCs were not prepared and what we have on record is the

casualty card Exhibit PW-26/A, which mentions that Inderjeet (PW-9)

had suffered superficial deep burns on abdomen, while Bhupesh (sic

Rupesh) (PW-5) had suffered superficial and deep burns on face and

hand.

8. Geeta (PW-1), Renu, the deceased, Rupesh (PW-5) and Master

Inderjeet (PW-9) who had given the statement without oath, have

stated that on the fateful night the four of them were sleeping in a room

on the first floor of the jhuggi when they got burnt. PW-1 has deposed

that four of them had gone up to sleep at 11 P.M. and at 1.15 A.M. they

found that there was a fire in the portion of the jhuggi where they were

sleeping. PW-1 thereupon raised alarm. PW-1 has further stated that

in the fire, two gaddas, one shawl, one chunni and one pillow were

partly burnt. In addition, the clothes which were lying on the bed were

also partly burnt. These were produced and identified by PW-1 and

were marked Exhibit P-1. PW-1 has deposed that her son Mukesh

(PW-2) along with his wife had slept in the other portion of the jhuggi

on the first floor.

9. Mukesh (PW-2) son of Geeta and brother of Renu has deposed

that he was sleeping in a separate room on the first floor of the jhuggi

and at about 1.15 A.M. heard noise of his mother and sister Renu and

went to their room. He saw there was fire in their room and her sister

and mother had received burn injuries. He extinguished the fire by

pouring water on them. He has deposed on seizure of the burnt

clothes, gaddas, etc. vide seizure memo Exhibit PW-2/A which was

signed by him at point 'A'. What is important and relevant in his

deposition is the fact that one plastic bottle containing petrol and one

bamboo danda (stick) was found on the wall of the park next to the

jhuggi. PW-2 has deposed that the plastic bottle and the stick were

seized and taken into possession by the investigating officer vide

memo Exhibit PW-2/B, which was signed by him at point 'A'. The

plastic bottle with petrol before the court was marked Exhibit P-2 and

the stick was marked Exhibit P-3.

10. Hari Mandal, husband of Geeta and father of Renu had deposed

as PW-4. He was a truck driver and has stated that he was sleeping on

the ground floor and Renu, Geeta (PW-1), Rupesh (PW-5) and

Inderjeet (PW-9) were sleeping on the first floor. Mukesh and his wife

were sleeping in a separate room in the first portion of the first floor.

There was a fire in which Renu, Geeta, Rupesh and Inderjeet sustained

injuries and they were taken to hospital. He was cross-examined by

the Additional Public Prosecutor on the ground that he was resiling.

He deposed that there was smell of petrol in the room, which was on

fire. In the cross-examination by the appellant, he has stated that there

were two rooms on the first floor and the first room was occupied by

his son and wife. The back room was also used as kitchen and food

was cooked there on cooking gas. He has accepted as correct that

stove was used for cooking as and when gas was exhausted. There was

a ventilator in the said back room of the size of 1 ½ feet without any

wooden pane. He has accepted as correct the suggestion given by the

appellant that nothing could be thrown into the room through the

ventilator by a person standing on the ground floor but volunteered that

anything could be thrown inside the room by climbing the chajja

(balcony) of the adjoining temple. He has further deposed that there

was a parapet wall of the temple on the back side. Height of the said

parapet of the temple was 4 ½ feet and it touched their house/jhuggi.

The ventilator was located in the middle portion of the wall of the

jhuggi.

11. Presence and seizure of the plastic bottle with petrol (Exhibit P-

2) and the bamboo stick (Exhibit P-3) from the wall behind the

house/jhuggi has been testified by the police witness Inspector Lalit

Kumar (PW-17), who was in charge of crime team and had inspected

the spot, where they found two burnt beds, grey colour shawl, burnt

clothes, chunni of red colour, plastic bottle with blue cap containing

inflammable liquid and one half bamboo stick. Recovery of the said

articles is also mentioned in Exhibit PW-17/A, the crime team report

Ex. PW-17/A was prepared on 31st March, 2006 between 6.00 to 6.30

A.M. It is specifically recorded in this report that a plastic bottle

(Exhibit P-1) and half bamboo stick (Exhibit P-2) were found lying on

the wall of the park behind the jhuggi. The said witness, however, was

not able to depose in the cross-examination about the distance between

the boundary wall and the window/ventilator of the house/jhuggi. He

deposed that they had taken photographs but this was not mentioned in

Exhibit PW-17/A. The photographs were proved by Head Constable

Jaiveer (PW-18) and the positives were marked Exhibit PW-18/P7 to

P-12. In the cross-examination, he identified Exhibit PW-18/DX-1

which shows the back side of the house/jhuggi from where the

window/ventilator could be seen. Examination of the photographs

would reveal that the fire had not engulfed the entire room. It was

confined and restricted to a specific portion/area. In the same room,

there was a cooking gas cylinder which remained unaffected. Even the

surrounding walls and the area around the bed do not have any signs to

show that there was fire. This is important and relevant and has to be

duly considered.

12. SI Nand Ram (PW-23) has similarly deposed that they reached

jhuggi after recording DD No. 48A at about 2.05 A.M. They found

burn marks on the first floor rear portion. Fire had already been

extinguished and Geeta (PW-1) and Renu had already been taken to the

hospital in a burnt condition. They seized the two mattresses in burnt

condition, one half burnt shawl, one partly burnt pillow and some burnt

clothes. From the rear side of the aforesaid house at the wall of the

park, one plastic bottle and one bamboo danda, which was partly torn

(sic. split), were seized vide seizure memo Exhibit (PW-2/G). In his

cross-examination, PW-23 has stated that the height of the first floor

from the ground level was 9 to 10 feet and he had inspected the rear

side of the jhuggi which had a temple. The wall of the temple was

adjacent to the wall of the jhuggi, though he had not visited the temple

itself.

13. Constable Ashok Kumar (PW-25) had visited the crime spot

immediately after DD No. 48A was recorded and had deposed on

identical lines about seizure of burnt mattresses, one shawl, clothes and

pillow. He has deposed that from the rear side of the jhuggi, on the

wall, one plastic bottle having some petrol and bamboo stick which

was split were found and seized. He identified the seized material. In

the cross-examination, however, the said witness could not depose

regarding the height of the ventilator and the wall etc. He has deposed

that the correct height of the boundary wall of the temple was 2 ½ to 3

feet and the ventilator of the jhuggi was at the height of about 22 feet.

This statement of PW-25 is being examined by us below with reference

to the site plan Exhibit PW-21/A.

14. We have two site plans. Exhibits PW-21/A is a scaled site plan

prepared by SI Mahesh Kumar (PW-21), Draftsman, Crime Branch.

The second site plan is a visual site plan without scale Exhibit PW-

23/D which was prepared by SI Nand Ram (PW-23). We have already

recorded that PW-23 has deposed that one plastic bottle with blue

colour cap having petrol and bamboo stick was seized from the wall.

In site plan (Exhibit PW-23/D), reference is made at point 'C' to the

ventilator which did not have any wooden pane or wire mesh and point

'D' to the wall from where the plastic bottle with petrol and bamboo

stick were recovered. The site plan Exhibit PW-21/A is more elaborate

and also has measurements. The slab of the first floor was at the height

of 130 cm. The wall on the back side was at the height of 150 cm. It is

from this wall that the plastic bottle with petrol and bamboo stick was

seized. Distance between the back room and the boundary wall is 58

cm. The photographs of the room show that there is a window or

ventilator just next to the bed. The window had a grill but without any

wire mesh or window pane. In fact, in one of the photographs one can

clearly make out and see the wall on the back side, from the ventilator.

15. As per the FSL report (Exhibit PW-33/C) petrol was detected in

the plastic bottle but petrol, kerosene oil, diesel oil or other could not

be detected on the stick or the burnt cloth material/bed room. Petrol or

gasoline is easily ignited and is extremely volatile. It evaporates at

high temperatures interfering with ignition and spread of the fire. The

flash point of gasoline or petrol is -45F. Lower flash point is an

indication of how easily a chemical will burn. Such chemicals are

highly inflammable and extremely hazardous. Kerosense, on the other

hand, has a higher flash point of 100 to 162. Further, burning of

hydrocarbon fuel in open air, as opposed to combusting in an engine or

a burner like a camp stove, creates a more limited range of pollutants.

The primary product of combustion is an engine or camp stove is

carbon dioxide. Open burning, however, evaporates a portion of the

unburned liquid as hydrocarbon vapour. Portion of the vapour is

partially burnt and cracked by the flame heat to produce carbon

particles (soot) and smaller organic compounds (See 'Kirk's Fire

Investigation' by John De Haan and 'Arson Investigation' by Dr.

Henry Lee, Chief of the Connecticut State Forensics Laboratory,

published by Prentice Hall, Inc).

16. From the aforesaid statements and facts, it is discernible that the

deceased Renu, injured Geeta (PW-1), Rupesh (PW-5) and Inderjeet

(PW-9) went to sleep on the first floor rear portion which has a

ventilator. Outside the room, there is a wall of a temple and park. The

height of the said wall is 150 cm, as per the site plan (Exhibit PW-

21/A). The height of the ground floor ceiling/roof is 130 cm and the

total height of the jhuggi is 205 cm. There is a window or ventilator at

a distance of 58 cm from the boundary wall, which is about 69 cms and

52 cms in size. The case of the prosecution is that the fire was

deliberately ignited and Renu and Geeta were burnt with the highly

inflammable liquid, i.e., petrol is justifiably proved and established.

The nature and type of burns noticed in the photographs suggest the

same and it can be seen that the fire did not spread and engulf the

entire room. The position of the bed just next to the ventilator/window

and presence of a bottle with petrol on the boundary wall behind the

jhuggi with a bamboo stick are clear indicators that it is a case of fire

which was deliberately and intentionally caused by a person standing

on the said wall through the ventilator. There is no other reason for

fire to take place at about 1.15/1.30 A.M. at night. It is highly

implausible that at that time food was being cooked. The gas cylinder

and gas stove are clearly visible in the photographs and had not been

touched. The photographs clearly show that a specific portion was

targeted by the person who had ignited the fire and was responsible for

the said burn injuries. Thus, it is not a case of accidental fire, which

engulfed and caused death of Renu and 40% burn injuries to Geeta

(PW-1). It is a case where the fire was deliberately ignited by a third

person with the help of petrol and bamboo stick.

17. The next question is whether the appellant was responsible for

having caused the fire and the resultant injuries. We notice here that

Geeta in her first statement (Exhibit PW-1/A) had implicated and

pointed her finger at the appellant. Similarly, the deceased in her

dying declaration (Exhibit PW-23/B) has implicated the appellant.

However, in Exhibit PW-1/A and Exhibit PW-23/B it has not been

averred that PW-1 or the deceased Renu had seen the appellant igniting

the fire. PW-1, in her Court deposition, has not stated that she had

seen the appellant causing the said fire. The present case, as noticed

above, is of circumstantial evidence. To implicate the appellant, the

prosecution relies upon four circumstances or facts, namely, (i) strong

motive which was a propelling factor resulting in the brutal attack; (ii)

presence of the appellant at the scene of the crime at about 10.30 -11

P.M. on 30th March, 2006; (iii) conduct of the appellant after the

occurrence and (iv) the manner and mode in which the offence was

committed.

18. The appellant-Ramesh is the son-in-law of PW-1 Geeta as he

was married to her daughter Kiran, who had appeared as PW-10.

Kiran (PW-10) in her deposition, recorded on 26th October, 2009, has

averred that she had married the appellant about 17 years back and had

one son Inderjeet, who has appeared as PW-9. Inderjeet had also

suffered minor burns and, as per the statement of PW-10, was residing

with his grandmother PW-1. After about five years of marriage with

Kiran (PW-10), the appellant left her and married one Manju. PW-10

then shifted to her mother's place. Later on, PW-10 again started

living with the appellant. Renu had come and stayed with them at

Ghaziabad as PW-10 was ill. Meanwhile the appellant had an affair

with the deceased Renu and a child was born to them. Similar

statement has been made by PW-1. She has deposed that her elder

daughter Kiran used to remain ill and for this reason the appellant had

requested her to send Renu to stay with them at Ghaziabad. Renu was

supposed to look after Kiran and had remained there for 2-3 months.

Renu then informed her that Ramesh had sexual intercourse with her

on several occasions during this period at Ghaziabad. She became

pregnant and gave birth to a child. Renu and the child had stayed, for

about 1 ½ months, in the house of the appellant, after the delivery.

Thereafter, the appellant dropped Renu with the child at the house of

PW-1. The appellant had visited the house of PW-1 on several

occasions and had requested that Renu should come and stay with them

but was refused. Because of blood relations, they did not file any

complaint against the appellant. Recently, they had fixed marriage of

Renu with one Rajesh, a resident of the same locality. The appellant

Ramesh came to know about this and was angry. The prosecution has

placed on record documents relating to birth of the child to Renu in

form of Exhibit PW-13/A, which is the medical record from Guru Teg

Bahadur Hospital, Shahdara relating to birth of the child. We have the

DNA report of the child (Exhibit PW-6/A) which refers to the blood

sample of the appellant and the blood sample of the child and, as per

the report, the appellant is a biological father of the child of Renu. We

need not dwell deeper on the said aspect. In the cross-examination of

PW-1 by the appellant-Ramesh, suggestions give clear indication that

the appellant accepts and admits that he is the father of the child born

to Renu. This fact factum is accepted and admitted by the appellant in

his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He has, however, averred that

he did not have forced or illicit relations with Renu and never had

sexual intercourse with Renu against her consent. He has accepted that

Renu gave birth to a male child and she and the child had stayed at

their house. He had borne the expenses for delivery of the child and

this was because of the family fear, public insinuation and bad name.

He has accepted as correct that, after 1 ½ months, Renu and the child

shifted to reside in the house of Geeta (PW-1) at Delhi. He claims that

the eldest sister of Renu, Durga was present when he accompanied

them to the house of Geeta. He has stated that he came to know that

Renu was not ready and willing to marry anyone. He has accepted as

correct that his wife Kiran had stayed in the house of Mukesh (PW-2)

for some time. He has stated that Geeta and her family had a grudge

against him because Renu had refused to marry someone of their

choice and had demanded that she (Renu) should be allowed to live

with Kiran at their house in Ghaziabad. His wife Kiran had supported

them and was against Renu's marriage against her wishes.

19. PW-2 and PW-4 have supported the prosecution case on the

motive. In addition, we have the statement of Rajesh Kumar (PW-11),

who has averred that he got engaged to Renu on 29th March, 2006 and

on 31st March, 2006 he came to know that Renu had been burned in

jhuggi fire. In the cross-examination by the public prosecutor, he has

stated that Renu had a child with his brother-in-law appellant-Ramesh

and he had come to know later that the child was being kept by the

appellant Ramesh.

20. From the aforesaid evidence, we have no hesitation or doubt in

our mind that the appellant was a father of the child born to Renu.

Renu had stayed with the appellant at Ghaziabad, when Kiran PW-10

was unwell. Renu got engaged to Rajesh (PW-11) on 29th March,

2006, i.e., one day before the occurrence in the intervening night of

30th/31st March, 2006. It is apparent and clear that the appellant was

extremely agitated, loathful and could not accept the said position.

21. PW-1 has deposed that on 30th March, 2006 at about 10-11 P.M.,

she had seen Ramesh sitting in a TSR on the road outside camp No. 3

but she did not pay any attention to him, thinking that perhaps he may

invite himself to the house. PW-2 Mukesh Kumar has stated that her

mother PW-1 had told him about seeing the appellant Ramesh in the

area, on a TSR prior to the incident. The aforesaid position is affirmed

by Arvind Paswan (PW-3). He has stated that he knows the appellant

Ramesh as the house of his in-laws was situated near PW-3's house

and he had seen the appellant visiting them. It was navratras and he

had gone to Sanatan Dharam Mandir along with maternal uncle Lalit

Paswan and Ram Raj Paswan in the evening of 30th March, 2006, when

he had seen appellant Ramesh next to his TSR, under influence of

liquor. He talked to him and wished him but the appellant was

murmuring. As he did not support prosecution case as to what he was

murmuring, he was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor but this is

not relevant. What is relevant and important is that Arvind Paswan

(PW-3) has deposed that the appellant was present at the location in the

evening of 30th March, 2006 and has corroborated the statement of

PW-1 to the said effect.

22. Ram Raj Paswan appeared as PW-7 but turned hostile and has

deposed that he did not know the appellant Ramesh. He, however, has

accepted as correct that police had met him in connection with this

case. On the night of 30th/31st March, 2006 11-11.30 P.M. he along

with relative Arvind Paswan (PW-3) had gone to Sanatan Dharam

Mandir and had returned back. He was cross-examined by the Public

Prosecutor and in the cross-examination he has accepted that his

statement was recorded by the police and he knew the family of Hari

Mandal (PW-4). He accepted as correct that his brother-in-law Lalit

Paswan worked as a Sewadar in the Mandir and had heard the noise at

about 1.15/1.30 A.M. when he had seen Mukesh (PW-2) and other

people bringing down Renu and Geeta (PW-1) from the jhuggi in a

burnt condition. Lalit Paswan appeared as PW-8 but did not recognize

the appellant. However, he accepted as correct that he had seen a TSR

outside on the road standing on a nala and had got up, at about 1.30

A.M., after hearing noise. A crowd had collected outside the jhuggi of

Hari Mandal (PW-4). Four persons had got burnt. In the cross-

examination by the Public Prosecutor he has accepted as correct that

after closing of the Mandir, he, along with Arvind Paswan and Ram

Raj Paswan, was returning and at that time Arvind Paswan (PW-3) had

stated that the person sitting in the TSR was the son-in-law of their

neighbour Hari Mandal (PW-4). He, however, has denied that the

appellant Ramesh present in the court was sitting in the TSR. It is

clear from the aforesaid depositions that the appellant Ramesh was

found to be in the vicinity of the area from 11 P.M. onwards and was

present in the area till late at night. The fact that the appellant

remained with the TSR is corroborated by Anil Kumar (PW-12). He

has deposed that TSR No. DL 1 RH 1966 was given on rent to

appellant Ramesh. On 30th March, 2006, the appellant Ramesh took

the TSR, as usual, at 8.00 A.M. but did not return it in the evening.

Generally, the appellant would take the TSR at 8.00 A.M. every day

and bring it back by the evening. On that particular day, the appellant

had telephoned and informed that he would not be bringing back the

TSR in the evening as he was to go to a party. The appellant had said

that he would bring the TSR on the next day but he did not return the

TSR even on the next day. The appellant was arrested vide arrest

memo PW-23/E on 31st March, 2006 at about 4.30 P.M. As already

stated above, Geeta (PW-1) in her statement Exhibit PW-1/A had

named the appellant, which had resulted in the registration of the FIR

at about 5.15/5.30 A.M. on 31st March, 2006. It is apparent that the

appellant was named as the suspect who was involved in the said

offence. Appellant in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement has denied

that he was arrested vide memo Exhibit PW-23/E but has not suggested

anything regarding when and how he was arrested. Appellant was

arrested in the presence of PW-2 Mukesh, who has signed the arrest

memo.

23. This brings us to the statement of Kiran (PW-10), wife of the

appellant. She has oscillated and repeatedly shifted her stand. In her

examination in chief she initially deposed that on the day of jhuggi fire

the appellant was present with her at their house in Ghaziabad. He had

come back after work but she could not tell the time when he returned.

In the cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor she has deposed that

she had stated before the police that the appellant went to work at

about 8 A.M. on 30th March, 2006 and did not return till recording of

her statement on 31st March, 2006. She had deposed that she had

earlier stated different facts due to lapse of time. In her cross-

examination by the amicus curiae for the appellant she again changed

her stand and stated that on 30th March, 2006 at the time of fire, the

appellant was with her at Ghaziabad. She has stated that Renu had

refused to marry Rajesh (PW-11) but after persuasion had agreed to

marry him. Noticing the oscillating stand and different/ contradictory

versions given by PW-10, the court had put a specific question to her

whether the appellant had returned back from work and which of her

statements were correct. PW-10 then deposed that the appellant had

returned back to house from work in the evening and was with her in

the intervening night 30th/31st March, 2006. She has stated that he

again went to work on 31st March, 2006 and when her statement was

recorded, the appellant had gone to work and, therefore, she had stated

that the appellant had not returned back till recording of her statement

on 31st March, 2006.

24. PW-10, being the wife of the appellant, has tried to protect him

though in between the truth got revealed and she could not hide the

same. It is not possible to accept and believe that the appellant had

gone to work on 31st March, 2006. The appellant at that time was

absconding. PW-10, it is apparent, being the sister of Renu and the

daughter of Geeta, would have known about the occurrence. As

already noticed above Geeta (PW-1) had implicated the appellant.

Similarly, the deceased Renu had implicated the appellant in her dying

declaration Exhibit PW-23/B. Anil Kumar (PW-12) has stated that the

TSR was not returned by the appellant on 30th March, 2006. Appellant

had informed him that he would be returning the TSR on the next day

as he was going to a party on 30th March, 2006.

25. The statement of Kiran (PW-10) that PW-1 had to persuade

Renu to get married to Rajesh does not show that Renu wanted to live

with the appellant. Deceased Renu had given birth to a child fathered

by the appellant. She knew the implications, complication and the

difficulties. Renu's child remained in the house of the appellant and

was residing with PW-10. PW-10's own child, Inderjeet (PW-9) was

residing with PW-1.

26. From the aforesaid, it is discernible that the fire in question was

not accidental but was deliberately ignited. The seized burnt articles

and the photograph show that the fire was ignited at a targeted area

with petrol being the accelerant. The fire did not spread because of the

accelerant used. The deceased Renu and Geeta (PW-1) suffered

extensive burn injuries in the said fire. A bottle with petrol (Exhibit P-

1) and bamboo stick (Exhibit P-2) were recovered from the wall behind

the house/jhuggi. There was a ventilator on the back side of the

house/jhuggi and the culprit/perpetrator had taken advantage of the

wall, bamboo stick and the ventilator to cause burn injuries. The

perpetrator was a person well conversant with the topography of the

house and surrounding location, i.e., the wall, ventilator, room on the

first floor and had knowledge where Renu and other family members

used to sleep. He was aware that there was a ventilator without any

window pane which could be accessed by standing on the wall. He

knew about the location of the bed where Renu used to sleep. That the

appellant is the said culprit has been established and proved beyond

doubt as he was present in the area even late at night and was seen with

his TSR by PW-1 and PW-3. He being the son-in-law of PW-1 was

well conversant with the topography of the house, the adjacent wall

and where Renu and others used to sleep. TSRs use gasoline or petrol

as a fuel. The appellant was a TSR driver and had not returned the

TSR and had absconded soon after the occurrence and was caught/

arrested on 31st March, 2006 in the evening. Lastly, the prosecution

has been able to prove strong and compelling motive, which propelled

the appellant to commit the said crime. Renu had given birth to a child

fathered by the appellant. The appellant and Renu also had sexual

relationship in spite of the fact that the appellant was married to the

sister of Renu. Renu on 29th March had got engaged to a third person.

The appellant, therefore, had serious objections and wanted Renu to

reside with him. Only a person with motive or compelling objective

and purpose would have acted and behaved in this predetermined and

calculative manner.

27. In view of the aforesaid position, we feel that the prosecution

has been able to prove and establish the case beyond doubt. When we

read the entire circumstantial evidence, the chain becomes complete.

Having regard to the accusation and the evidence available and proved,

the same only points to the appellant as the perpetrator and excludes

possibility of any third person's involvement.

28. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and

the same is dismissed. Conviction and sentence of the appellant is

maintained.

-sd-

(SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE

-sd-

(SIDDHARTH MRIDUL) JUDGE APRIL 25, 2013 VKR