Delhi High Court
State vs Hari Chand on 4 August, 2014
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.L.P. 387/2014
STATE ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP with
Insp. Sanjeev Kumar PS
S.B.Dairy.
versus
HARI CHAND ..... Respondent
Represented by:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
% 04.08.2014
Crl.M.A. 9718/2014
For the reasons stated in the application the delay of 66 days in filing
the petition is condoned. Application is disposed of.
CRL.L.P. 387/2014
1. The State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated December
11, 2013 passed by the learned ASJ acquitting the respondent of the offence
of murder of his wife Kusum.
2. The FIR was registered on the complaint of PW-1 Sewa Ram, the
father of the deceased who stated that he had married the deceased with Hari
Chand about 8-10 years ago. Initially, for 3-4 years Hari Chand behaved
well with his daughter, however thereafter he started taking intoxicants and
used to frequently quarrel with her. On one day he strangulated his
daughter. He also deposed that few months prior to the incident Hari Chand
had fallen from the roof and sustained injuries due to which he had to
undergo surgery. For this reason he was not in a position to work with Pintu
contractor. However, Pintu Contractor continued to give expenses to the
family of Hari Chand and due to this he used to doubt the character of the
deceased. Hari Chand did not like the deceased either meeting or talking to
Pintu contractor. On the fateful day he received an information from Hari
Chand that his daughter had gone to ease in the jungle and somebody had
strangulated her.
3. The prosecution case rest on circumstantial evidence. Though motive
has been proved by the deposition of the complainant and PW-4 Geeta, the
mother of the deceased, however the prosecution has failed to prove rest of
the essential ingredients to complete the chain of events. The other only
scientific evidence proved by the prosecution is that as per the FSL report,
mud on the nikkar of Hari Chand tallied with the mud found at the spot
where the deceased was found dead. The deceased was not found dead at
her residence but in the jungle where she had gone to ease.
4. The reasoning of the learned Trial Court while acquitting Hari Chand
is that even as per the prosecution case Hari Chand had not fully recovered
and used to walk with a stick. The cause of death was strangulation and if
Hari Chand had strangulated the deceased there would have been some
marks of injury on him due to the protest by the deceased who was a hale
and hearty lady. As per the MLC of Hari Chand there was no fresh injury
found on his body. The strangulation was not while she was sleeping but
while she was fully awake. Further, place of incident does not rule out that
somebody else may have strangulated her. Moreover, it is not even the case
of the prosecution that Hari Chand strangulated the deceased at her house
and then threw her in the jungle. Due to the accident Hari Chand was
moving around with a stick and in such a situation it was not possible for
him to have carried the deceased to the jungle. The house of the deceased
and Hari Chand was situated in a congested area and if there was some
struggle neighbourers would have heard the cries.
5. The reasoning of the learned Judge in acquitting the respondent
cannot be faulted. In a case of circumstantial evidence the prosecution has
to prove that the chain of circumstances which lead to only one inference i.e.
the guilt of the accused. This the prosecution has not been able to prove in
the present case. Consequently, the leave to appeal petition is dismissed.
6. Trial Court Record be sent back.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
AUGUST 04, 2014
'ga'
