Puran Verma vs State (Nct) Of Delhi
2014 Latest Caselaw 3527 Del

*                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                         Crl. Appeal No. 433/2010

                                                  Reserved on: 8th July, 2014
%                                           Date of Decision: 5th August, 2014

            Puran Verma                          ....Appellant
                      Through        Mr. Ajay Verma and Ms. Neha Singh,
                                     Advocates.
                   Versus

            State (NCT) of Delhi                 ...Respondent
                        Through      Mr. Rajat Katyal, APP.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

By the impugned judgment dated 30th October, 2009, appellant

Puran Verma stands convicted for having murdered his wife Sangeeta

on 8th June, 2008, at their residence on first floor of property bearing

No. 20-D Nawada, Delhi. By order on sentence dated 31st October,

2009, appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment and directed

to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of which he has to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Benefit of Section

428 Cr. P.C. has been granted.

2. The factum that Sangeeta had died homicidal death, is not

disputed and stands proven from the testimonies of Dr. Rishi, CMO

DDU Hospital (PW3) and Dr. B.N. Mishra (PW6). Dr. Rishi (PW3) had

deposed that on 8th June, 2008 at about 1.30 PM, ASI Ram Gopal

(PW13), of PCR, had brought one patient who was examined by Dr.

Indra Bahadur, working under his supervision. The patient Sangeeta

was declared 'brought dead' as was recorded in MLC (Ex. PW3/A). Dr.

Indra Bahadur had left services and his whereabouts were unknown,

however his signatures and hand writing were identified by Dr. Rishi

(PW3).

3. Dr. B.N. Mishra (PW6) had conducted post mortem on 9th June,

2008 and had submitted his report (Ex. PW6/A). He had opined the

cause of death was asphyxia caused by ligature strangulation with prior

manual smothering. There were marks or indication of physical assault

on many parts of Sangeeta's body. Six external injuries in additional to

ligature marks recorded by him are as under:

"1. Both upper and lower lips were found bruised, with lower lip has a laceration of size 5x3 cms with irregular margin and dark reddish colour with multiple indentation of teeth marks present at inner aspect of lower lip.

2. Two-three crecentric shape nail marks present at chin.

3. Contusion of size 5X4 cms present at right side of forehead with dark reddish colour blood clot on section.

4. Abrasion of size 3x2 cms present over right cheek bone.

5. Abraded-bruise (10x8 cms) present at left gluteal region (buttock).

6. Lacerated wound of size 5x1½ cms x deep to bone present at occipital region of head."

4. In his cross-examination, Dr. B.N. Mishra(PW6) was questioned

and he highlighted the difference between ligature strangulation and

smothering and opined that some features were common. In this case,

PW6 opined that cause of death might be smothering also, but

smothering and ligature strangulation were almost simultaneous.

When the time gap between smothering and ligature strangulation was

just 2/3 minutes, specific conclusion was impossible. It was suggested

on behalf of the appellant that two persons could have committed the

act of ligature strangulation and smothering? Dr. B.N. Mishra (PW6)

opined that this was possible, but even one person could have caused

the injuries in the present case.

5. The main issue and question raised, is whether the appellant

Puran Verma was the perpetrator of the said injuries causing unnatural

and homicidal death of his wife Sangeeta?

6. Thus, it is accepted and admitted position that the deceased

Sangeeta had died of asphyxia at her matrimonial home i.e. 20-D

Nawada, Delhi on 8th June, 2008. As per the Gregorian Calendar, 8th

June, 2008 was a Sunday. ASI Ram Gopal (PW13) has deposed that he

was posted in PCR, West Zone and was on duty with PCR Ambulance.

At about 12.38 PM had received a message regarding scuffle in the

property mentioned above. On reaching at the place of occurrence,

PW13 found that crowd had collect and on entering the room on the

first floor, Sangeeta was found lying on the floor. The appellant was

present and sitting in the same room. Ram Wati (PW1) and Sanjay

(PW2) mother and brother of Sangeeta were also present. Sangeeta

did not have clothes on her body, rather she had been covered with a

sheet. They shifted Sangeeta by putting her in PCR Van and departed

for DDU Hospital. On the way, PW13 met ASI Jagpal and handed over

custody of the appellant to him. Thus, the presence of the appellant at

his residence at about 12.38 PM on 8th June, 2008 has been deposed to

and positively asserted by PW6. As noticed below, Ram Wati (PW1) and

Sanjay (PW2) have ventilated and affirmed on the presence of the

appellant and attributed and implicated the appellant as the

perpetrator.

7. Appellant, however, submits that his presence at the residence in

the morning of 8th June, 2008 when the crime was committed has not

been established and proved beyond doubt.

8. On the said aspect, we have direct evidence in form of Master

Aman (PW8), son of the appellant and the deceased. He was aged

about 6 years at the time of his deposition in court on 24th December,

2008. The court conscious that it was recording statement of a child

witness, had asked introductory questions to ascertain and ensure that

PW8 was capable of giving logical and coherent answers and to remove

doubts and affirm that he had not been tutored. This was necessary as

Master Aman (PW8) was staying with his maternal grandparents after

the occurrence. Master Aman (PW8) has stated that he used to live

with his parents when his mother was alive and he knew that his father

was facing trial in the case. In categorical and clear terms, Master

Aman (PW8) has stated that his father, i.e. the appellant, had killed his

mother. He did not know as to why his father had killed her but

claimed that his father had used a string, hammer and screwdriver. If

we accept and believe the statement of Master Aman (PW8), the

appellant cannot escape and break away from his conviction.

9. The contention of the appellant is that Master Aman was not

present at the spot, as at that time i.e. on 8th June, 2008, he was

residing with his maternal grandparents. It is submitted that

Investigating Officer had recorded Master Aman's (PW8) statement

under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 17th August, 2008 i.e. more than two

months after the date of occurrence. In the said statement Master

Aman (PW8) had not referred to hammer or screwdriver. Further, Ram

Wati (PW1), Sanjay (PW2), Jagdish Verma (PW10) and Jyoti (PW5) have

not in clear and categorical terms, deposed about presence of Master

Aman (PW8) in the said house at the time of occurrence. Therefore,

the appellant submits that the trial court should not have relied upon

statement made by Master Aman (PW8) as he could have been easily

tutored and made to implicate the appellant by his maternal

grandparents and others.

10. It is correct that Investigating Officer SI Rajbir Singh (PW15) had

recorded the statement of Master Aman (PW8) under Section 161

Cr.P.C. on 17th August, 2008. PW15 had taken over investigation from

Insp. Dev Raj (PW14), the first Investigating Officer, in the first week of

August, 2008. In this regard, submission on behalf of the State is that

there was a lapse on the part of the first Investigating Officer i.e. Insp.

Dev Raj Singh (PW14) in not recording PW8's statement under Section

161 Cr.P.C. but the appellant cannot take benefit of the same. There is

substantial delay in recording of the statement of Master Aman (PW8)

under Section 161 Cr.P.C., but the question which arises for

consideration is whether we should discard and disbelieve the court

deposition of Master Aman (PW8) for this reason? The submission and

question raised, cannot be answered without first adjudicating and

deciding whether or not PW8 was present at home with his

parents/mother when the volience/crime took place. If and once we

accept presence of Master Aman (PW8) at the residence which is the

place of occurrence, then the delay in recording Section 161 Cr.P.C.

statement by itself may not be a ground to discard or disbelieve the

court deposition. Credibility, trustfulness and like aspects, would then

require consideration. Delay raises suspicion but in the facts of the

present case, we do not think that this delay can be a ground to

disbelieve and disregard the court deposition of Master Aman (PW8).

11. Presence of Master Aman (PW8) in his own house with his

parents on Sunday was natural and normal. It would not be a matter

of chance. A young child would like to be with his mother and father.

Ram Wati (PW1) and Jagdish Verma (PW10) i.e. grandparents of Master

Aman (PW8) during their cross-examination, were not confronted or

suggested that Master Aman was with them on the night intervening 7th

and 8th June, 2008. No such suggestion was also given to Sanjay (PW2),

maternal uncle of Master Aman (PW8). It was not suggested that

Master Aman was not present with the appellant and the deceased at

their house when the crime occurred. The aforesaid stand was taken

by the appellant belatedly when his statement under Section 313

Cr.P.C. was recorded on 26th August, 2009. No doubt, Ram Wati (PW1)

had not specifically deposed in her examination in chief about the

presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence but this can be

explained as initially the Investigating Officer did not record statement

of Master Aman under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ram Wati (PW1) has

deposed what Master Aman had told her regarding the occurrence.

She has thus accepted presence of Aman (PW8) at the spot. Sanjay

(PW2) has deposed that the appellant, Sangeeta and Aman (PW8) had

left for their house on 7th June, 2008. Thus he has deposed about

Aman's presence. Master Aman's statement in the court was recorded

on 24th December, 2008. On 28th May, 2009, Jagdish Verma (PW10)

grandfather of Aman (PW8) had deposed in the court and testified that

when he reached at the place of occurrence, his daughter was being

brought down. His wife Ram Wati (PW1) and son Sanjay (PW2) were

already there. Master Aman (PW8) started residing with them from the

date of incidence. Jyoti (PW5), whose deposition we shall be referring

in some details, in clear and categorical terms had stated in her cross-

examination that son of the deceased was also in the house when the

door opened and the deceased Sangeeta was found in an injured

condition. The above stated assertion was made in the cross-

examination and remained unchallenged.

12. In view of the aforesaid position, we do not think that there is

any ground or reason to disbelieve or be apprehensive that Master

Aman (PW8) was not present in the house when the occurrence had

taken place. The delay in recording his version on the part of the

Investigating Officer was a lapse and a defect in investigation and

cannot and should not be treated as a ground to completely discard or

disbelieve Aman's (PW8) court deposition. However, it does appear

that Master Aman (PW8) has marginally exaggerated the facts by

claiming that his father had also hammer and screwdriver. The said

articles were not seized, though it is clear from the post mortem report

(Ex. PW6A) that the deceased Sangeeta had suffered several external

injuries.

13. In order to ensure ourselves on culpability of the appellant, we

would like to refer to corroboration in the form of other evidence.

First, we would like to refer to the testimonies of Ram Wati (PW1),

Sanjay (PW2), Jyoti (PW5) and Jagdish Verma (PW10) and then the call

details which support the prosecution case.

14. Sanjay (PW2), is the complainant and first informer who had

made statement (Ex. PW2/A) and Ram Wati (PW1) had claimed that

they were the eye-witnesses to the actual act of strangulation

committed by the appellant. We are inclined to accept the submission

of the appellant that PW1 and PW2 were not the eye-witnesses and

had reached the spot when the occurrence was taking place inside the

room or immediately thereafter. Ram Wati (PW1) and Sanjay (PW2)

possibly did not see the appellant strangulating the deceased,

otherwise they would have caught hold of the appellant, specially,

when there is evidence to show that the deceased was not wearing

clothes or they were torn. They have deposed that the room was

locked and they were prevented/obstructed. However, we agree with

the prosecution that the appellant was present at the spot and was

confronted by the said witnesses, when they saw Sangeeta.

15. Ram Wati (PW1), Sanjay (PW2) and Jagdish Verma (PW10) are in

seriatim that the deceased Sangeeta had married appellant Puran

Verma about 8 years prior to the date of occurrence but their

matrimonial life was turbulent with repeated and constant quarrels.

Appellant kept doubting chastity of Sangeeta. On 7th June, 2008, the

appellant had come to the parental home of Sangeeta and had taken

her with him to 20-D Nawada, Delhi. This was after assurance by

the appellant that he would look after and not beat or ill treat

Sangeeta. Sanjay (PW2) has deposed in detail about the happenings on

7th June, 2008 and how after the patch-up, both of them along with

their son left for their house. He deposed that on 7th June, 2008,

appellant, Sangeeta and their son had left for their house in the

evening. Next day in the morning at about 9-10 AM he received a call

from Jyoti (PW5) on his mobile that the appellant and Sangeeta were

quarrelling. At that time, he was not at his residence and upon

reaching his house he found that his mother (PW1) was not there. She

came after half an hour. He told her about the call received from Jyoti.

They decided to go to matrimonial home of Sangeeta and reached

within 20-25 minutes. He made a call to police on number 100.

Jagdish Verma (PW10) also reached the spot. Appellant was present

there. Deceased Sangeeta did not have clothes on her body, which

were lying besides. Police came recorded the statements, seized the

evidence etc. In his cross-examination, Sanjay (PW2) has stated that

they reached the house of the accused in 45 minutes after his mother

had arrived and that they reached the matrimonial house of Sangeeta

between 11 to 11.30 AM. He had asked his mother to go upstairs as

the rickshaw puller had to be paid. Both of them had shouted for help.

He had given his number to Jyoti, neighbour of Sangeeta, two months

prior to the incident.

16. Ram Wati (PW1) has deposed that on 8th June, 2008, on returning

from the market, Sanjay (PW2) told her about the call received from

Jyoti. She along with Sanjay (PW2) then proceeded to the matrimonial

home of Sangeeta. On reaching there, she found Sangeeta lying on the

floor. She was unconscious and was taken to DDU Hospital. Her

clothes were in a torn condition and there were ligature marks on her

neck. She has deposed that Aman (PW8) had told her that the

appellant had beaten up Sangeeta and strangulated her with a piece of

cloth but this portion of statement of PW1 is inadmissible being

hearsay. This assertion however corroborates that Aman (PW8) was

present at home when the injuries were inflicted and suffered by

Sangeeta. In her cross-examination, PW1 has stated that she had got

the room door opened.

17. Jagdish Verma (PW10), as noticed above had reached the spot

after sometime, on being conveyed information about Sangeeta. By

the time PW10 had reached, the police had already arrived and

Sangeeta was in the process of being taken in the PCR van to DDU

Hospital. He has, however, deposed about presence of the appellant at

that time.

18. Master Aman (PW8) in his cross-examination had clearly stated

that he had not gone to school and he knew Jyoti Aunt, who was their

neighbour. Jyoti aunt and other neighbours came to the house when

his parents were quarreling.

19. This brings us to the testimony of Jyoti (PW5). Her testimony has

to be examined with care and caution as we have to decide whether to

entirely or partly accept or reject her testimony. Jyoti (PW5) was

certainly a neighbour and knew the appellant, Sangeeta and Aman

(PW8). She has accepted that Sangeeta had met her on several

occasions and observed that she had a good nature. Sangeeta used to

complain about her husband that he had no income and did not give

her money. Two days prior to the occurrence, Sangeeta had spoken to

Jyoti (PW5) about her problem/troubles. She had asked Sangeeta to

take police help. She had also tried to intervene and mediate between

Sangeeta and the appellant. Sangeeta had brought money from her

parents but the appellant had spent the money on a call girl. Inspite of

her best efforts, the appellant continued to harass Sangeeta and at

about 10 PM she had made a call to the police (reference it is apparent

was to an occurrence, two days before the incident in question).

Appellant was taken to the police station and was detained overnight.

She had rung parents of Sangeeta, who had taken Sangeeta with them.

Subsequently, she came to know from Sanjay (PW2) that appellant had

been released. There was a patch up and Sangeeta along with her son

came back to her matrimonial home. She had received telephone call

from Sanjay (PW2) at 10.00 AM, enquiring about Sangeeta. She had

not seen Sangeeta and suspected possible foul play. She asked Sanjay

(PW2) to come. Both Sanjay (PW2) and his mother (PW1) came within

15 minutes. Appellant came downstairs and did not allowed them to go

upstairs. Appellant had claimed that Sangeeta was not there and had

gone to see a doctor. Jyoti (PW5), at that time had to leave as she had

urgent work. She came back her house after one a half hour and

straight away went to her house. Appellant had closed the door from

outside with a latch. She had called the police on asking of Sanjay after

she came to know that Sangeeta had died. She was cross-examined by

the public prosecutor on certain aspect but denied that she had made a

call to Sanjay (PW2) apprising him of the quarrel and beatings given to

Sangeeta. She also denied that she had gone inside the room of the

appellant with Ram Wati (PW1) and Sanjay (PW2) and noticed that the

clothes worn by Sangeeta were torn or had noticed that the appellant

had put a string around the neck of Sangeeta and was pulling her. The

aforesaid testimony of Jyoti (PW5) was recorded on 3rd December,

2008. Thereafter subsequent part of her testimony was recorded on

28th April, 2009 i.e. after a gap of more than four months. It is

apparent that Jyoti (PW5) in her examination on 28th April, 2009 has

oscillated substantially and somehow wanted to save and help the

appellant, yet she found herself tied down and could not wriggle out

from her earlier testimony and ultimately she had to speak and state

the truth. Towards the end of her cross-examination, she accepted as

correct that there was a quarrel, that she had dialed the number of

Sanjay i.e. 9211134353 from her Cell No. 9212986572 and had made a

call to police. She also accepted that she had spoken to Sanjay (PW2)

earlier on telephone on 2-3 occasions but only once on the day of

occurrence. She had informed the police and thereafter had left the

spot. Subsequently, she corrected herself and stated that she did not

remember the number of calls made, when confronted specifically in a

question making reference to different calls on 8th June, 2008. She

went on to suggest that Sanjay (PW2) might have dialed number 100

from her mobile phone. She claimed that 2-3 neighbours might have

also used her cell phone. In her cross-examination on behalf of the

appellant, she went on to state that no enquiry was made from her,

something which is completely unacceptable. The said part of her

statement is completely false and a blatant lie as is clear from her

statement at the end of her cross-examination by the counsel for the

appellant. She has accepted as correct that police came at the spot and

at the end of the cross-examination had deposed:-

"When the neighbour opened the kundi of the house of the accused and found the dead body, then, she started screaming loudly. Thereafter, lot of people collected there including myself. Thereafter, Sanjay and his mother were able to come up after pushing the accused. It is wrong to suggest that accused was not preventing the mother and brother of the deceased as she was not present there at all and came there later on. The son of the deceased was also inside the house when the door was opened up by that neighbourer. It is wrong to suggest that the accused did not harass the deceased in the manner or at the date and time stated by me in my examination-in-chief. It is further incorrect to suggest that I have deliberately improved the facts of the case in order to implicate the accused as deceased was my friend. It is further incorrect to suggest that I was regular in touch with Sanjay 4-5 days before the incident on phone. (Voltd. I had talked to him on 06.06.08). I had talked to him on phone after the incident but that was with respect to the development of the case. It is further incorrect to suggest that no incident had taken place two days before the death of Sangita, as claimed by me in my examination-in-chief."

20. It would be appropriate at this stage to refer to the call records

(Ex. D-1) of telephone numbers 9211134353 of Sanjay (PW2) and

9212986572 of Jyoti (PW5). The call records were taken on record by

the trial court vide order sheet dated 10th August, 2009 that the said

documents could read in evidence.

21. The call records indicate that a number of calls were exchanged

between the said two numbers on 7th June, 2008. However, we need

not refer to the said call detail as it is not necessary. It shows and

proves that Jyoti (PW5) and Sanjay (PW2) were constantly speaking and

were in touch with each other. The first call exchanged between the

two numbers on 8th June, 2008 was at 10.01 AM with a call being made

by Sanjay (PW2) to Jyoti (PW5). This was followed by calls at 11.23 AM,

11.27 AM, 12.09 PM, 12.23 PM and 12.27 PM. A call was made to

police from telephone no. 9211134353 at 12.30 PM. Calls were also

exchanged between Jyoti (PW5) and Sanjay (PW2) at 12.49 PM and at

01.02 PM on 8th June, 2008. A number of calls were exchanged

thereafter but again these are not relevant. The aforesaid call record

details also give the location of the connected cell tower. Cell tower

number 6811 was located near the residence of Sanjay (PW2). Calls

from 10 to 11.27 AM were connected through tower No. 6811. Call at

12.09 PM was connected through tower No. 68A2. Calls thereafter till

12.49 PM were also connected through the same tower 68A2. Call at

01.02 PM was connected through tower No. 6720,showing movement.

It is clear from the said tower details that till 11.27 AM on 8th June,

2008, Sanjay (PW2) was at his residence and thereafter at 12.09 PM

reached at the place of occurrence and was connected with tower

68A2. The call details of telephone No. 9212986572 show and establish

that the said cell phone in the morning on 8th June, 2008 was connected

through tower no. 6451 and 68A2. 68A2 is the tower number with

which the cell number 921134353 of Sanjay (PW2) was connected

between 12.09 to 12.49 PM on 8th June, 2008. This shows and proves

that Sanjay (PW2) and Ram Wati (PW1) were at the residence of the

appellant between 12.09 to 12.49 PM. The cell tower details regarding

mobile number 9212986572 also show that Jyoti (PW5) remained at her

residence and around the place of occurrence till 11.59 AM as till then

she was connected with Cell tower 68A2. Thereafter as stated in her

court deposition, Jyoti (PW5) had left for urgent personal work and was

connected with different tower numbers till 12.25 PM. Subsequently,

she again got connected through tower number 68A2 at 12.27 PM on

8th June, 2008. This corroborates Jyoti's (PW5) version that she has

gone out for some time, but in the morning and subsequently was

present at the place of occurrence.

22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent and clear to us

that we should accept Jyoti's (PW5) deposition that the appellant and

the deceased Sangeeta were inside their room and quarrel had taken

place in the morning. Jyoti (PW5) and Sanjay (PW2) had spoken to each

other and thereafter Ram Wati (PW1) and Sanjay (PW2) reached the

spot. On opening the door, they found that Sangeeta had been killed.

There were ligature marks on her body. Clothes worn by Sangeeta

were torn etc. Aman (PW8) was present in the room. It is, therefore,

clear beyond doubt that the appellant was perpetrator who had

committed the offence. The statement of Master Aman (PW8) who has

seen the occurrence, is true and correct and deserves to be accepted.

23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is maintained. The appeal is dismissed.

(SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE

(V. KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE August 5th, 2014 Kkb/VKR