Delhi High Court
State vs Jagdish & Ors. on 28 August, 2014
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.L.P. 202/2014
STATE ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP for
the State with Inspector Rajbir,
PS S.P.Badli.
versus
JAGDISH & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Ms.Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
% 28.08.2014
Crl.M.A.Nos.4033/2014 (Delay in filing) and 4034/2014 (delay in
refiling)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. For the reasons stated in the applications the delay in filing and
refiling the leave to appeal petition is condoned.
CRL.L.P. 202/2014
1. The State seeks leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated
May 15, 2013 acquitting the respondents of the charge for offences
punishable under Sections 302/201/34 IPC.
2. FIR No. 639/2005 under Sections 302/201/34 IPC was registered on
the complaint of Anil Kumar Mathur son of Arjun Singh, r/o House No.598,
Gali Vir Bazar, Kapashera who stated that he was working as a Silai Master
CRL.L.P. 202/2014 page 1 of 5
in a factory at Gurgaon and his elder sister Gita was married to Jagdish,
respondent No.1 herein on May 20, 1997 as per Hindu Rites and Customs.
In the wedding they had spent money beyond their capacity. For about a
year his sister was kept at Aligarh, U.P. whereafter Jagdish brought her to
Delhi at Mukundpur and started pressing clothes. He used to demand
`50,000/- for the construction of the house from his father and started
beating and harassing his sister as the demand was not fulfilled. His elder
brother Vinod and father Arjun Singh requested Jagdish a number of times.
On August 19, 2005 on the day of Raksha Bandhan his brother-in-law came
with Gita to their house in drunken condition. At their house there was a
quarrel for demand of `50,000/-. On August 21, 2005 in the morning
Jagdish took away Gita from their house in anger. On August 22, 2005 at
about 9.30 PM he went to the house of his brother-in-law at Mukund Pur as
the next day was the birthday of Tanish, son of Gita. On that day Jagdish
and his two younger brothers Kuldeep and Ranjit were present. After
celebrating his nephew's birthday on August 23, 2005 at around 12.30 mid
night Jagdish and his brothers Kuldeep and Ranjit assaulted his sister after
drinking liquor and were pressurising her for the demand of `50,000/-. His
sister received a minor injury at her elbow. When Anil tried to intervene he
was pushed to the wall. Anil Kumar came back at 7.00 AM. On the same
day i.e. August 24, 2005 he along with his father went to Mukund Pur where
they found the house was locked and the whereabouts of Gita, Jagdish,
Kuldeep and Ranjit were not known. They came back to their place. In the
morning on August 26, 2005 at 6.00 AM Jagdish's uncle Munesh called up
telling them that Jagdish had called from Aligarh and informed that Gita had
CRL.L.P. 202/2014 page 2 of 5
expired. On this he along with his elder brother Vinod and father left Delhi
and reached Aligarh. However, they did not find the dead body of Gita and
were informed that she was cremated at 8'o clock in the morning at the
cremation ground. Thus he reported the matter to the police.
3. During the course of trial though Anil Kumar PW-5 the complainant
supported the case of the prosecution with some variations, however his
father PW-4 Arjun Singh did not support the prosecution case and only
stated that one day prior to Raksha Bandhan Jagdish demanded `50,000/-.
This witness was cross-examined by the learned APP. In the cross-
examination this witness admitted that after the marriage of Gita they had no
complaints with the parents-in-law of Gita, Kuldeep and Ranjit. He also
admitted that father of Jagdish got purchased a 90 sq.yards plot for Jagdish
in Delhi where Jagdish and Gita used to reside. He further stated that
initially the couple i.e. Gita and her husband Jagdish lived happily in Delhi
but later on at the time of second issue tension developed between them.
Thus the version of Anil PW-5 is not supported by his father PW-4 Arjun
Singh.
4. As noted above the marriage between the parties was beyond seven
years and thus no offence under Section 304B IPC was made out. To prove
a charge under Section 302 IPC the onus lies on the prosecution to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died a homicidal death.
Recovery of corpus-delicti is not essential for proving a homicidal death,
however from other cogent evidence the prosecution is required to prove
that the deceased died a homicidal death which was caused by the accused.
In the present case there is no evidence of any kind whatsoever that the
CRL.L.P. 202/2014 page 3 of 5
deceased died a homicidal death. The marriage between the parties was
more than eight years old and as per the father of the deceased, the husband
and wife were living happily. They had three sons and a plot had been
purchased by the father-in-law of the deceased at Delhi so that they could
reside together. Though it is stated that at the instance of Jagdish his blood
stained shirt and vest and a rope were recovered, however the same are not
connected to the deceased. There is no evidence that the blood on the shirt
and vest of deceased and the rope was used to strangulate the deceased.
Merely because as per the version of Arjun Singh and Anil Kumar the
deceased was cremated before they reached, the same would not be
sufficient to presume that the deceased died a homicidal death.
5. The explanation of the respondents is that the deceased died due to
illness (suffering from appendicitis) which fact was in the knowledge of her
family. Her dead body was cremated at Aligarh in the presence of her
parents and other respected members of the locality and the relatives. The
respondents plead false implication with the intention to extort money. The
defence has examined five witnesses out of which four have stated that
Jagdish had reached Aligarh along with his father in law and two brothers in
law in a van with the dead body of Gita. It is also stated that around 70-80
persons were present at the time of cremation of the deceased. The defence
witnesses have also stated that inside the cremation ground complex there
was a police post. Thus in case there was a suspicion of the cause of death
of the deceased certainly the officers of the police post would have taken
some steps.
CRL.L.P. 202/2014 page 4 of 5
6. Considering the fact that the prosecution has not been able to prove
that the deceased died homicidal death much less the same was caused by
the respondents we find no reason to grant leave to appeal to the State.
7. Leave to appeal petition is dismissed.
8. TCR be returned back.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
AUGUST 28, 2014
'vn'
CRL.L.P. 202/2014 page 5 of 5
