Delhi High Court
Arun Lal vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 17 July, 2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 328/2012
Reserved on: 19th March, 2015
% Date of Decision: 17th July, 2015
ARUN LAL ....Appellant
Through Mr. J.S. Kushwaha, Advocate.
Versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ...Respondent
Through Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
Impugned judgment dated 21st December, 2011 convicts the
appellant Arun Lal for murder of Asha and Alka, his mother-in-law and
unmarried sister-in-law, in the evening on 2nd May 2008, with the motive
of stealing Rs.6 lacs, lying in an attaché inside a bed at the house of his
in-laws. The appellant by order on sentence dated 24th December, 2011,
stands sentenced to imprisonment for life with a direction that he would
not be released from prison till the rest of his life. Fine of Rs.10,000/- has
also been imposed.
2. The factum that the two deceased Asha and Alka had suffered a
homicidal death on 2nd May, 2008 in the evening in their residential house
J-1/180, DDA Flats, Kalkaji, Delhi has been proved and established
beyond doubt. Post-mortem report of Asha, aged 47 years marked Exhibit
PW-13/A, was proved by Dr. Sushil Sharma (PW-13). The post-mortem
on her dead body conducted on 3rd May, 2008 by Dr. Sushil Sharma (PW-
13), refers to anti-mortem injury in form of laceration 11 x 5.5 cm bone
deep on left temporal parietal region of the scalp, 5 cm medial to left
mastoid tip and 2 cm left from mid line associated with sub scalp
haematoma and fracture of underlining bone of the skull. The deceased
Asha had suffered five other laceration wounds on the occipital region,
right temporal parietal region, right front temporal region of the scalp,
bone deep at forehead above to medial end of right eyebrow, frontal
region of scalp, left forehead 1 cm above the end of the left eyebrow and a
fracture of right upper medial incisor tooth in addition to two abraded
contusions on the left forearm and arm. On internal examination, multiple
fracture injuries of the bone of the skull corresponding to the seven
lacerated wound injuries were found to be present. The cause of death
was opined as cranio-cerebral injury consequent upon blunt force impact
and injuries 1 to 7 were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of
nature individually as well as collectively.
3. Dr. Sushil Sharma (PW-13) also proved the post-mortem report of
Alka aged 28 years marked Exhibit PW-13/B, who had suffered ante-
mortem lacerated injuries five in number, in addition to one abraded
contusion 6cm x 4cm present on the upper half of the right cheek. On
internal examination, fracture injury at the left temporal parietal region of
the skull and fracture at the base of the skull were noticed and associated
with haematoma. The cause of death was ascertained to be cranio-
cerebral injury consequent upon blunt force object.
4. Dr. Sushil Sharma (PW-13) did depose in his cross-examination
that injuries 1 to 8 mentioned in Exhibit PW-13/A could have been caused
due to fall from height, but we do not think the said answer anyway
negates or affects the prosecution case, for there is no indication that the
deceased Asha had fallen from a height. Both Asha and Alka had similar
injuries on face and head caused by blunt force object. They have died
homicidal deaths. This is also lucid and apparent from the deposition of
Ms. Neha (PW-1), Ms. Bhawna (PW-3), Chandra Prakash Sawan (PW-2),
Beeta (PW-4), Durga Das (PW-5) and Gopal (PW-6).
5. The core or the primary contention, which arises for consideration,
is whether the appellant-Arun Lal had murdered Asha and Alka, i.e. his
mother-in-law and sister-in-law to steal the money. The prosecution relies
upon circumstantial evidence in the absence of eye witnesses to the
occurrence. Gopal (PW-6) and Hari Lal (PW-11) have deposed that they
had a house in Uttam Nagar, which was sold a week prior to the
occurrence for Rs.6,50,000/-. Hari Lal (PW-11) has testified that he, his
wife Asha and his daughter Alka knew about this payment. We shall
dwell on his testimony subsequently in detail. However, Gopal (PW-6)
on the said aspect is more forthright and categorical. Gopal (PW-6) has
testified that Rs.6,00,000/- in cash were kept in an attaché in the bed and
this fact was known to Hari Lal (Papa), Asha (Mummi), deceased Alka
(sister), the appellant-Arun Lal and PW-6. This cash was received on sale
of the house for Rs.6,50,000/-, out of which Rs.50,000/- was paid as an
advance. This amount of Rs.6 lacs was found to be missing and had been
stolen, though the attaché in which the money was kept was not removed.
Jewellery was not stolen. This attaché had been concealed inside the bed.
Bayana receipt dated 18th December, 2007 marked Exhibit PW-6/A and
the documents in form of General Power of Attorney, etc. dated 15th
March, 2008 marked Exhibit PW-6/B, agreement to sell and purchase
dated 15th March, 2008 marked Exhibit PW-6/C and affidavit dated 15th
March, 2008 marked Exhibit PW-6/D, possession letter dated 15th March,
2008 marked Exhibit PW-6/E, etc were proved by Gopal (PW6).
6. The appellant-Arun Lal was arrested after interrogation on 5th May,
2008 by Inspector Joginder Kumar (PW-30), who had also recorded his
disclosure statement marked Exhibit PW-28/A. Thereupon, Inspector
Joginder Kumar (PW-30) had recovered currency notes of Rs.500/- each
totaling Rs.5 lacs from a steel almirah in the appellant‟s house, located at
45/1116, DDA Flats, Kalkaji. Another amount of Rs.70,000/- was
recovered from one diaper box in the same house and seized vide seizure
memo Exhibit PW-28/D. The appellant had taken out a polythene bag of
pink colour containing a pant (blue jean) and a T-shirt (blue) marked
Ex.PW-28/1 and Ex.PW28/2 from beneath the bed lying in the same room
from where the currency notes were recovered. These were seized vide
seizure memo Exhibit PW-28/E. The recovery and seizure proceedings
were videographed by Constable Santosh Pathak (PW-20). On 6th May,
2008, undergarments worn by the appellant, which he had thrown in a
jungle opposite Majidia Hospital were recovered vide seizure memo
Exhibit PW-28/G. The undergarments consisted of an underwear marked
Exhibit PW-28/3 and a vest marked Exhibit PW-28/4. The appellant,
thereafter, on 8th May, 2008 made another disclosure statement marked
Ex.PW28/J, regarding concealment of the remaining money, that were
blood stained, in his sister‟s house at Sangam Vihar. A police team had
then proceeded to the appellant‟s sister‟s house at Sangam Vihar and
recovered a polythene pouch containing blood stained currency of
Rs.27,500/-, which was marked Exhibit PW-26/6. SIM card of the mobile
phone, which was being used by deceased Alka was also recovered. The
same was marked Exhibit PW-28/5.
7. We have gone through the testimonies of Joginder Kumar (PW-30)
and Head Constable Harish Chandra (PW-28) on the question of
recoveries made at the behest and upon disclosure statements made by the
appellant marked Ex.PW28/A and Ex.PW28/J and are inclined to accept
the same. The recoveries on 5th May, 2008 have also been corroborated
from the court deposition of Constable Santosh Pathak (PW-20), who had
also videographed the recoveries. The appellant in the video could be
seen taking out bundle of currency notes from the drawer and top of the
almirah. The appellant-Arun Lal could also be seen taking the police party
to the residence of the two deceased at J-1/180, DDA Flats, Kalkaji,
where the weapon of offence „sil-batta' was recovered from the kitchen
behind the gas cylinder, at the behest of the appellant. The said „sil and
batta' was marked Exhibit PW-20/C and 20/B respectively.
8. As noticed above, blood stains were found on the currency notes
worth Rs.27,500/- recovered from the residence of the appellant‟s sister at
Sangam Vihar. The FSL reports marked Exhibits PW-14/A and 14/B
gives serial number of the 55 notes and opines that human blood was
detected on the said currency notes. However, the blood group could not
be ascertained. The FSL report also confirms presence of human blood of
Group A and B on various articles, etc. which were found in the house
where the dead bodies of Asha and Alka were recovered. Human blood of
„B‟ group was detected on the bed sheet (Ex.PW27/C) and the piece of
cloth of the deceased Asha found at the place of occurrence as well as on
the clothes of the appellant Arun Lal, viz. his pants and undergarments
(Ex.PW28/G and Ex.PW28/E) recovered vide his disclosure statements.
Human blood of „A‟ group was detected on the clothes of the deceased
Alka. Thus, the prosecution has been successful in establishing the
motive behind the double murder and the substantial recoveries made after
the appellant Arun Lal was interrogated and made disclosure statements
Ex.PW28/A and Ex.PW28/J. The motive was to steal Rs 6,00,000 lying
in the house, a fact which was known to immediate family members and
unknown to the world at large. The manner in which the offence was
committed and the money was stolen, affirms that an insider who knew
that substantial amount of cash was lying in an attaché in the box bed, had
deliberately committed the offence. Recoveries and relationship of the
appellant Arun Lal, therefore, are vital and important links and
confirmation between the offence and the perpetrator.
9. This brings us to the testimony of Miss Neha (PW-1) who has
deposed about the presence of the appellant at the residence of the
deceased immediately before the crime in question was committed and
how and when the crime was detected. Miss Neha (PW-1) was about 15
years of age when her court testimony was recorded on 6 th April, 2009.
She identified the appellant as husband of Sunita, sister of Alka. PW-1
professed that she was friendly and extremely close to the deceased Alka.
On 2nd May, 2008, she had gone to the house of deceased Alka where the
appellant, who was identified by PW-1 as Arun Bhaiya and Alka didi‟s
mother were also present. Alka subsequently left the house for fetching
milk and PW-1 returned to her own residence. At that time, appellant-
Arun Lal and Asha were present in the house. In the evening, PW1
played badminton in the lane with another friend Bhawna (PW-3). PW1
had repeatedly called out to Alka to come down and join them, but Alka
had failed to respond. Thereupon, she (PW-1) and Bhawna (PW-3) had
gone to Alka‟s house and saw Alka and Asha drenched in blood. Alka‟s
body was lying in the first room and Asha‟s body was lying in the second
room. PW-1 and PW-3 came down and informed others. Information
was then communicated to Gopal (PW-6) and Hari Lal (PW-11). PW-1
was cross-examined and confronted with the statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C. marked Exhibit PW-1/DA in which it is not specifically recorded
that Asha and Arun were left alone in the house. However, when we read
Exhibit PW-1/DA, it is apparent that the appellant-Arun Lal, Asha and
Alka and Neha (PW-1) were initially present together in the flat/house No.
J-1/180, DDA Flats, Kalkaji, New Delhi. Thereafter, Alka had left to
fetch milk and Neha (PW-1) had left with her to go to her own house.
Thus, the deceased Asha and the appellant-Arun Lal were then present in
the house. Similarly, Exhibit PW-1/DA records that Neha (PW-1) was
playing with Bhawna (PW-3) in the street. It does not record that they
were playing badminton. This refinement in the Court deposition, to our
mind, does not make any difference.
10. Court testimony of Bhawna (PW-3) is almost similar and affirms
the later portion of PW1‟s deposition. She identified the appellant-Arun
Lal, who is married to Sunita. Bhawna (PW-3) was also about 15 years of
age when her deposition was recorded on 8th April, 2009. In the evening
on 2nd May, 2008, she (PW3) was playing with Neha (PW-1) and others in
the lane. Neha (PW-1) was unhappy that Alka had not joined them. Neha
(PW-1) had then proceeded to the house of Alka and when she returned,
she (PW1) was frightened and perplexed. Thereafter, Miss Bhawna (PW-
3) informed her father. Her father, on seeing the dead bodies, had
informed the police. Bhawna (PW-3) in her cross-examination had given
the time when PW-1, PW-3 and others were playing as 5 P.M., whereas
Neha (PW-1) in her cross-examination has given the time as 6 P.M. This
difference according to us is insignificant and does not dent the core of
their deposition. Recollecting exact time after some delay is virtually
impossible. Neha (PW-1) has categorically asserted that the deceased
Alka had gone to fetch milk at about 5 P.M. and at that time she (PW1)
had left for her house. Subsequently, she had played with Bhawna (PW-
3) and others, who used to play with them, but deceased Alka did not
come and play with them. Alka was not responding to the calls.
Thereupon, Neha (PW-1) had gone to the residence of Alka and had seen
the dead bodies and informed others.
11. Chandra Prakash Sawan (PW-2), a neighbour and father of Neha
(PW1), has identified the appellant, who was known to him as the son-in-
law of Hari Lal (PW-11). He was also a resident of the same area. On 2nd
May, 2008, he had returned from school at about 5/5.30 P.M. After taking
bath, he had a cup of tea. He then went upstairs to a room to study as he
was preparing for examination. At about 8/8.30 P.M., his daughter Neha
(PW-1) had come upstairs and informed him that somebody had murdered
Alka. He went downstairs and could see that a large number of persons
had gathered. He was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor as he was
not entirely supporting his statement under Section 161 CrPC. When
confronted with his statement Exhibit PW-2/A (portion A to A), he denied
as incorrect that on 2nd May, 2008 at about 5.30 or 5.40 P.M. he had seen
appellant-Arun Lal coming from the house of Alka.
12. Beeta (PW-4), sister of Miss Neha (PW-1), has deposed that Neha
(PW1) was very close to the deceased Alka. Neha (PW1) used to visit
Alka‟s house and they used to play together. On 2nd May, 2008, at about
8 P.M. in the evening, Neha (PW1) and Bhawna (PW3) were playing in
the street. Neha had called out to Alka to come and play with them, but
there was no response. Neha had then gone upstairs to call Alka and over
there, she had seen the dead body of Alka. She returned home and
informed everyone. Beeta (PW-4) had thereupon informed the appellant-
Arun Lal and Gopal (PW-6). PW4, in her cross-examination, has testified
that the appellant-Arun Lal was not present when she had gone down
stairs and Gopal (PW-6) had reached there. Appellant-Arun Lal had
reached after about 20-25 minutes.
13. Similar statement has been made by Durga Das (PW-5), father of
Bhawna, who had at about 8 P.M., learnt that Alka had been killed. He
had seen dead body of Alka in the first room and the dead body of Asha,
on the floor in the second room. He had then made a call to the police.
He had also made a call to the police from the mobile phone of the
appellant-Arun Lal. Hari Lal (PW-11) had informed him that they had
kept the sale proceeds of the plot at Uttam Nagar, Rs.6 lacs in cash, in an
attaché in the bed. He had joined Hari Lal (PW-11) in ascertaining
whether the money was still there. Rs 6,00,000 were missing. No doubt,
Durga Das (PW-5) has stated that Gopal (PW-6) and the appellant-Arun
Lal had come together, but this statement does not dent or merit rejection
of the prosecution case. We accept the prosecution version that Gopal
(PW6) and the appellant Arun Lal came separately and the appellant Arun
Lal had reached the place of occurrence subsequently as deposed by Beeta
(PW4) and even Gopal (PW6).
14. Gopal (PW-6) has stated that on 2nd May, 2008, at 8:00 or 8:06
P.M., when he was in office he had received a telephone call from Beeta
(PW-4), regarding murder of Alka and Asha. He reached his residence
and went upstairs and entered the flat. He saw dead body of his sister
Alka lying in the front room and dead body of his mother was lying on the
floor in the second room, next to the kitchen. The police had made
enquiries from him and he had informed the police about receipt of
Rs.6,50,000/- as sale consideration, out of which Rs 6 lacs were lying in
the house. On 9th June, 2008, PW6 had moved an application before the
Metropolitan Magistrate for release of Rs.6 lacs, marked Ex.PW-6/G. The
court had then ordered for the release of Rs.5,70,000/-. He identified the
photographs of the currency notes, which were then taken and marked
Exhibit PW-6/H 1 to H 191. He also identified the fifty-five currency
notes, which were duly sealed with the seal of FSL. The said currency
notes had brown colour stains. PW-6 could not identify and clearly state
whether the currency notes were the same, which had been taken by the
appellant and clarified that the notes which were kept in the attaché were
of Rs500/- denomination each.
15. Hari Lal (PW-11), father-in-law of the appellant, deposed in the
Court on 22nd April, 2009. He was brought from the Holy Family
Hospital where he was admitted and was to be re-admitted. His wife Asha
and his daughter Alka, he deposed had expired 13-14 months back. His
daughter Sunita was married to the appellant-Arun Lal and they had two
children. Arun Lal was facing trial as an accused and was present in the
court. PW11 did not remember the date, month or the year of the incident
but could recollect the „barsi' of his wife and daughter. On 2nd May, 2008,
when PW-11 returned home from place of work at about 8.30 P.M., he
noticed that a number of persons had gathered on the road and he had then
made enquiries, but claimed that he (PW-11) did not go upstairs. After
about 15-20 minutes, police came to his house and took away the dead
bodies. He denied the suggestion that the police had made inquiries from
him. He even claimed that nothing was missing from his house and that
the appellant Arun Lal had asked for money from the deceased Alka.
PW11 was then asked a court question as to why the appellant Arun Lal
had asked for money from Alka. He replied that his son-in-law had taken
Rs.50,000/- from Alka for purchase of a Maruti Van. It is obvious that
Hari Lal (PW11) was not able to specifically answer the said question.
PW11 has contradicted himself on several occasions on the time when he
had returned home from work as on one occasion PW-11 had claimed that
as he was suffering from fever and had returned from duty at about 3-4
P.M. and at that time, the deceased Alka had told him that Arun Lal had
taken money from her. Again on court questioning, PW-11 claimed that
he had remained at home and had asked for medicine. When cross-
examined by the Public Prosecutor, he (PW-11) accepted as correct the
suggestion that he had left the factory at 8 P.M. on 2nd May, 2008 and had
reached home at 8.30 P.M. On return, PW11 had seen that his son Gopal
(PW-6) was weeping and was told by PW6 that his mother and sister had
been murdered. PW-11 was specifically confronted and questioned on his
earlier statement that he (PW11) had returned at 3-4 P.M. and did he hear
anything in the house. PW11, when confronted with his contradictory
statements, professed that he had slept after taking a quilt and had got up
at 6 P.M. in the evening. After waking up, PW11 had prepared tea for
himself and no other person was present in the house as his daughter had
gone to fetch milk. On being cross-examined by the public prosecutor
about the time when the murder was committed, he (PW11) replied "ye to
panch che din pehle ki baat hai" (This is an occurrence, which had taken
place about 5-6 days back). On his attention being again drawn to
different versions, PW-11 first claimed that he was at home but relented
on sustained cross-examination. PW-11 accepted that Rs.5,70,000/- and
Rs.27,500/- were recovered from Arun Lal and that the currency notes of
Rs.27,500/- had blood stains. He could not tell any reason as to why his
son Gopal (PW-6) had got Rs.5,70,000/- released from the court. PW11
finally accepted as correct that Rs.6 lacs kept in the attaché were missing.
Rs.6 lacs were in currency notes of Rs.500/- each. He accepted as correct
the suggestion that his wife Asha and daughter Alka were murdered on 2nd
May, 2008 and that he had come back home at 8 P.M. and not at 3/4 P.M.
16. Contradictions and oscillations in the testimony of Hari Lal (PW-
11) reflect his predicament and dilemma. Hari Lal (PW-11) had lost his
wife and unmarried daughter in a brutal murder committed for stealing
money. He was under an oath and righteously obligated to speak the truth
for the perpetrator should be punished. However, perceived pain, misery
and desolation which his married daughter and her children would
undergo, if the appellant Arun Lal was convicted and imprisoned, had
distorted and contorted his statement. Thus, we find that Hari Lal (PW-11)
repeatedly curvated and had tried to conceal true facts. Hari Lal (PW-11),
himself had suffered immensely and was distressed and hospitalized. We
have, therefore, scrutinized and minutely examined the deposition of Hari
Lal (PW-11) and accepted the portion, which we hold is the correct
version and disbelieved the portion, which according to us, was factually
incorrect and made only to help his son-in-law, the appellant-Arun Lal.
17. What has been stated and observed about Hari Lal (PW-11), is
partially true and equally applicable to the testimony of Gopal (PW-6). In
order to help and exonerate his brother-in-law, i.e., the appellant-Arun
Lal, Gopal (PW-6) has tried to negate and contradict the testimony of
Neha (PW-1). Gopal (PW-6), in his examination-in-chief, has stated that
he had returned to his office from Okhla at about 4.45 P.M. and feeling
hungry, he went to the appellant Arun Lal‟s residence to take the keys of
his motorcycle. At about 5.10 P.M., they had then proceeded to
Alakananda market where they had pakoras and cold drinks. They had
remained there for 30-45 minutes. Gopal (PW-6) had left Arun Lal at
Alakananda and proceeded to an office located in Greater Kailash, Part-II.
On the way, the appellant Arun Lal had called PW-6 from the mobile
phone of his sister (deceased Alka), which PW6 disconnected and had
made a return call. At that time, PW6 had spoken to the appellant Arun
Lal on his sister‟s (deceased Alka‟s) mobile phone. The appellant Arun
Lal had asked PW6 whether he could accompany him to his sister
(Geeta‟s) house at Sangam Vihar. Gopal (PW-6) had then politely
refused. Surprisingly, Gopal (PW-6) claimed that the appellant Arun Lal
had asked him to give his bike and he (PW6) had handed over the keys of
his bike to Arun Lal and thereafter, left for his office. Contradictions and
pretence in the said statement is apparent and written all over. In the first
part of the statement, Gopal (PW-6) claims that he had left the appellant
Arun Lal at Alakananda and driven to Greater Kailash, Part-II. PW6
could not have given his bike to the appellant Arun Lal until and unless
PW6 had returned to his own or the appellant‟s house. No such claim or
statement is made. If PW6 had returned, then how and when Gopal
(PW6) left for work thereafter is not averred and stated. Gopal (PW6)
was not certainly present in his house, at about 7.30/8.00 P.M. on 2nd May,
2008. This discrepancy and contrariety can be attributed to the attempt by
PW-6 to establish that the appellant-Arun Lal was with him between 5 to
5:30 PM. The phone call at 5.45 P.M. has been examined below.
18. Gopal (PW-6), as noticed above, has stated that he had received a
call from Alka‟s phone, which he had disconnected and then made a
return call and had spoken to the appellant-Arun Lal. The said statement
was made in the examination-in-chief recorded on 13th April, 2009. In the
cross-examination on 16th April, 2009, in order to exculpate the appellant-
Arun Lal, Gopal (PW-6) had claimed that he had spoken to his sister Alka
at 5.50 P.M., who had stated that she had come to purchase milk and he
(PW-6) could speak to jijaji (brother-in-law), i.e., the appellant Arun Lal.
PW6 claimed that he had then spoken to the appellant Arun Lal. The
contrast and contradiction in the two versions is manifest and the only
reason for the same, as we perceive, is PW6‟s vain effort to absolve and
relieve the appellant-Arun Lal. In his cross-examination on 16th April,
2009, Gopal (PW-6) had tried to improve upon the version given by him
in his examination-in-chief recorded on 13th April, 2009, asserting that at
about 5.05 P.M., he had returned to Arun Lal‟s house on the company‟s
bike, stayed there for 5-10 minutes and then both of them had driven to
Alakananda market on two separate bikes with Arun Lal driving his bike
and Gopal (PW-6) driving the office bike. Thereafter, they reached the
factory and Gopal (PW-6) had parked the office bike in the factory
compound and both of them had then driven on his personal motorcycle to
Alakananda. They reached Alakananda at 5.20 P.M. and then, the
appellant-Arun Lal got dropped off. This statement in the cross-
examination on 16th April, 2009 contradicts the earlier statement of Gopal
(PW-6) recorded in his examination-in-chief on 13th April, 2009 as per
which they had gone to Alakhnanda to eat pakoras, etc. on his own bike
and not on the office motorcycle.
19. We express our unhappiness and displeasure on the failure of the
prosecution and the Public Prosecutor in not understanding the adroitness
in the statement of Gopal (PW-6) with reference to his movement and
interaction with the appellant-Arun Lal after 5 P.M. The version given by
Gopal (PW-6) was completely contrary to the testimony of Neha (PW-1)
and was intended to undermine her testimony. Neha (PW-1), a child, who
was oblivious of the deleterious consequences, has spoken the truth. It is
apparent that the version and statement of Gopal (PW-6) was a concave
and honey-combed attempt to derail and thwart the prosecution case. The
appellant could well have succeeded as no endeavor was made by the
prosecution or the public prosecutor to refer to the testimony of Neha
(PW-1) and the version given by Gopal (PW-6) in his statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., which was not confronted and put to Gopal (PW-6).
We have not referred to and relied upon the purported statement of Gopal
(PW-6) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. We have referred to his
version as to the events after 5 P.M. on 2nd May, 2008, in his testimony
recorded on 13th April, 2009 and 16th April, 2009. We would reject the
version given by Gopal (PW-6) about his visit to the residence of the
appellant Arun Lal at about 5 P.M. on 2nd May, 2008, their visit to the
market as an unbelievable and foxy attempt to undermine and derelict the
prosecution case.
20. We accept that Gopal (PW6) had made a mobile call from his
mobile number to the mobile number of the deceased Alka at about 5.45 -
5.50 PM on 2nd May 2008. We, however, do not accept the statement
made by Gopal (PW6) on 16th April, 2009 that he had first spoken to Alka
and then to the appellant Arun Lal. Pertinently, Gopal (PW6) in his
earlier deposition, recorded on 13th April, 2009, had averred that he had
spoken to the appellant Arun Lal on his sister‟s (Alka‟s) mobile phone at
about 5.45 - 5.50 PM. This version appears to be correct. Gopal (PW6)
was then informed by the appellant Arun Lal that he would be going to his
sister‟s (Geeta‟s) house. Noticeably, the sim card which the deceased
Alka was using bearing the number 9958825435 was recovered pursuant
to the arrest of the appellant Arun Lal and his disclosure statement (Ex.
PW28/J).
21. The appellant Arun Lal in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
in response to question Nos. 14 and 17, has accepted that Rs.6 lacs kept in
the attaché in the bed were found missing upon inspection by Durga Das
(PW-5) and Hari Ram (PW-11) and as deposed by Gopal (PW-6). He also
accepted as correct that Rs.6 lacs were kept in the attaché and this fact
was known to the deceased Asha and Alka, Hari Ram (PW-11), Gopal
(PW-6) and the appellant. On the question of recovery of Rs.5,70,000/- at
his instance and the video CD, he claimed that the money was already
with him as it was given by his father-in-law Hari Ram (PW-11) as a loan
to help him purchase a Maruti Van for livelihood. He had handed over
the money to the police. He was tortured and the police had first put the
money in the almirah and the packets, before the recovery was effected
and videographed. The appellant has denied recovery of Rs.27,500/- and
the sim card from his sister‟s house at Sangam Vihar. He had Rs.35,100/-
in his wallet when he reached the place of occurrence after the crime and
during his stay in the police station, he was beaten up and this money was
taken away (see response to question No. 52). With regard to blood on his
clothes, it was stated that the appellant had removed the dead bodies and,
therefore, blood stains were found.
22. Assertion of the appellant-Arun Lal that he was given a loan of Rs.6
lacs by his father-in-law Hari Ram (PW-11) is a false and invented
proclamation. It is also contrary to his response to question Nos. 14 and
17 that Rs.6 lacs kept in the attaché in the bed were missing. The
aforesaid contradiction falsifies and refutes the appellant‟s clamour that
Rs.5,96,250/- were planted. It is noticeable that Rs.5,70,000/- were
released on superdari on a claim made by Gopal (PW-6) for release of the
entire amount. Recovery of Rs.27,500/-, which were blood-stained and
the sim card from the house of the appellant‟s sister should be accepted.
The apologia professed by the appellant is disjointed and incoherent. The
impugned judgment notices the different stands of the appellant in his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
23. We have intentionally not referred to the call details and cell tower
location details, aspects which have been examined in some detail in the
impugned judgment. At best, the said evidence would be supportive and
of reassuring nature. The impugned judgment records that the office of
Gopal (PW6) was very near to the place of occurrence i.e. his residence.
We would prefer to rely upon the ocular evidence and the recoveries.
24. Having examined the evidence and material mentioned above, we
are of the firm view and belief that the appellant was the perpetrator of the
crime in question and no third person has committed the same. The chain
of circumstances is complete and the case has been proved beyond
reasonable doubt. The aforesaid evidence reveals and establishes the
following facts:
A. The deceased Asha and Alka had suffered homicidal deaths on
2nd May, 2008, between 5 - 8 PM, in their residential home
located at J-1/180 DDA Flats, Kalkaji, Delhi.
B. The dead body of Asha was found lying on the floor in the inner
room, whereas the dead body of Alka was found lying on the
floor in the outer room. The two deceased, it is apparent, were
not attacked simultaneously.
C. Both Alka and Asha had died due to laceration wounds on the
skull resulting in scalp injury. The injuries were caused by blunt
force impact.
D. The appellant Arun Lal is son-in-law of Asha and brother-in-law
of Alka. He is married to Sunita, sister of the deceased Alka.
E. The appellant Arun Lal was seen in the company of Asha, Alka
by Neha (PW1) at 5 PM. Alka had then gone to the market to
purchase milk and Neha (PW1) had proceeded to her residence
in the neighbourhood. The appellant Arun Lal and the deceased
Asha were in the house at that time.
F. Alka subsequently did not come and play with Neha (PW1) and
at about 8.00 PM, Neha (PW1) had noticed her dead body in the
house.
G. Beeta (PW6), sister of Neha (PW1), has also deposed on the said
aspect. She has testified that she had informed the appellant
Arun Lal and Gopal (PW6) about the death of Asha and Alka.
H. Chandra Prakash Sawan (PW2) and Bhawna (PW3) have
deposed similarly.
I. Durga Dass (PW5), father of Bhawna, has deposed on identical
lines. PW5 has also testified that Hari Lal (PW11) had informed
him that they had kept Rs.6,00,000/-, being the sale proceeds of
a plot at Uttam Nagar, in an attaché inside the bed. PW5 along
with PW11 had checked and found that the money was missing.
Rs.6,00,000 had been stolen.
J. Hari Lal (PW11), father in law of the appellant, has deposed and
accepted that he came back from work at 8.00 PM and came to
know that his wife and daughter, namely Asha and Alka, had
been murdered. Rs.6,00,000/- lying in an attaché in the bed
were missing.
K. Gopal (PW6) has also categorically stated that Rs.6,00,000/-
kept in the attaché were missing.
L. Deposition of Hari Lal (PW11) and Gopal (PW6) shows that the
factum that Rs.6,00,000/- were lying in an attaché in the flat
No. J-1/180, DDA Flats, Kalkaji was known only to close family
members. Crime team report indicates that the crime was
committed for stealing the aforesaid amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, a
fact which was known to the person who had committed the
offence. Evidence did not indicate unfriendly or forced entry in
the flat.
M. The appellant Arun Lal was interrogated and subsequently made
the disclosure statements (Ex. PW28/A and J). Thereafter
Rs.5,70,000/- were recovered from the appellant‟s house located
at 45/116 DDA Flats, Kalkaji, Delhi and Rs.27,500/-, which
were blood stained, were recovered from the residence of his
sister‟s house at Sangam Vihar. The sim card being used by
Alka was also recovered.
N. CFSL reports (Ex. PW14/A & B) confirms the presence of
human blood on currency notes, 55 in number, which were
recovered from the residence of appellant‟s sister at Sangam
Vihar. However, the blood group could not be ascertained. The
reports also confirm presence of human blood of „B‟ group on
the bed sheet seized from the room where the body of deceased
Asha was lying (Ex.PW27/C), on a piece of cloth of the
deceased Asha found at the place where her dead body was lying
as well as on the clothes of the appellant Arun Lal, viz. his pants
and undergarments (Ex.PW28/G and Ex.PW28/E) recovered
vide his disclosure statements.
25. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons set out
above, we uphold the conviction of the appellant Arun Lal for having
committed the murder of Asha and Alka, his mother-in-law and sister-in-
law respectively.
26. On the question of sentence, as noticed by us, in paragraph 1
above, the appellant Arun Lal stands sentenced to imprisonment for life
with the direction that he would not be released for the rest of his life.
The double murders of close family members are gruesome and were
perpetrated solely to steal money. The appellant had stolen Rs.6,00,000/-
and this was the motive behind the crime. We have also commented upon
the grief and the suffering of the family members of the deceased which
includes the wife of the appellant Arun Lal. The appellant has two
children who are also the grand-children of the deceased Asha. Keeping
in view the aforesaid facts, we direct that the appellant will undergo
imprisonment for life with the direction that he would not be considered
for release on remission till he completes 25 years of imprisonment.
Thus, we have modified the condition that the appellant would not be
considered for release on remission during his life time. We hope and
trust that the appellant Arun Lal would realize the dreadful crime
committed by him and repent the murder of his mother-in-law and sister-
in-law who were the helpless victims of his brutality.
27. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(SANJIV KHANNA)
JUDGE
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR)
JUDGE
JULY 17, 2015
VKR
