Delhi High Court
Vidhya Bhushan @ Shashi Bhushan vs State on 9 September, 2022
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 23rd May, 2022
Pronounced on: 9th September,2022
+ CRL.A. 740/2018
VIDHYA BHUSHAN @ SHASHI BHUSHAN .... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. Adit S. Pujari, Mr.
Maitreya Subramaniam & Mr.
Chaitanya Sundriyal, Advocates
versus
STATE ....Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP,
for State with Inspector,
Ashuthosh, PS Aman Vihar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
JUDGMENT
MINI PUSHKARNA, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated
21.03.2018 and order on sentence dated 28.03.2018 passed by the
learned ASJ-02, North Rohini Courts, Delhi in SC No. 57949/2016,
arising out of FIR No. 169/2011 under Section 302 IPC and 25/27
Arms Act, registered at Police Station Aman Vihar, Delhi. The
appellant has been convicted to rigorous imprisonment for life under
Section 302 IPC and a fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine,
he has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.
The appellant has further been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN
Signing Date:09.09.2022
17:26:55
2 years and a fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 25(1B)(a) Arms Act. In
default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to undergo
simple imprisonment for 2 months. He has further been sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs.3,000/-
under Section 27(1) of Arms Act, in default whereof he has been
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. All the
sentences have been directed to run concurrently by the Sessions
Court. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. has also been given to the
appellant.
2. Brief facts, as stated in the charge sheet are that on receipt of
DD on 05.06.2011, the S.I. on duty, Mahavir Singh along with two
constables reached the spot of incident, i.e., DDA ground, Prem
Nagar-3. On the spot there was a pandaal of puja and on the stage
near the right side of pandaal, blood was lying, and on the curtain on
the right side, there was a hole of bullet. On inquiries, it was revealed
that one Jyoti Prakash @ Jai Prakash @ J.P. (deceased) had received
bullet injury and that he had been taken to hospital.
3. Thereafter S.I. Mahavir Singh reached the hospital and came to
know that the injured had died during treatment. He recorded the
statement of father of the deceased, PW-3 who stated that his son, the
deceased, was residing in Prem Nagar - 3 along with his wife, Rinku
@ Lali. The deceased was holding a yagya from 30.05.2011, which
was to continue till 07.06.2011. The yagya was being carried out at
DDA ground, near Sukhi Nehar, Prem Nagar - 3. On the date of the
incident i.e. 05.06.2011, like every day, the yagya started at around
4:30 - 5:00 PM, in which many persons of the locality and their
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN
Signing Date:09.09.2022
17:26:55
known joined. At around 7:45 PM after the Aarti finished, the
deceased went to the stage to help Maharaj ji come down from the
aasan and was alighting from the stairs of the stage, when somebody
fired from behind the curtain which struck him on his back, and he fell
down. When PW-3 peeped through the Shamiyana, he saw one young
person having rucksack on his back and having a pistol in his hand.
He was running from the back of the Shamiyana and two - three
persons from the yagya also ran after him. The said person looked
back after running for some distance, and thereafter he ran away into a
gali.
4. On the statement of father of the deceased, FIR was registered
under Section 302 IPC. On 21.06.2011, on receipt of secret
information S.I. Sumit Kumar along with the police party reached the
native place of the accused/appellant Vidhya Bhushan @ Shashi
Bhushan @ Guddu and he was arrested from his native place. He also
made a disclosure statement after his arrest. He was brought to Delhi
and an application for TIP was moved, which he refused. Thereafter,
his police custody remand was obtained, during which the accused got
recovered from village pond of Mubarakpur Dabas, one plastic
polythene, which contained one Katta and one live cartridge and one
empty cartridge, which were seized.
5. After completion of investigation, charges under Sections 302
IPC and 25/27 Arms Act were framed against the appellant, to which
he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. The prosecution examined 31 witnesses. The learned Trial
Court by the impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN
Signing Date:09.09.2022
17:26:55
the appellant as stated hereinabove. Hence the present appeal on
behalf of the appellant.
7. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
strenuously argued that the deposition of prosecution witnesses was
riddled with inconsistencies. Mere existence of motive with the
appellant cannot form the basis of conviction. The investigation in the
present case was defective. Police has failed to investigate the role of
PW-25 and PW-8 in the death of the deceased. He also disputed the
alleged identification of appellant at the police station on 28.06.2011.
8. On the other hand, learned APP for the State justified the
impugned judgment and sentence.
9. Written submissions have been filed on behalf of both the
parties, which have been perused along with the entire record of the
case.
10. The prosecution case hinges upon direct testimony of cousin
brother of the deceased, PW-10, Sandeep, who was 15 years of age at
the time of the incident and 17 years at the time of his deposition. He
has largely corroborated the version of the incident on the day of
firing at the deceased, as given by father of the deceased, PW-3. PW-
10 has stated in his deposition that Ram Katha was going on in DDA
ground, Prem Nagar, which had been organised by the deceased. On
05.06.2011, at about 4:30 to 5 PM katha started in which the deceased
along with other family members and other persons from the locality
were present. After the katha at about 7:45 PM and after the aarti, the
deceased went to the stage to Maharaj Ji to help him in getting down
from the aasan (gaddi). The deceased was helping Maharaj Ji to bring
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN
Signing Date:09.09.2022
17:26:55
him down from the stairs, when someone fired from behind the
curtains of Shamiyana. The deceased had his backside towards the
curtains of the Shamiyana at the time when he was fired at. The bullet
hit the deceased on his waist and passed from his chest and he fell
down. PW-10 immediately came out of the Shamiyana to look out as
to who had fired at the deceased. He saw the accused, appellant
herein, carrying pitthu bag on his back and a pistol in his right hand
and was running. He chased the appellant, along with two more
persons. At the corner of the road, when PW-10 was chasing the
appellant, he looked back and PW-10 saw his face. Thereafter, the
appellant ran away. He immediately returned back to the Shamiyana
where he found the deceased in a pool of blood, whereafter he was
taken to hospital. PW-10 also correctly identified the appellant in the
court at the time of his deposition. The said witness PW-10 remained
consistent and steadfast during his cross-examination as well.
11. The learned Trial Court has relied upon the deposition of PW-
10, while rejecting the deposition of PW-3 to the extent that the Trial
Court did not find it plausible that PW-3 had also ran after the
assailant after the incident of firing. On the other hand, the fact of
PW-10 running after the assailant of the deceased was also
corroborated by PW-25, who had stated clearly in her cross-
examination that it was only PW-10, her brother-in-law, who had
chased the assailant.
12. As regards the identity of the accused, PW-10 had categorically
stated in his cross-examination that there was temporary arrangement
of light in the puja. Similarly the Investigation Officer, S.I. Mahavir
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN
Signing Date:09.09.2022
17:26:55
Singh, PW-27 who had gone to the spot for conducting initial
investigations, also stated in his cross-examination that there were
arrangements of light in the ground. Similarly, PW-21, Inspector
Manohar Lal, the draftsman who had prepared the scaled site plan by
visiting the spot, Ex.PW21/A, has shown high power electric pole and
flood light pole in the said site plan. Perusal of the deposition of PW-
21 and scaled site plan, Ex.PW21/A clearly show that there was
sufficient illumination at the ground and PW-10 had sufficient light to
see the assailant while chasing him when he was running away from
the spot after firing at the deceased.
13. PW-10 during his deposition has clearly stated that on
28.06.2011, he along with PW-3, father of the deceased, reached at
police station Aman Vihar to enquire about the status of the case. In
the police station they observed that senior officer Inspector Anil was
making inquiries from the accused. He identified the accused and
informed the I.O. that the accused had fired on his deceased cousin.
The accused had disclosed his name as Vidhya Bhushan @ Shashi
Bhushan @ Guddu.
14. It is pertinent to note here that the appellant had refused to
undergo TIP on 25.06.2011. The contention raised on behalf of
counsel for the appellant that the accused had refused TIP, as he had
been shown to the witnesses in the police station, is totally flawed in
view of the facts/documents on record. It has clearly come on record
that the I.O. moved the application seeking conduct of TIP on
22.06.2011. The TIP was scheduled for 23.06.2011, on which date the
TIP proceedings could not take place due to paucity of time. The TIP
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN
Signing Date:09.09.2022
17:26:55
proceedings came to be held on 25.06.2011, when the accused refused
to join the TIP proceedings on the ground that the witnesses had met
him outside the main gate of the jail along with the I.O. However, this
objection raised by the appellant is not found to be tenable since in the
deposition of the I.O. it has clearly come on record that police custody
remand of the accused was obtained for three days only on
27.06.2011. Thus, the appellant was not in police custody before
27.06.2011. It has also come on record that PW-3 and PW-10 have
stated that when they went to the police station for finding out the
progress of their case on 28.06.2011, they saw the accused in the
police station. It was then that PW-3 and PW-10 had informed the
police that the accused was the same person who had been seen by
them escaping after the incident of firing from the Shamiyana. Though
deposition of PW-3 regarding his running after the assailant has been
rejected by the learned Trial Court, the veracity of the deposition of
PW-10 has been established. Thus, the refusal of the TIP by the
appellant on 25.06.2011 goes against the accused.
15. The weapon of offence was also duly recovered upon the
disclosure of the appellant. In this regard testimony of PW-31,
Inspector Anil Kumar, Investigating Officer is relevant, material
portion of which is reproduced as under:
"..............
As per the disclosure of the accused, he further led
the police team to pond of Mubarkpur village and he
pointed out a place and told us that he had thrown
the weapon of offence in the said pond. I requested
the passersby to join the investigation and one
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN
Signing Date:09.09.2022
17:26:55
Braham Pal S/o Nawab Singh agreed to join the
investigation. Accused alongwith Ct. Haider
Mehandi went inside the pond. After the search,
accused traced one white colour polythene which
was tied up. Same was opened and checked and
found one country made pistol alongwith one live
cartridge in a black colour cloth bag. On checking
the country made pistol, one fired cartridge was
recovered inside the chamber of the country made
pistol.
I prepared the sketch of country made pistol
alongwith live cartridge and fired cartridge which is
already Ex. PW16/A bears my signatures at point B.
The said weapons and ammunition were converted
into a pulanda after same was measured and sealed
with the seal of AKG. FSL form was filled. Pulanda
was taken into possession vide seizure memo already
Ex. PW16/B which bears my signatures at point B."
16. Further as per PW-26, S.I. Sumit Kumar, he had gone to the
native place of the appellant from Delhi on 18.06.2011, and had
arrested the appellant on 21.06.2011 from his house, near Deen Dayal
Singh Ka Tola, in village Rupas, District Patna, Bihar, vide Arrest
Memo Ex.PW18/A. As per his deposition, the appellant was brought
to Delhi in muffled face. Since the appellant had refused to undergo
TIP on 25.06.2011, his police custody remand was obtained on
27.06.2011. Thereafter, the appellant along with other police team and
father of the deceased reached the place of incident and the appellant
got recovered a black color bag wrapped in a polythene from inside
the pond. The polythene and black color bag were opened and were
found to contain one country made pistol and a live cartridge and one
empty cartridge, which was found lodged inside the pistol. At the time
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN
Signing Date:09.09.2022
17:26:55
of recovery, one public person Brahm Pal was also present.
17. The testimonies of PW-26 and PW-31 with regard to recovery
of the weapon of offence, was corroborated with the testimony of
PW-16 Brahm Pal, the independent public witness. As recorded by the
learned Trial Court, nothing has come out in his cross-examination
which could impinge the recovery of the said weapon along with
cartridges.
18. In view of the aforesaid testimonies, the contention raised by
the counsel for the appellant raising suspicion on the recovery of the
weapon of crime, is found to be without any merit. Perusal of the
record shows that I.O., Inspector Anil Kumar, PW-31 during his
testimony in the court identified the country made pistol, one live
cartridge and one empty cartridge, which were recovered at the
instance of the appellant. The same were exhibited as P-1 & P-2
respectively. Similarly, PW-10, Sandeep had also identified the said
pistol which the appellant was carrying in his hand at the time of
running away after firing at the deceased. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, the recovery of the weapon has been proved beyond any
shadow of doubt by the prosecution.
19. In the case of Geejaganda Somaih Vs. State of Karnataka,
(2007) 9 SCC 315, Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"21. Section 25 of the Evidence Act mandates that
no confession made to a police officer shall be
proved as against a person accused of an offence.
Similarly Section 26 of the Evidence Act provides
that confession by the accused person while in
custody of police cannot be proved against him.
However, to the aforesaid rule of Sections 25 to 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN
Signing Date:09.09.2022
17:26:55
of the Evidence Act, there is an exception carved out
by Section 27 of the Evidence Act providing that
when any fact is deposed to as discovered in
consequence of information received from a person
accused of any offence, in the custody of a police
officer, so much of such information, whether it
amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly
to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.
Section 27 is a proviso to Sections 25 and 26. Such
statements are generally termed as disclosure
statements leading to the discovery of facts which
are presumably in the exclusive knowledge of the
maker. Section 27 appears to be based on the view
that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of
information given, some guarantee is afforded
thereby that the information was true and
accordingly it can be safely allowed to be given in
evidence."
20. Reference may also be made to the case of State of Himachal
Pradesh Vs. Jeet Singh, (1999) 4 SCC 370, wherein Hon‟ble Supreme
Court has held as under:
"26. There is nothing in Section 27 of the Evidence
Act which renders the statement of the accused
inadmissible if recovery of the articles was made
from any place which is "open or accessible to
others". It is a fallacious notion that when recovery
of any incriminating article was made from a place
which is open or accessible to others, it would
vitiate the evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence
Act. Any object can be concealed in places which
are open or accessible to others. For example, if the
article is buried in the main roadside or if it is
concealed beneath dry leaves lying on public places
or kept hidden in a public office, the article would
remain out of the visibility of others in normal
circumstances. Until such article is disinterred, its
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN
Signing Date:09.09.2022
17:26:55
hidden state would remain unhampered. The person
who hid it alone knows where it is until he discloses
that fact to any other person. Hence, the crucial
question is not whether the place was accessible to
others or not but whether it was ordinarily visible to
others. If it is not, then it is immaterial that the
concealed place is accessible to others."
21. The recovered weapon, country made pistol of .315 bore
marked as F-1, was sent to FSL, Ballistics Division along with one 8
mm/.315 cartridge, which was live, marked as A-1. One 8 mm/.315
cartridge case marked as Ex.EC-1, which was found lodged in the said
weapon itself at the time of recovery, was also sent. One pink colored
tent curtain marked Ex.T1 having one suspected hole marked as H1
was also sent.
22. As per Ex. PW-5/D, the following were sent for forensic
examination:-
(i) Ex. 1-1: One sealed plastic container containing blood stained
bullet lead seized from the scene of crime.
(ii) Ex. 1-2: One sealed cloth pullanda containing country made
pistol and one used empty cartridge.
(iii) Ex. 1-3: One sealed cloth pullanda containing tent curtain
having gunshot hole duly sealed.
23. After detailed examination, the Ballistics Division of Forensic
Science Laboratory, Government of NCT of Delhi submitted its
examination report. As per the FSL Report, Ex. PX-II, following
opinions were given:
"...............
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN
Signing Date:09.09.2022
17:26:55
(4) The individual characteristics of firing pin
marks and breech face marks of the cartridge case
marked exhibit „EC1‟ and on the test cartridge cases
marked as „TC1‟ to „TC3‟ were examined &
compared under the Comparison Microscope Model
Leica DMC and were found identical. Hence, it is
opined that the cartridge case marked exhibit „EC1‟
has been fired through the country made pistol
.315" bore marked Exhibit „F1‟.
(5) The swab taken at and around the hole
marked as „H1‟ of the tent curtain marked exhibit
„T1‟ was analysed along with control swab in the
Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (AAS) for
detection of Gunshot Residue (GSR) particles. As a
result of AAS analysis, GSR particles could be
detected in the swab taken from the hole marked as
„H1‟ of the tent curtain marked exhibit „T1‟.
(6) The exhibits marked „F1‟/'A1‟& „EC1‟ are
firearm/ammunition as defined in the Arms Act
1959.
....................."
24. As per the FSL report, Ex. PX-II gunshot residue particles were
detected in the hole of the curtain through which the bullet was fired
and travelled towards the deceased. This supports the prosecution
story that firing was done on the appellant from behind the curtain.
The empty cartridge recovered from the gun however could not be
connected to the blood stained bullet recovered from the spot due to
insufficient striation marks.
25. PW-13, Dr. Manoj Dhingra, CMO, Mortuary, SGM Hospital
has been examined by the prosecution, who has proved the Post-
Mortem Report of the deceased as Ex.PW13/A. He has opined that the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN
Signing Date:09.09.2022
17:26:55
cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage consequent upon
the firearm injury, which was sufficient to cause the death in ordinary
course of nature. His deposition further confirmed that the deceased
was shot from a close range, thus, corroborating the version of the
prosecution that the appellant had fired upon the deceased from
behind the curtain from close range, which resulted in his death.
Reference to the Post-Mortem Report, Ex. PW-13A shows that the
deceased suffered the following injuries upon external examination:-
"External examination (injuries)
1. Firearm entry wound 2.2cm x 2cm with abrasion collar
around it, tattooing in area of 3.5x3.5cm and blackening in
area of 5.2x5.2cm around it, present over right back of
chest 6.5cm right to midline and 31cm below and midline
of clavicle. The wound is directed posterior to anterior,
right to left, below to upwards piercing underlying muscles
and fracturing underlying 10 rib posteriorly with fracture
fragments of bone turning inwards and effusion of blood in
soft tissues. On further dissection wound is going into
abdominal cavity piercing right lobe of liver, diaphragm
and fight lung lower part with effusion of blood in
adjoining soft tissues.
2. Firearm exit wound 2.8cm x 1.2cm oval in shape
margins slightly everted present over right side and front
of chest 5cm right to midline and 16.5cm below right
clavicle. On fine dissection 5rib is fractured with fractured
fragments coming out wards and effusion of blood in soft
tissues and below it track is meeting with above described
entry wound.
3. Laceration Ix0.5x0.5cm present over right thumb with
fracture of distal phalanges of right thumb."
26. The aforesaid injuries are in conformity with the injuries caused
from close range, as detailed in the Modi‟s Medical Jurisprudence and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN
Signing Date:09.09.2022
17:26:55
Toxicology. Tattooing and blackening has been noted around the
injuries of the deceased in the Post-Mortem Report, which shows that
firing took place from close range.
27. Modi‟s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology gives a table as
regards the nature of injuries when they are caused by close distance
shots from firearms. The said table is reproduced as below:-
"CLOSE DISTANCE PHENOMENA OBSERVED IN
FIREARM INJURIES OR SHOT HOLES ON
CLOTHING
Phenomena Range and Remarks
1.Flame/burning/ Revolvers/pistols-
scorching/singeing. within about 5-8 cm
generally.
Rifles- within about
15-20 cm generally.
Shotguns- may show
evidence of scorching
upto 30-10 cm
2. Smoke/powder Rifles generally upto
marks. about 30 cm
(blackening) and about
100 cm (powder
residues).
Handguns upto about
60 cm.
Shotguns upto about
100 cm generally.
3. Tattooing Handguns upto about
60 cm.
Rifles upto 75 cm
generally.
Shotguns upto 100-300
m (may be found after
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN
Signing Date:09.09.2022
17:26:55
careful search at
higher range).
28. Perusal of the Post-Mortem report Ex. PW13/A shows that there
was firearm entry wound as well as firearm exit wound on the body of
the deceased, meaning thereby that the bullet did not lodge itself
inside the body of the deceased. One blood stained bullet lead was
seized from the place of incident. Ex. PW5/D shows that the said
blood stained bullet lead was submitted to the Forensic Science
Laboratory as Ex. 1-1 in a sealed plastic container, duly sealed with
the seal of AKG. However, no opinion on the bullet could be given
due to insufficient striations. The Post-Mortem Report i.e. PW13/A
has given a categorical opinion that death was due to shock and
haemorrhage consequent upon firearm injury number 1 i.e. the firearm
entry wound. It is clearly opined in the Post-Mortem Report that
firearm injury number 1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary
course of nature.
29. Ex. PW 28/A, FSL Report, clearly states that human blood was
detected on Ex.6, which was the blood stained bullet recovered from
the site of the incident. Similarly, the FSL report also clearly states
that human blood was detected on the carpet Ex.4 and „blood stained
earth‟, Ex. 3. Thus, human blood was detected on the bullet recovered
from the site, which caused injury to the deceased.
30. Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Swaran Singh Vs State
of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 668 has held as follows:-
"25. The evidence of PW 1 and the post-mortem reports
was to the effect that the single wound on the right side of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN
Signing Date:09.09.2022
17:26:55
the chest of Shamsher Singh and several wounds on Amar
Singh were blackened. "Blackening is caused by smoke
deposit. Smoke particles are light. They do not travel far.
Therefore, smoke deposit, i.e., blackening is limited to a
small range." [See Forensic Science in Criminal
Investigation & Trials (3rd Edn.), p.
280; Fisher, Svensson, and Wendel's Techniques of Crime
Scene Investigation (4th Edn., p. 296).] The fact that the
firing was at close range supports the evidence of the
eyewitnesses and runs contrary to the defence account of
the incident. The situs of the wounds found by PW 1 on the
deceased also bear out the eyewitnesses' testimony of the
incident."
31. The motive to kill by the appellant was also firmly established
by the prosecution. By the deposition of PW-8, PW-11 and PW-12 it
has come on record that wife of the deceased was earlier in a
relationship with the appellant. Reference in this regard may be made
to the deposition of PW-8. The said witness during the course of his
deposition has stated that Rinku @ Lali, wife of the deceased was a
tenant in two-room set on the first floor in the house owned by him,
wherein she lived with the deceased. He deposed that Rinku @ Lali
had told him that 15-20 days after her marriage to the deceased, one
Guddu had come to threaten her that he will not allow her to live in
peace, and that the said Guddu had resided in his house as a tenant.
PW-8 remained steadfast in his deposition regarding threat by the
appellant to wife of the deceased during the course of his cross-
examination.
32. Deposition of PW-11, Sanjay is also material on the aspect of
motive. PW-11 has deposed that in the year 2009, appellant used to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN
Signing Date:09.09.2022
17:26:55
reside in his house in one room on the first floor with his wife Lali.
They stayed for around two and a half months on rent and appellant
used to quarrel with Lali, due to which she was upset. Thereafter the
appellant vacated his house and shifted to some other house. Lali had
left the appellant and married with somebody else. PW-11 identified
the appellant present in the court during his deposition. PW-11
remained unwavering in his deposition even during his cross-
examination and remained steady in his statement that the appellant
and wife of the deceased stayed as husband and wife as tenants in his
house.
33. Similarly, the prosecution has been able to establish the motive
of the appellant through deposition of PW-12 Rajender Singh. The
said witness has deposed that Rinku @ Lali was earlier married to one
Rajjan Singh. Thereafter, she started residing with accused in a rented
house belonging to PW-8, Shamsher, after leaving Rajjan Singh. The
relations between accused and Rinku @ Lali were strained.
Thereafter, the accused left for his native place in Bihar leaving
behind Rinku @ Lali in the said rented accommodation. When the
accused returned back to Delhi after about one and a half months, he
came to know that she had married the deceased. The said witness
remained unswerving on this aspect of the deposition even during his
cross-examination.
34. Considering the aforesaid depositions it is clear that the
marriage of Rinku @ Lali with the deceased was the bone of
contention, which drove the appellant to kill the deceased. As rightly
held by the learned Trial Court, the cumulative effect of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN
Signing Date:09.09.2022
17:26:55
testimonies of PW-8, PW-11 & PW-12 is that the accused was badly
hurt by the marriage of Rinku @ Lali with the deceased.
35. The submission on behalf of the appellant regarding failure to
investigate the role of PW-25 and PW-8, is also without any merit.
The said aspect has been dealt by the learned Trial Court and well
explained in paragraph-41 of the impugned judgment as follows:
"41............The said argument though attractive at
first glance, does not carry any force as from the
testimony of PW10 it is clear that it was the accused,
who ran away from the spot after firing upon the
deceased from the pistol and he was also chased by
PW10 and certain other public persons, and the
witnesses of motive PW8, PW11, PW12, PW16 and
PW25 have clearly deposed that the accused was
looking for an opportunity to eliminate the deceased,
as she had married the deceased in his absence,
which was not to his liking and he had also confided
with PW.12 that he would not spare the deceased
and that the accused had also visited him after the
incident seeking shelter, at that time he was also
carrying a bag on being asked what was being
carried in the bag, he stated that it was not useful
thing for him. Thereafter, the accused had also taken
Rs. 250/- from him and had also asked him to keep
the said bag. Later on, recovery of the pistol along
with live cartridge, and empty cartridge lodged in
the said pistol concealed in the pond, which was
recovered at the instance of the accused pursuant to
his disclosure statement, shows the exclusive
knowledge of the accused with regard to this fact,
which clearly proves the culpability of the accused.
Therefore, this argument also does not carry any
force."
36. Thus, the facts of the present case and evidence on record
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN
Signing Date:09.09.2022
17:26:55
including the medical evidence, the FSL report and oral testimony,
clearly establish that injuries had been caused by the appellant, which
ultimately led to death of the deceased. The case as made out by the
prosecution, is established beyond reasonable doubt.
37. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no error in the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The same are
upheld.
38. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
39. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Superintendent Jail for
updating the records and intimation to the appellant.
(MINI PUSHKARNA)
JUDGE
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
September 9, 2022
au
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PURAN
Signing Date:09.09.2022
17:26:55
