STATE Vs. SHAQILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 2nd October Dussehra day of 1987 fell on birthday of Mahatama Gandhi and Lal Bahadur Shastri two of the greatest sons of India and advocated doctrine of "Ahinsa". Instead of a joyful day, it turned out to be one of nightmares for the family of Tale Ram. An innocent child who had not even celebrated three birthdays was sacrificed so that a barren woman can get a child; an act of abhorrence difficult to conceive. This primitive belief is unthinkable in .the modern jet set twentieth century; but that. is what prosecution alleges happened. The act is to say the least diabolic in its conception and cruel in its execution.

(2.) Five persons are said to be responsible for the barbaric act and they are appellants in Criminal Appeals and are the respondents in Murder Reference No. 1 of 2000 which has been made to this Court by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Trial Judge) who convicted each of the accused for offences punishable under Sections 302, 364, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "Indian Penal Code") and awarded them death sentence, 7 years rigorous imprisonment, 5 years rigorous imprisonment and life imprisonment respectively for the aforesaid offences. Reference has been made under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "the Code") for confirmation of the death sentence.

(3.) Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows: - While all over the country people were celebrating victory of truth over falsehood, goodness over evil, on 2nd October 1987, Dussehra Day, as aforesaid a child was found missing from her house by the grandfather, Tale Ram, P.W. 7. A dead body was discovered from a pond. Members of Tale Ram family had gone to see Ram Lila, leaving behind the child Kavita (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") with her grandfather, Tale Ram. Both Tale Ram and Kavita were sleeping in open on a cot. At about 11.00 p.m. Tale Ram went outside to answer the call of nature. In the meantime, it started drizzling and heavy winds started blowing. After answering the call of nature, Tale Ram wanted to take the child inside, but he did not find her on the cot. He thought that her mother might have returned from Ramlila and might have taken the child with her. He proceeded to enquire from the mother of the child about it and on the way he met his wife Bharpai, P.W.5. On inquiring about the child, Bharpai told that she did not know about her. Other members of the family stated to the same effect. Being apprehensive about her s,afety, they started searching throughout the village. Finally, one Brij Nepali who was washing his hands near a small water tank (Houdi) told them that a child was laying in the haudi. Tale Ram and .his wife went to houdi and saw the child in a dead condition. This noticed several burns when they brought the child to their home. They noticed several burn marks on her body. They suspected a foul play and lodged FIR at Sultanpuri, Police Station. Investigation was undertaken. Subsequently, accused persons were arrested. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was placed. Twenty one witnesses were examined to further the prosecution case during trial. Accused persons did not choose to examine any witness. Learned Trial Judge placed reliance on the evidence of Jai Kishan,.P.W.l, Ram Phal, P.W.2, Surinder Singh, P.W.4, Bharpai, P.W.5 and Tale Ram, P.W.7 to conclude that the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution was sufficient to find the accused persons guilty and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid.