ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant and co-accused Laxmi (since acquitted) were charged for the offence of having entered into a criminal conspiracy to murder Raj Kumari, the wife of the appellant, and in furtherance thereof having murdered Raj Kumari between 2:00 AM to 6:00 AM on the intervening night of 18th and 19th November 2007 at the matrimonial house of the appellant and Raj Kumari; being the ground floor of House No.348/A/ Asha Ram Gali No.4, Mandawali, Faizalpur, Delhi.

(2.) Vide impugned judgment and order dated 18.2.2010, acquitting Laxmi, against whom the only incriminating evidence which surfaced was of being in the company of the son of the appellant when the wife of the appellant was found dead, the appellant has been convicted inasmuch as his explanation as to how his wife died has been found to be unsatisfactory and it stands proved that the wife of the appellant was brutally assaulted with a wooden paaya (wooden leg of a wooden cot) Ex.P-5 inside the only room which was the matrimonial house of the parties. The learned Trial Judge has also held that the confessional statement Ex.PW-3/D made by the appellant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi was voluntary, and since in the said confessional statement the appellant admitted having murdered his wife the same established the guilt. The learned Trial Judge has noted that the said confession was never retracted by the appellant and pertaining to it being non voluntary, said position was taken only by the counsel during final arguments, after evidence was led.

(3.) The learned Trial Judge has held that the discrepancy between the rough site plan Ex.PW-14/A prepared on the day of the incident by Insp.Keshav Kumar and the site plan to scale Ex.PW-10/A, pertaining to the spot where the dead body of the deceased was lying when the police reached the scene of the crime, does not demolish the case of the prosecution; noting that there were lapses on the part of the investigating officer while conducting investigation, holding the same to be innocuous omissions and hence inconsequential, the learned Trial Judge has held that the same have to be ignored. Holding that such omissions which amount to contradictions and hence militate against the meat or core of the case of the prosecution are alone material.