STATE Vs. ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these cases relate to judgment of learned Addl Sessions Judge, New Delhi in sessions case No. 10/97. The reference has been under Section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short Cr. PC) for confirmation of the death sentence imposed upon the accused. Criminal. Appeal has been filed by Ashok Kumar Pandey (hereinafter referred to as accused) against the judgment of conviction and sentence. The accused was found guilty of offence, punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, Indian Penal Code) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short, Arms Act). The accused faced trial for having caused homicidal murder of his wife Neelam and daughter Anu, (hereinafter referred to as deceased by their respective names) on 11-9-1996. Death sentence was imposed for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and three years for the other offence. Fine of Rs. 500.00 with default stipulation for each offence.

(2.) Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows: Accused was consuming liquor habitually and was in the habit of getting angry became wild, incoherent and at times assaulted his wife deceased Neelam. He was employed in American Embassy in Chanakaya Puri. On 11.9.1996 Daya Kant Pandey, father-in-law of the accused (Public Witness2) was in the house of the accused which had been taken on rent from Hira Nand (Public Witness1). The accommodation was at the first floor of house No. B-49 Dabri Extension, Delhi At 4 p.m. on the fateful day, Public Witness2 had gone to the house of the accused to know about the welfare of his daughter. At that time, Sita Ram, father of the accused (DW1) was also present. The accused returned home at about 7 p.m. At dinner the accused consumed liquor. After dinner Public Witness2 and DW1 went to the terrace for sleeping. After sometime Public Witness2 heard some noise from down stair. He thought that the noise was coming from the portion occupied by the landlord i.e. the ground floor. After sometime he heard cries of his daughter. He immediately rushed down and found that the accused was inflicting stab wounds on Neelam with a knife while Neelam was bleeding profusely. He also saw his granddaughter Annu lying injured on the ground bleeding. The accused came towards Public Witness2 in a stage of anger with knife in his hand and Public Witness2 retraced his steps. At this stage, the accused ran downstairs. Public Witness2 then raised an alarm and many persons gathered there. DW2 and DW1 took the injured Neelam and Annu to Din Dayal Upadhaya Hospital, but they were declared dead when the doctor examined them at the hospital. Sl Ganga Ram (Public Witness7) and constable Jai Ram (Public Witness6) were on patrol duty. In between Head Constable Suresh Kumar and Constable Hari Om, and Constable Ashloof Khan (Public Witness10) met him. It was noticed by them that accused was coming from Dabri village holding a knife. On seeing the police he tried to run away but the police officials apprehended him and the knife was snatched away from him. Later on, it was revealed that the accused had used that knife to cause death of his wife and child. 1.0. (Public Witness7) found a crowd at B-49 Dabri Extn and he was told on enquiry that the injured Neelam and child Annu had been taken to DDU hospital by Public Witness2 and Sita Ram DW1. P.W.7 gave a telephonic message with regard to the crime to the police station. After leaving HC Suresh Kumar and other police officials for taking care of the scene of crime and of the accused, he went to Hospital. He found that the doctor had declared Neelam and Annu to have been brought dead against MLCs No. 8337 and 8338. Statement of Daya Kant Pandey Public Witness2 was recorded and an endorsement was made on the statement of Public Witness2 vide Ex. Public Witness7/A. The same was dispatched through Constable Jai Ram (Public Witness6) at 0045 hours on 12.9.1996. On this Tehrir, FIR No. 568/96 under Section 302 Indian Penal Code was registered. Public Witness7 thereafter took up investigation. Certain articles were seized. On conclusion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed for trial of the accused for offences under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act.

(3.) Prosecution examined ten witnesses to establish its case. Accused pleaded innocence and took the stand of false implication. According to him Daya Kant Pandey (Public Witness2) was neither present at the spot and had notitnessed the occurrence, nor had he taken the injured to hospital. The accused claimed that Public Witness2 had only received telephonic information after the occurrence which ruled out his presence at the scene of occurrence as claimed.