CHANDER MOHAN Vs. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge finding that the appellant was guilty of committing the murder of his wife Veena. Veena was married to the appellant on 26.5.1983. At the time of marriage it would appear that the appellant did not have the capacity to make money and what he was getting by lending books was very meagre. Seeing the plight of the couplepublic witness1, the father of Veena, and his son Vijay Kumarpublic witness 3 had started business of making 'Tawa & Karahi' at Gautam Vihar and the factory was established taking the appellant as a partner. In all fairness PW 1 having invested Rs. 15,000.00 gave the appellant 1/3rd share. As the ill-luck would have it, the business did not prosper. The shutters had to be put down within a year from its commencement. That Was the genesis of the misunderstanding between the appellant and the in-laws.public witness 1 andpublic witness 3 called upon the appellant to make good his 1/3rd share of loss and the appellant could not comply with the demand. On that score, the appellant started harassing his wife Veena and the harassment reached to the point where the appellant had decided to finish her off. The appellant was charge-sheeted and tried for the offence of murder. The appellant would deny the indictment against him. Therefore, he had to be put on trial by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge. The prosecution examinedpublic witness 1 topublic witness 14 and the appellant examined in defence Mr. Yash Pal as DW 1.

(2.) We have perused the evidence ofpublic witnesss and evidence of DW 1. We heard at length Mr. Jatinder Sethi, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. H.J.S. Ahluwalia the learnedAdditional Standing Counsel for the State.

(3.) Mr. Jatinder Sethi, the learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the story projected by the prosecution is absolutely false and not supported by the evidence ofpublic witness 1,public witness 3 andpublic witness 4. The learned Counsel submitted the presence ofpublic witness 3 andpublic witness 4 at the spot is doubtful and the investigation conducted was unfair, biased and tainted. The learned Counsel submitted that the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge had taken the view that the accused had not referred to relevant facts with reference to his defence in statement recorded under Section 313, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE The learned Counsel submitted that the evidence of DW 1 Yash Pal has to be believed and if it is done the case of the prosecution would fall to the ground.