THOMAS PARKER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant impugns a judgment and order dated 07.04.2001 in S.C. No. 69/1996 by which he was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302/201 IPC. For the offence under Section 302 IPC, the Appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of ' 500/-. In default of payment of fine the convict would further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. For the offence under Section 201 IPC, the Appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of '500/-. In default of payment of fine the convict would further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 16.01.1994 at about 05:15 PM, Thomas Parker (hereafter referred to as the "Appellant") went to PS Sarojini Nagar and informed HC Ramesh Kumar (PW-8) that he had murdered his wife Vasanti (hereafter referred to as the "deceased") in the night intervening 14/15.01.1996 at his tenanted accommodation, i.e, B-190, Arjun Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. THE Appellant stated that he had tried to dispose of the dead body by wrapping it in gunny bags. DD No. 17A was recorded to this effect PW-8. PW-16 (Insp. R.P. Gautam), PW-10 (Ct. Jagbir Singh), other police men and the Appellant went to the tenanted accommodation, at Arjun Nagar. PW-1 (Vijay Sharma) and PW-2 (Kashmir Singh), two independent witnesses residing in the locality were also joined in the investigation. THE Appellant took the police team and PWs-1 and 2 to his room (tenanted room in the premises of PW-4 Gurcharan Kaur), took out a key from his pocket and unlocked the door. On entering the room the Appellant showed a jute bag tied with electric wires; inside which the dead body of a woman was found. THE dead body was kept in another jute bag inside the big jute bag in a folded condition (it was tied with ropes) and was emitting foul smell; the two bags were bloodstained. PW-16 prepared a rukka Ex.PW-16/C on the spot and sent it to PS Sarojini Nagar through PW- 10; an FIR bearing no. 22/96 was registered by PW-8 at about 09:15 PM under sections 302/201 IPC. Charges were framed against the Appellant for committing offences punishable under Sections 302/201 IPC. THE Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) PW-2 Kashmir Singh (the second independent witness) resident of house no. 193 Arjun Nagar deposed that on 16.01.1996 at about 08:30/9:00PM while he was at home watching T.V. his wife informed him that a South Indian had committed the murder of his wife; he went out of the house and saw that a lot of people had gathered at the spot. He stated that upon reaching t the door of the Appellant's room, it had had already been unlocked and he (PW-2) saw a dead body of a female in a folded position; he was not able to stay there for long as the body was emitting foul smell. The prosecution declared this witness hostile as he was not supporting its version with regard to him being a witness to the room being opened with the help of the key given by the Appellant. PW-2 in his cross-examination admitted that along with him, another independent witness PW-1 and a photographer were also present. He denied that the door was opened by the Appellant in his presence; he states that he did not notice how or by whom the door was opened as at that time he was keen to see the dead body. He admitted that the Appellant was being interrogated by the police but denied that he made any statement regarding his involvement in the murder. He admitted that the photographer present at the spot had taken photographs of the crime scene but he did not remember the number of photographs taken. Further in his cross-examination, PW-2 testified that he was unable to tell who had taken out the dead body from the jute bag as that was not done in his presence; he was present in the house only for about a minute as he could not tolerate the foul smell from the body. He further testified that the police officials (about 7-8) stayed at the scene till 11:00 PM. PW-2 denied the suggestion that the photographs had been taken on 17.01.1996 and not on 16.01.1996.