RAJ PAL Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against a judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated 14.07.97, convicting the Appellant in this case, of the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC.

(2.) The prosecution story was that frequent frictions used to occur between Smt. Sushma (the deceased) and her husband, Sula Ram, the main cause of which was his alleged alcoholism. It was alleged that according to the prosecution, one Vijay a tenant on the second floor of Sula Ram's house, used to associate him (Sula Ram) in drinking binges. In the previous two days, Vijay had brought three boys to Sula Ram. The night before the incident, Vijay had brought the boys, Rajpal, Kamal and Shanti to his room, whose names were known to Kumari Sukhi, (daughter of the deceased and Sula Ram) since they were addressed so by Vijay. On 1st October, 1995 at about 9.15 PM Sukhi (the daughter of Sula Ram and Sushma) was watching a television programme, along with her younger brother Hemant. The deceased Sushma Devi, was also watching television while lying on a cot. Sukhi's elder brother had gone to sleep in the export factory, located in front of their house. Her father was present at the shop located outside the street. Suddenly Rajpal and Shanti entered their house and shut the door. Rajpal had a revolver with him and Shanti had a long knife. Both threatened that in case they raised an alarm, all would be killed. Rajpal placed his revolver on the left temporal region of her mother (the deceased) and fired. They opened the door and went out. Kamal and Vijay were standing outside the door. They all ran away. She along with her brother raised an alarm of "Pakro pakro" ("Catch-Catch"). Her elder brother Chanderpal and neighbor Mahender Kumar chased the assailants along-with the others. In the mean time the police also came from the front and nabbed Rajpal S/o Jai Singh, A revolver was snatched and seized from his right hand. On his cursory search one charger with four live cartridges were recovered from the right pocket of his trousers. Those cartridges were taken into possession. On the statement of Kumari Sukhi case FIR No. 430 of 1993 was registered at P.S. Kalyanpuri and investigation was initiated. Inquest proceedings were conducted and dead body of Smt. Sushma was sent for post mortem examination. The accused Rajpal was interrogated. The accused Sula Ram and Shanti S/o Gyan Singh were also arrested in the case. Since accused Vijay and Kamal had absconded, they were preceded under Sections 82 and 83 Cr. P.C. and they were later declared proclaimed offenders. After conclusion of the investigation, the accused were challenged to face trial. During the course of trial, accused Sula Ram died; consequently the proceeding against him, abated.

(3.) The Trial Court held that the testimonies of Sh. Mahender Kumar, PW-1 Chander Pal, PW-3, Const. Rajinder PW-7 and S.I. Arun Kumar PW-14 proved the charges. The Court held that the material facts, i.e the sound of gunshot, were an objective fact, not an imagined version. The gunshot, followed by the cry for help, led to their rushing in that direction and seeing the accused Rajpal running with a country made pistol in his hand. These facts established the immediate casual relationship with the incident. Therefore, all the incidents could fairly be said to be the incidents of the event under consideration and formed part of the same transaction, and were relevant under the provisions of Section 6 of the Evidence Act. These witnesses heard a gunshot at about 9.15 p.m. on 1.10.93. Thereafter, they heard the cry Pakro pakro ("Catch-Catch") and on rushing in that direction they saw the Appellant fleeing with a country made pistol in his hand. He was over-powered. The weapon contained a fired ballot in its barrel. The Appellant was immediately taken to the deceased's house, where she was found dead, due to a bullet injury. These circumstances formed a complete chain to prove that the Appellant fired a shot at Smt. Sushma Devi and caused her death. The chain so formed was complete in all respects and left no room for him to slip away. The evidence led by the prosecution was of conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused.