RAM NARESH @ LALA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of the impugned judgment dated 11.05.2009 delivered in Session Case No. 19/2008 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, the Appellant Ram Naresh @ Lala has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for the commission of murder of Suman, who was residing with him as his wife in a room on the second floor of House No. 37A, Gali No. 1, Chanderlok, which fell within the jurisdiction of Police Station Mansarovar Park on the night intervening 21/22.07.2004. The Appellant is also aggrieved by the order on sentence dated 13.05.2009, passed by the said Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the Appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of '5,000/-, in default whereof, he was to further undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months. The benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was given to the Appellant.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the Appellant Ram Naresh @ Lala and the deceased Suman were living as husband and wife, though not actually married, in a room on the second floor of House No. 37A, Gali No. 1, Chanderlok, Delhi. It is the case of the prosecution that the Appellant was in a habit of consuming liquor and thereafter entering into quarrels with Suman and even beating her at times. The prosecution case further is that Suman had a brother Raju (PW7) who was also residing in Delhi, but at Pooth Kalan, Rohini, Delhi. She also had a nephew by the name of Ravinder who was a minor at the time of the incident. It is the case of the prosecution that Suman had come from a village in Auraiyya, U.P. along with her said nephew Ravinder, to Delhi. They had initially stayed with Suman's brother Raju, at Pooth Kalan. However, they had thereafter shifted to the Appellant Ram Naresh's room at Chanderlok, Delhi. However, some time before the date of the occurrence, Suman's nephew Ravinder had stopped residing with Ram Naresh @ Lala. This being the position, according to the prosecution, at the time of the incident it was only Ram Naresh @ Lala and Suman who were residing in the room which Ram Naresh had taken on rent on the second floor of the said premises. The case of the prosecution further is that on 21.07.2004, both the Appellant and Suman were seen quarrelling by the other tenants and the owner of the said house. They were also seen on the terrace of the said house where they were said to have gone off to sleep. Thereafter, the other inmates of the house went off to sleep in their respective rooms. The case of the prosecution further is that in the morning of 22.07.2004, PW2 Ram Rani, who was a tenant in an adjoining room on the second floor and who was working with Suman in the same factory, had sent her younger daughter to call Suman. The daughter had returned to tell her mother that Suman was not responding to her calls and was not getting up. Thereafter, PW2 Ram Rani is said to have gone into the room and found that Suman was lying dead on the sofa and her body was cold. Thereafter, other inmates of the said house also came to learn about the death of Suman. The Appellant, however, was not found to be in the house. He was arrested only on 23.07.2004 at about 5.00 p.m.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that this was a case of circumstantial evidence and that before the prosecution could establish the guilt of the Appellant, the prosecution had not only to make out a clear case of proving each of the circumstances but also of further establishing that the said circumstances taken together formed a complete chain which pointed unerringly towards the guilt of the Appellant. It was the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that neither the circumstances nor the chain has been established. First of all, the learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the prosecution has not been able to even establish as to whether the death of Suman was homicidal or suicidal. He referred to the testimony of PW8 Dr Arvind Kumar, who is the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination, to point out that the said doctor has not given any definite opinion as to whether the death of Suman was the result of murder or suicide. He also referred to the testimony of PW8 to indicate that the said doctor could not even give a definite opinion about the ligature mark present over the neck as to whether it was caused due to hanging or strangulation. It was also pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the rope which was alleged to be the murder weapon was not shown to the doctor at the time of the post mortem examination to elicit any opinion from the said doctor as to whether the death could have been caused by it.