SANDEEP BHANDARI Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 10.09.2010 and the order on sentence dated 13.09.2010 in SC No.200/2007 whereby the appellant was convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and five years' rigorous imprisonment, besides payment of fine.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that the appellant killed his mother, Kamla, in the late morning of 03.10.2005. The police received first intimation about this at 12.14 noon (Ex.PW-9/A). PW-5, Constable Naresh Kumar, with the IO, PW-15, SI Sunil Kumar went to the place of incident where PW-1, Bhupinder Singh handed-over the present appellant. The FIR was registered upon the statement of the first informant, PW-1, Bhupinder Singh. The informant, PW-1 was a property broker and had his office at G-7/85, Sector-15, Rohini. He stated that on 03.10.2005 at 12.00 noon, he was present in his office with one Madan Lal, PW-6, who was sitting with him when there was a commotion about 4-5 houses away from his office. He and Madan Lal went to that place, H. No. G-6/63, on the ground floor; a large number of people were gathered in the park beside the house. PW-1 stated that the appellant was also present outside his house with a cup of tea in his hand. PW-1 enquired from the appellant what the matter was and why he was standing outside his house in such condition, as there was a fire in the house; he stated that he had killed his mother and set fire to her body. According to PW-1, the appellant said that he collected quilts, pulled them over his mother and lit them up with fire. PW-1 stated that he, with members of the public tried to douse the fire by pouring water and thereafter called the police. On the basis of this statement, Ex.PW-1/A, the FIR, Ex.PW-2/A was registered at 01.40 PM by Police Station Prashant Vihar. The IO proceeded to collect materials and seized articles. The crime team reached the spot and inspected the place of incident between 01.00 and 01.30 PM the same day; its report, Ex. PW-4/A was placed on the record during the trial. The deceased's body was sent for Postmortem examination. During the course of investigation, the Postmortem Report, Ex. PW-8/A was collected.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the conviction recorded by the Trial Court is unsustainable in law, contending that since there were no eyewitnesses to the incident, learned counsel stressed that it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove every circumstance as well as every link in the entire chain of circumstances so as to unerringly and conclusively point to the appellant's role as perpetrator of the crime. In this case, all that the prosecution managed to do during the trial was to rely upon the testimonies of PWs-1 and 6. These witnesses were concededly not known to the appellant. It was highly improbable that the appellant would have confessed to the killing of his mother to such unknown individuals. Learned counsel submitted in this regard that extra-judicial confessions of the kind which the prosecution relied upon in this case were inherently weak pieces of evidence and there had to be substantial corroboration, through other objective material, if a conviction were to be recorded. It was urged that in this case, in fact there was no corroborative material.