GAUTAM GOSWAMI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE institution of marriage can truly be called one of the most dynamic social institutions. It has been touted as an important stage in one's life and has been accorded a lot of importance historically. But with the advent of time, change in social values has brought a great impact on such a pious institution and the ruthless reality in today's times is that maximum number of relationships is a failure. The reasons can be economic, social, behavioural difference, sexual incompatibility etc or otherwise some marriages suffer in silence but committing a crime and harming anyone to achieve one's motive of being with someone else is not a solution to legitimize an illicit relation. An illicit relation of one partner induces a sense of betrayal of trust and psychological distress in the other partner which may lead to aggressive consequences. No matter how tardy and cumbersome are the laws, but the ultimate recourse or solution for an unsuited relationship lies through legal means rather than putting an end to one's life to achieve some personal fulfilment. Such was the fate of Jaipal in the case at hand, who was killed by his wife and her boyfriend to gain their selfish means in order to spend their life together.

(2.) CHALLENGE in these two appeals is to the impugned judgment dated 24.05.1999 and order on sentence dated 27.05.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi whereby both the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs.5000/ - each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each.

(3.) TO prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses. After the evidence was led by the prosecution, both the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Both of them denied the case of the prosecution and they pleaded their innocence and false implication. The accused Smt. Santosh in her statement took a defence that there was a property dispute between her husband and Shiv Charan (father of the deceased), and also the other brothers of the deceased. Prior to the date of incident, the deceased even had an argument with his father over the property. The co -accused Gautam Goswami took a defence that he was a tenant under Shiv Charan before the incident and at the time of taking the possession of the tenanted premises there was an exchange of argument between them. He also alleged that during the exchange of scorching argument, Shiv Charan alleged that the accused Gautam was having an illicit relationship with Smt. Santosh. He further stated that due to enmity he was falsely implicated in the case and was lifted by the police from his office. In defence the accused persons got examined two witnesses.